The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 07 24 PCTit!t 4 4 Q" Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.orc PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California July 24, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-100 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-013 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 of the regular meeting on July 10, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001- 426, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706 Applicant........... AT&T Wireless Services Location............ West of Eisenhower Drive, north of Los Arboles and south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the installation of a 65-foot high wireless antenna with monopalm prototype design and construction of a single story 1,002 square foot building for related equipment Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-707 Applicant........... PM La Quinta LLC Location............ Northeast corner of Orchard Lane and Avenue 50 within Tract 28964 (Talante) Request ............. Review of architectural and landscaping plans for 4 prototype residential units with 3 to 4 facades each. Action ............... Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9- Zoning Code and Title 13-Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Action ............... Resolution 2001- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 98-415, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant........... Southwest Sign Company (Storage USA) Location............ 46-600 Adams Street Request ............. Review of proposed sign plans for an additional identification sign. Action ............... Minute Motion 2001- VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of July 17, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT Dr, /7T nmi\m 7T PH #� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 24, 2001 (CONTINUED FROM JULY 10, 2001) CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-426, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES PROPERTY OWNER: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED (APRIL SHUTE, OPERATIONS DIRECTOR) REPRESENTATIVE: PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS (C/O MS. POLLY JOHNSON, SENIOR PLANNER) ARCHITECT: BOJORQUEZ AND ANDERSON, INC. (C/O MR. JOHN ANDERSON) LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE, 300 FEET NORTH OF LOS ARBOLES AND 600 FEET SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) INSTALLATION OF A 65-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM COMMUNICATION ANTENNA DISGUISED AS A PALM TREE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY BUILDING (1,002 SQUARE FEET) FOR RELATED EQUIPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-426. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SrPCSprintHotelPalm2 AT&T 50 Greg - R7/16 Page 1 ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) ZONING DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL PER SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E (AMENDMENT #5); PLANNING AREA #1 BACKGROUND: This request was continued from the meeting of July 10, 2001. The project site is located within the existing La Quinta Resort and Club complex at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive (Attachment #1). This proposed antenna will be located over 800-feet from the Sprint monopalm antenna approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-055 (City Council Resolution No. 2001-29) on April 3, 2001. Project Request The applicant is requesting to install a 65-foot high digital cellular telephone antenna (Site #6LA-C964) within a common recreation area located approximately 280 feet east of Eisenhower Drive and 300 feet north of Los Arboles, abutting existing single story hotel "casitas" units. This new communication antenna will be designed to look like a palm tree (monopalm prototype design). The support pole is planned to be covered in brown fiberglass bark. Mast arms support 12 four foot high antennas that are disguised within flexible green resin palm fronds (Attachment Numbers 2-5). Mature palms exist around this monopalm site. To service this new monopalm communication antenna, the applicant also proposes a 1,002 square foot building located to the south of the 68-foot high Italian cypress trees that flank the hotel's primary paved access driveway that connects to Eisenhower Drive. This new building, measuring 12-0" wide by 83'-6" long and 13.9 feet high (maximum), is to be used by Sprint and the hotel for telephone equipment and has been designed to emulate surrounding hotel cottage architecture through the use of pitched clay tile roofing, shuttered window openings (north elevation only), and six wood doors with eight pane lites. Large single pane windows are proposed on the south building elevation. Exterior walls are to be covered in stucco, matching the color (off-white) and texture of existing structures. The applicant proposes varying roof heights and a covered porch (3'-8" and 5'7" wide) on the south building elevation. SrPCSprint1iote1Pa1m2 AT&T 50 Greg - R7/16 Page 2 n East and west building elevations utilize gable -end roof design features highlighted by stucco cornices. Ground mounted mechanical equipment will be located on the east and west sides of the building and existing concrete sidewalks will be extended to connect with this new facility. Landscape improvements are planned on three sides of the new proposed unmanned building, include sixteen 15-gallon trees (Carolina Laurel Cherry) around the ground mounted equipment areas, 5-gallon bougainvillea vines planted in front of stuccoed porch columns, and other accenting groundcover (i.e., gazania and turf). Star Jasmine is also used. These plant materials match existing landscaping in the immediate area and comply with the plant pallette contained in Specific Plan 121-E. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC): On July 11, 2001, the ALRC reviewed and recommended approval of the building elevations and landscaping plans by adoption of Minute Motion 2001-028 on a 3-0 vote, subject to the proposed conditions contained in this report. A copy of the minutes is attached (Attachment #6). Public Notice: The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 19, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.200.1 10). All written correspondence will be passed out to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies on June 5, 2001, and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to certify the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706 can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-426, prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706; SrPCSPrintHote1Pa1m2 AT&T 50 Greg - R7/16 Page 3 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-061, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving Site Development Permit 2001-706, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Building Elevations 5. Cross Section Detail 6. Draft ALRC Minutes of July 11, 2001 Prepared by: Greg,, ,rous,eI Associate -Planner A:\SRPC CUP61Hotel Palm2AT&T.wpd (Excerpt) Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager JI PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-426 APPLICANT: AT & T WIRELESS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 10t' and 24th days of July, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-426 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706, generally located within the La Quinta Hotel and Resort, more particularly described as follows: APN: Portions of 658-180-029 & 658-190-011 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution No. 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001- 426) and has determined that although the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-426. 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict P:\GREG\PCResATTEA426.wpd (Nicole C.) ` `�� the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 7. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 426 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 8. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 9. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. 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 constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. P:\GREG\PCResATTEA426.wpd (Nicole C.) 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-426 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-426 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of July, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PAGREG\PCResATTEA426.wpd (Nicole C.) Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 Site Development Permit 2001-706 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: 49-499 Eisenhower Dr., within the La Quinta Hotel. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: AT&T Wireless c/o Planning Environmental Solutions 26785 Camino Seco Temecula, CA 92590 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial; Zoning:Tourist Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 65 foot high "monopalm" antenna and equipment storage building adjacent to La Quinta Hotel entry drive. The antenna will be camouflaged by artificial palm fronds, and will integrate into the project's existing landscaping scheme. The Site Development Permit is required to review the architectural style of the equipment storage building, which will measure 12' wide by 83'6" long by 13'9" high. The building is to be located adjacent to the south side of the La Quinta Hotel entry drive. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The proposed site will be entirely surrounded by La Quinta Hotel facilities. The monopalm will be at the corner of an existing casitas building. The equipment storage building is surrounded by existing casitas on the south, and the entry drive on the north. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) PAGRE:G\EA-ATTCklst.WPD - Nicole Criste Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find) that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I finl- that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, becf(use t potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR purl ant applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, clu ing revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothin fu her is required. Signa r , Date nted Name For u P:\GRE:G\EA-ATTCklst.WPD - Nicole Criste 2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off - site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\GRE:G\EA-ATTCklst.WPD - Nicole Criste I. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X M K/ X X X 4 IV V. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Application materials) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?' (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) X X X X X X X X X X X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be! located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) X X X X X X X X X X X X X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- 5) X 9 X X X M /1 X X 11 M 1-9 i 1 -144 X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: XI a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Application Materials) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Application Materials) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Application Materials) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) ►9 X /:/ X X X X X X 1 Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?(Application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Application Materials) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application Materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTIILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) X X X M 17 91 X X X X X X X X e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is 'the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. 1M 0 14 09 X // Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. r-1 t' � SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quints Municipal Code Application exhibits, AT&T Wireless Services, Bojorquez & Anderson Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-426 a) & c) The project is proposed to occur in the La Quinta Resort Hotel property, which has established a scenic atmosphere reminiscent of an early California residence. The visual quality of the project is high. The proposed project can be divided into two parts for purposes of aesthetic analysis. The first is the monopalm structure, a 65 foot high antenna, treated to resemble a palm tree. Visual simulations were completed by the applicant, showing the location and bulk of the structure. Since the monopalm is to occur in an area where there are other palm trees and significant mature landscaping, the addition of the monopalm will result in a less than significant impact on the aesthetic values at the Resort. The second component of the project is the equipment storage building. The structure is proposed to be 12 feet wide, 83'6" long, and almost 14 feet high. The building will be architecturally treated to integrate into the existing environment, and is likely, when complete, to resemble a bunk house which might have been located on a rancheria. The addition of tile roofing materials, shutters and a stucco finish will reduce the potential aesthetic impacts of this building to less than significant levels. Ill. b) The construction of the proposed building will have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM 10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. 2. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 3. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 4 Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 5. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. 6. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. P:\GRE:G\PCResoATTEAAddendum.WPD 7. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 8. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed building will not be significant. V. a) The proposed project is located within the La Quinta Resort complex, which has been designated eligible as a historic district. The Resort is of significant local interest in La Quinta's history. A Section 106 report was prepared for the project'. The proposed project does not occur within the historic district of the hotel. No physical alterations are proposed which would affect the historic district. The report found that the proposed project will have no "adverse effect," as defined by 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). VI. a) ii) The proposed project is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The area is subject to significant groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The City, in order to mitigate such impacts, has implemented the standards of the Uniform Building Code, which require added structural support within earthquake zones. The proposed project will be required to conform to those standards. This standard will reduce the potential for impacts from seismic groundshaking to a less than significant level. Letter dated July 9, 2001, CRM Tech. Bruce Love, PhD, B. Tom Tang, Historian. P:\GREG\PCResoATTEAAddendum.WPD 0 N c% U �:D 0 U m ME= o o t a Y�1 A U W d w F d C Z � d w ax �W o� U U d d o U b 0 0 C, CO a a a cd .Ei Ei p p 0 0 0 rr U U ci Uchi to a as as O Q oZ �� Q CL 3 U U U t� :3 b 0 x 0 Cd En CA o N Q a� a w d to u d ¢ sb �.�. Cdti U -0 • F� U Cd C.4) sCd W y oCA 3 3 ¢ b nc� w F Q C U � Q w ak �W O� U U ro Q � own U va �D U w A � �bA C o � 0 c� a oz � as �F m 00 w � U Ca H j 0-4 .v ® 3 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE USE OF A 65-FOOT HIGH MONOPALM COMMUNICATION ANTENNA CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10" and 241h days of July, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings, at the request of AT&T Wireless Services, to consider a 65-foot high monopalm communication antenna for the La Quinta Resort and Club, located at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 658-190-01 1 and 658-180-029 Portion of Lot #30 (MB 269/01 1) in Tract No. 28545-3 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution No. 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA No. 2001-426) and has determined that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; 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 findings to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The design and improvements of the proposed monopalm are consistent with La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1.4.10 that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the desert environment and surrounding improvements. This communication facility is designed to replicate a Date Palm tree to be compatible with existing mature landscaping; existing palm trees in the vicinity conceal the monopalm antenna from off -site properties. This proposed antenna will be located over 800-feet from the Sprint monopalm antenna approved under Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 (City Council Resolution No. 2001-29), ensuring proper spacing distances between monopalm sites. 2. The proposed monopalm antenna meets current standards of the Zoning Code (Section 9.170.010, Commercial Communications Towers) and Specific Plan 121-E (Amendment #5) in that potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated by design of the structure and existing vertical landscaping. ResoPC CUP61 AT&T p-greg -- R 7/ 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Conditional Use Permit 01-061, AT&T Wireless July 24, 2001 Page 2 3. The design of the monopalm antenna is not likely to cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and the City's Building & Safety Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. 4. The design of the monopalm antenna is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidable injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact did not identify any significant impacts for this issue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; B. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of EA 2001-426 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this case pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and C. That it does hereby approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24' day of July, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California PAGREG\ResoPCCUP61ATT PalmTreempd Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_ Conditional Use Permit 01-061, AT&T Wireless July 24, 2001 Page 3 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\GREG\ResoPCCUP61ATT PalmTree.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_ EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-061 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES JULY 24, 2001 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies, or departments: • Community Development Department • Public Works Department • Riverside County Fire Department • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • Federal Communication Commission • Federal Aviation Administration The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 2001-061, unless amended by the following conditions. CONDCUP61 AT&T Hotel P-Greg,17-16 Page I of 2 tia�C} Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001- Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 AT&T Wireless Services July 24, 2001 FEES AND DEPOSITS 4. The applicant shall pay 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 the plan checks, permits, and inspections. 5. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check payable to the County of Riverside for $78.00 (De Minimis Impact Finding) for recording of EA 2001-426. MISCELLANEOUS 6. Prior to a final inspection, all temporary communication facilities allowed by the Community Development Department for the hotel under Temporary Use Permit No. 2001-292 shall be removed, unless otherwise allowed by the Community Development Director. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 7. Before any cranes, forklifts, or other aerial equipment are raised, please check for overhead wires pursuant to the provisions of California Title 8 (Electrical Safety Orders). Non -qualified electrical workers can get no closer than 6 feet from I I D distribution lines and no closer than 10 feet from transmission lines. People operating boom type lifting or hoisting equipment can get no closer than 10 feet from IID distribution lines and not closer than 17 feet from transmission lines. 8. If ground excavation is required, even for seemingly benign applications such as anchoring a tent, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA). This service is free of charge provided USA is given at least two working days' notice (800- 227-2600). CONDCUP61 AT&T Hotel P-Greg/7-16 Page 2 of 2 I'7 �" f i 1 o _ J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ONE STORY TELECOMMUNICATION BUILDING (1,002 SQ. FT.) AT 49-499 EISENHOWER DRIVE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706 APPLICANT: AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10t' and 241h days of July, 2001, hold public hearings to consider the request by AT&T Wireless Services to construct a one story, 1,002 square foot telecommunication building servicing a new monopalm antenna (Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-061) within the La Quinta Resort and Club, located at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive within Specific Plan 121-E (Amendment #5), more particularly described as: Portions of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 658-190-01 1 and 658-180-029 Portion of Lot #30 (MB 269/01 1) in Tract No. 28545-3 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution No. 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001- 426) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee for the City of La Quinta, did on the 11 th day of July, 2001, recommend approval of the proposed building elevations and landscaping plans by adoption of Minute Motion No. 2001-028 on a 3-0 vote, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of Site Development Permit 2001-706, pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code: 1. The Specific Plan guidelines dictate Spanish architectural themes, exterior color ranges and materials, and design criteria for structures within the La Quinta Resort and Club. The proposed architectural plans are consistent with these provisions based on the recommended conditions. 2. The architectural styles, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements of this equipment building are attractive and compatible with surrounding hotel guest cottages in that architectural variety is achieved through the use of stucco, a covered tile porch, pitched roofs with gable ends, and wood shutters. P:\GREG\RES0PCsdp706 HotelPalm.wpd 7/16 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-706, AT&T Wireless Services July 24, 2001 Page 2 3. The proponent's site plan showing a rectangular building running parallel to the resort's main entrance is consistent with design guidelines of the specific plan, including setback requirements. The plans are consistent with these provisions based on the recommended conditions. 4. Plant materials are flowering and match existing landscaping in the immediate area and comply with the plant pallette contained in Specific Plan No. 121-E (Amendment #5); new sidewalks link existing courtyard hardscape to provide an attractive pedestrian setting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; B. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-706 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions (Exhibit "A"); C. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of EA 2001-426 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this case pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and D. That it does hereby approve the above described Site Development Permit, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, CHAIRMAN City of La Quinta, California P:\GREG\RESOPCsdp706 HotelPalm.wpd 7/16 li9'D Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ Site Development Permit 2001-706, AT&T Wireless Services July 24, 2001 Page cl ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City of La Quinta, California P:\GREG\RESOPCsdp706 HotelPalm.wpd 7/16 l t J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-706 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES J U LY 241 2001 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. FIRE DEPARTMENT 2. Install a portable fire extinguisher (minimum 2A10BC) inside the unmanned equipment building. Prior to issuance of a building permit, final construction plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. MISCELLANEOUS 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for the equipment building authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department, including the following: A. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121-E and Conditional Use Permit 2001-061. B. Detailed landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval 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 to the final plans to the Community Development Department. Cond SDP706 Hotel Palm P-Greg T.- R7/16 Page 1 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 2 &T 7 05/21/01 FINAL ZD SVOMITTAL TM n 05/01 01 1ST ZD REVIEW TM ES, INC. N0. DATE REVISIONS BY I 73 E SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNED TM DRAWN TM 3 2 NEW BUILDING WITH ATTWS UNMANNED EQUIPMENT ROOM ATTWS NON EXCLUSIVE ACCESS ROUTE TO ENCLOSURE TEMPORARY ATTWS UNASSIGNED PARKING NEW ATTWS 64'-0* HIGH MONOPALM ON A 1'-0` HIGH BASE ADJACENT TO (2) EXISTING LIVE PALM TREES SEE PARTIAL SITE PLAN DRAWING Z5 i] 100' 50, 0' 100' 200' GRAPHIC SCALE : 1 " = 100' SITE PLAN A Bojo4urz &4SON SITE PLAN )B NO. I SITE NO DRAWING NUMBER R 6LA—C964 Z4 0 1 PSC.. 0 Co I a - - j IMMUNE:� IIIMMo■■I IIINNER IMM■r.i IMomMMI 1■■■'s I■■■R I■■MMMI iiFmmM■MI I■■M■MI I■.■■■I ' ,:SCE -I■■■■■I �� III■.■■■I �I III■■■.MI' -IMMMUMI Iloo■, -IM■■■■I III.■■■■I. -IMM■■■Pi IM■■■■I I■M■P•i I■M 'No I■ IMM■■■I IMMMLM Ili 1■■■I■ I■■■■MI IM■■..II W■■■■I �I I■M�!�I i/■■Moll IM■■M■I INNER 1■■■Moi Attachment 3 S356 0 { / 1 I�L-- o I, 1 •' I \I g idd \ d �MM M y' m I a Attachment 4 0 > N Q ^ of CQ C < N TTATTTiiiii C9, , OMN OFI 1� 4* 8 � Q N G<� � Q � S � 8 g 12. I Attachment 5 Fum w8� llF M-11al..l N Attachment 6 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes July 11, 2001 2. Committee Member Bois-bitt stated that when the original proposal was scored a recommendation was made to delete the shade cloth and he has not changed his mind regarding that. In regard to the retaining wall that adjoins the two properties there is a small bed area and he would like to know if any landscaping was proposed for that area. Staff stated the aW bant yvas working with the adjoining property owner and -is willing to c)6 the work. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the area los bad and should be 'addressed. ✓l 3./ Committee Member Reynolds stilted he did not see any change in `J the request. ' Committee Member Bobgtt stated he con(;u<rted, but wood like to see something done ith the retaining --wall plantey,-"die sees no need to see it resco the application. 5. There being no furt et -discussion, it was m4ed and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt toj adopt Minute -Minion 2001-025 reaffirming the previous scoring an etude landscaing f for the bed area, but not the retaining wall for Capital Property Improvement Program 2001-010 with the deletion of th% shade cloth. Unanimously approved with a total score of 90. B. ; Site Development Permit 2001-706; a request of AT&T Wireless Service for review of landscaping and architectural plans for a single story -- equipment building to serve a new monopalm communication antenna and related hotel telecommunication equipment for the property located at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive within the La Quinta Resort and Club 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he attended the Council meeting when Sprin proposed their monopalm and asked how close this pole was to that one. Staff stated that location is over 800 feet from this one. It was staff's understanding that the City Council prefers to have a monopalm standing by itself. At that meeting there was only one neighbor who objected and Council reviewed a photo plan and approved the plan. GAWPL)OCS\�AC7-11-01.wpd 2 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Michele Rambo, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. ELECTION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR: A. Chairman Robbins opened the nominations for Chair. 1. Commissioner Butler nominated Jacques Abels. Commissioner Kirk seconded the motion. 2. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed and Jacques Abels was unanimously elected Chair. B. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for Vice Chair. 1. Commissioner Kirk nominated Richard Butler. Commissioner Robbins seconded the motion. 2. There being no further nominations, nominations were closed and Richard Butler was unanimously elected Vice Chair. A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 26, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 8, Item 16 be corrected to read "...until the property owner wants to...."; Page 9, Item G:IWPDOCSIPC7-10-01.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 20 be corrected to read "...beyond what can be decided at this time." Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 9, Item 23 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Kirk stated for consistency, the issues are right until a specific project is proposed." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. VI. PRESENTATIONS: None. VII. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Environmental Assessment 2001-425 Conditional Use Permit 2001-061. and Site Development Permit 2001-706; a request of AT&T Wireless Services. for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the installation of a 65 foot high wireless antenna with monopalm prototype design and construction of a single story 1,002 square foot building for related equipment to be located west of Eisenhower Drive, north of Los Arboles and south of Avenida Fernando within the La Quinta Resort and Club. 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated a request had been received by the applicant to continue this hearing to July 24, 2001, to allow the applicant additional time to complete their application. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to continue Environmental Assessment 2001, Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706, to July 24, 2001. Unanimously approved. B. Conditional Use Permit 2001-058 and Site Development Permit 2001- 702: a request of Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses for approval of the development plans and construction of a 4,000 square foot church and a future church building with ancillary facilities on 2.39 acres on the east side of Dune Palms Road, between Westward Ho Drive and the Coachella Valley Storm Channel. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. GAWPD0CS\PC7-10-01.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if windows were omitted due to a religious concern. Staff stated the applicant should answer this. Commissioner Tyler noted a correction in the conditions and asked if the number of parking spaces required was for the ultimate buildout of the project. Staff stated this was correct. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if the second building would come back to the Planning Commission. Staff stated the second building elevations would come back to the Commission. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a time frame by which the second building would have to be built. Staff stated there is no time frame. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify the location of the project. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked about the property to the north of the project site. Staff stated it is zoned Low Density Residential. On the south is a mobile home project and to the east is Low Density Residential. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to explain the accent band that was indicated on the drawings. Staff stated it was the band around the window detail. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify what Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee conditions had been met. Staff stated Condition #1 had been met and #2 had been partially satisfied. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Adam Elkins, representing the Kingdom of Jehovah Witnesses, stated there is no significance to whether or not they have windows. They generally do not want the windows due to vandalism, so any time they can avoid it they do so. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked what their relation was to the church on Darby Road. Mr. Elkins stated they are a growing church community and each is a separate congregation. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he understood the applicant's concerns regarding vandalism, but he would like to have windows on the Dune Palms Road elevation. G:\WF'DOCS\PC7-10-01. WDd 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred and given the surrounding uses being Low Density Residential, he would like to reconsider the lighting and require the low profile lighting. He concurs with Commissioner Robbins, but would go even further and require windows on at least three sides. 11. Commissioner Tyler concurred with Commissioner Kirk. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-093 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-058, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-094 approving Site Development Permit 2001-702, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: A. Condition #24: "Retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent parking lot." B. Condition #49: Windows will be provided on the north, south, and west elevations. C. Delete Condition #50. D. Add Condition #61: Requiring the height of the light poles be reduced on the parking lot lighting plan. 14. Commissioner Butler stated he did not concur with windows on three sides. 15. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was that the north and south elevations are visible from the street as well as the neighbors. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WF1D0CS\PC7-10-01 .wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 C. Site Development Permit 2001-669: a request of James R. Paul for review of a proposed sign program for an approved multi -tenant industrial/office building located at 79-440 Corporate Centre Drive, within the La Quinta Corporate Center. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the request. Staff stated they were requesting approval of the tenant and directory sign and not the monument sign. The monument sign requires a specific plan amendment. Discussion followed as to the different signs. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if the height proposed was allowed. Staff stated the height was not defined in the Code, but there was a 48-foot maximum size. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was making application for an amendment to the existing Code requirement. Staff stated the applicant could address this under a sign program. Commissioner Kirk asked what would happen if one tenant took two lease spaces. Staff stated they would still only be allowed a total of 80 percent of the total store frontage as designated by the sign program. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the specific plan modified the Code requirements. Staff stated it did not address size, but required them to submit a sign application under a Site Development Permit for each building. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Ross, Imperial Signs representing the applicant, clarified the designated sign area and stated that if a tenant took two spaces, they would still be required to submit an application to the City for approval. He went on to describe the material to be used for the sign. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to show where the designated sign area was on the storefront. Mr. Ross showed where it was located. G:\WF'DOCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 8. Commissioner Butler asked if this sign program would be applied to all the tenants. Mr. Ross stated that was correct for just this building within the Center. Staff stated the entire project had design guideline for each building and each would have to come in with a sign program to conform to the Specific Plan. Mr. Ross stated that depending on the use of the building, different signage would be needed. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked what the Specific Plan requires; can the Specific Plan change the Zoning Code. Staff stated yes within the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if the sign program must meet the Zoning Code if the Specific Plan did not have a sign program. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if you were going to exceed the Zoning Code requirements, it would have to be stated in the Specific Plan. Planning Manager Christine di lorio read the Zoning Code definition for sign program and stated the applicant is seeking additional flexibility in the sign program. Commissioner Kirk stated that if a registered trade mark is involved they could request a cabinet sign. Staff stated that was correct, but the Commission could deny the cabinet. The reference to a cabinet could be deleted from the condition. Commissioner Kirk asked why the Commission would have to address registered trademarks when they are submitting a sign program. Condition #2 could be removed. Staff clarified that staff in the past, has not supported what type of products are sold by the tenant in the sign program as a sign is for the identification of the business. 11. Commissioner Tyler stated that type of information usually appears on the windows and can be controlled by the Zoning Code. 12. Commissioner Kirk asked if they met the sign program can they put whatever they want up for a sign. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated they would not be in compliance with the Zoning Code as it defines identification signs for multi -tenant buildings. 13. Commissioner Butler asked how the sign would be positioned if a tenant took two spaces. Staff stated a condition could be added allowing them to center the sign. G:\WF'DOCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 14. Commissioner Robbins stated there was a discrepancy in the size of the sign and what is shown on the design. Mr. Ross stated the example shown in the picture is the east elevation on Dune Palms Road. If one tenant took two spaces they would still be limited by the size stipulation. 15. Commissioner Robbins stated there was enough discrepancy in what was being proposed that he would like the project to be continued as it is uncertain what they are proposing. 16. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was entitled to signs on both frontages. Mr. Ross stated they have one tenant who would have two frontages. 17. Commissioner Robbins asked if the size was the same for all signs. Mr. Ross stated the signs are all different sizes as they were trying to achieve a balance in the signs. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-095 approving Site Development Permit 2001- 669, subject to the findings and conditions as amended. a. Condition #2 & 3 deleted. b. Condition #4: The proposed directory and monument signs are not a part of this approval ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. D. Site Development Permit 2001-682, Amendment #1: a request of World Gym Palm Desert, LLC for review of a revised exterior elevation and landscape plan for a previously approved 25,500 square foot fitness center located at 46-760 Commerce Court, within the La Quinta Corporate Center. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Michele Rambo presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant could provide any rationale for their request. Staff stated cost was the reason for the request. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant wanted to address the Commission. Ms. Wanda Mataranga, representing World Gym, stated they wanted a brick building, but the architect designed a building with awnings and plaster which they did not want. The building is 30 feet high and there are small 3 by 5 windows to bring natural light into the building to decrease the intense lighting. The awnings defeat the purpose of the windows which was to let in the natural light. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked why the applicant was objecting to plant sizes. Ms. Martaranga stated their only objection was the cost. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if they were wanting smaller trees as well as the plant material. Ms. Mataranga stated both. Commissioner Tyler asked if the applicant was concerned about the amount of heat that would be coming in the windows. Ms. Mataranga stated the windows would be treated to keep the heat out and let the light in. Commissioner Tyler stated the purpose of the awnings was to add articulation and without them there is only a flat exterior. Ms. Mataranga stated the look of the building would not be changed by adding the awnings. 6. Commissioner Butler asked how much of the use of the building was on the second floor. Discussion followed regarding the size and whether Title 24 requirements would be changed. Commissioner Butler stated he was concerned about approving the smaller plant material. Ms. Mataranga stated they have invested a lot of money into this building and the landscaping will be maintained no matter what the size. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated she agrees with the applicant's request to remove the awnings and retain the plant material as recommended by staff. G:\WPDOCS\PC7-10-01 .wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 9. Commissioner Butler stated he could concur with the applicant's request for both the plant material and awnings. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with the elimination of the awnings, but he is concerned about the landscaping reduction. 11. Chairman Abels stated he agrees with the elimination of the awnings and reduction in plant material. 12. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-096 approving Site Development Permit 2001- 682, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as amended: a. Condition #3 deleted. b. Condition 4: Palm trees shall be varied in height from six feet to eight feet. The shrub plant material as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, Robbins and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. E. Environmental Assessment 2001-425 and Conditional Use Permit 2001- 060: a request of Verizon Wireless for Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval of the installation of a 60-foot high wireless antenna monopalm prototype design and related 230 square foot one story equipment building for cellular telephone service to be located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, west of Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler questioned the environmental report in that all but two of the items listed, are listed as less than significant. If all are of no impact, why is there such an elaborate monitoring program. Staff stated they are Code requirements and by G:\WPDOCS\PC7-10-01 .wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 complying with them it creates no impacts. Commissioner Tyler asked why the two that are less than significant are not included. Staff stated that in regard to aesthetics there is no need to do anything further than what is proposed. 3. Commissioner Kirk stated it does not make sense. If there are no impacts why is there a mitigation monitoring program. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that was correct and it could be eliminated. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Krugman, representing Verizon, stated he was available to answer any questions. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked where the tower would be located. Mr. Krugman explained the location and stated the building was ten feet six inches high and the two foot dish would remain. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 7. Commissioner asked who was using the trash enclosure. Staff stated it was used by the restaurant. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-097 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-425, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-098, approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-060, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, Robbins and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. G:\WPDOCs\PC7-10-01 .wpd I0 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 F. Site Development Permit 99-651, Amendment #1: a request of KSL Recreation Corporation for an amendment to Condition of Approval #17 of City Council resolution 99-71 that requires removal of the existing corporate office modular units on June 1, 2001, to be extended to November 30, 2001. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked if any complaints had been received regarding the proposal. Staff stated none had been received. 3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Bill Dodds, representing KSL, stated he was available to answer any questions. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant could meet the time frame to construct the new office buildings. Mr. Dodds stated yes, as the buildings are modular in construction enabling them to meet the deadline. 5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission discussion. 6. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-099 approving Site Development Permit 99-651, Amendment #1, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VIII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None G:\WPDOCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2001 IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. X. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Staff gave a report of the City Council meeting of July 19, 2001. XI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held July 24, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. on July 10, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC7-10-01.wpd 12 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 24, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2001-707 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PM LA QUINTA, LLC ARCHITECT: THE MC KINLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HSA DESIGN GROUP (MICHAEL L. HORTON, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ORCHARD LANE AND AVENUE 50 WITHIN TRACT NO. 28964 (TALANTE) REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH THREE TO FOUR FACADES EACH GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR @ 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUEST IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT BASED ON SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3(A)) BECAUSE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ARE BEING DEVELOPED ON EXISTING LOTS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE OF THE CITY IN CONJUNCTION WITH CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-26 (EA 98-365) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28964. SR PC SDP707 Business P-GREG "f. - R7/2; Res7/16 Page I SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH: ACROSS AVENUE 50, UNDER CONSTRUCTION PALMILLA RESIDENTIAL PROJECT BY R.J.T. HOMES (TRACT MAP 29585) EAST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WEST: RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) BACKGROUND: In 1999, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 28964 allowing the subdivision of 39 acres into 78 single family lots under Resolution No. 99-27 for property located at the northeast corner of Avenue 50 and Orchard Lane. Map recordation with the Recorder's Office for Riverside County occurred on March 1, 2001 (Attachment #1). On October 20, 1998, the Community Development Department approved the prior developer's Architectural Guidelines for this Tract assuming custom homes would be built. This applicant requests that this past document be rescinded, and that their prototype houses and landscaping be reviewed by the ALRC with final consideration by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code. Project Request Four prototype house plans are proposed ranging in size from 3,172 square feet to 3,781 square feet. The plans are one-story, not exceeding 20.5' high, with each plan having three to four different facades. Proposed architectural design themes are California -Mediterranean, relying heavily on stuccoed exterior surfaces and concrete the roofing. Facade treatments propose variations in window sizes and shapes, changes in roof designs (hips and gables), projecting facade elements, and other distinct but unifying features such as either exposed rafter tails or stucco fascias, stone veneer, glass block windows, wood shutters, decorate vents and chimneys, etc. House plan types are as follows: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Sq. Footage 3,172 3,230 3,555 3,781 Bedrooms 4 to 5 4 4 to 5 4 to 6 Garage Parking Spaces 3, Front Loaded 3, Front Loaded 3, Front Loaded 2 Front Loaded and 1 Side Loaded Note: Minor floor plan variations are offered. Dens are counted as bedrooms. SR PC SDP707 Business P-GREG T. - R7/2; Res7/16 Page 2 Building color schemes are primarily variations of white and brown with dark accents colors in shades of green and brown. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting. A front yard production landscaping plan has been submitted consisting of two street trees (24" box and larger) per lot accented by mounded sod, a variety of five gallon shrubs, palm trees and annual color. Trees used for the project are California Pepper, Thornless Mesquite and African Sumac. Plant materials are appropriate for this climate. Boulders accentuate the landscape planting program. Perimeter Tract landscaping plans for Avenue 50 were previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and are therefore not part of this review. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee: On July 11, 2001, the ALRC considered this request. By Minute Motion No. 2001- 029, the ALRC determined that minor architectural changes were required to be compatible with the existing Tract houses, subject to recommended conditions which have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. A draft copy of the Minutes from the meeting is attached (Attachment #2). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Mandatory findings as required by Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance are: A. The proposed units are of a compatible architectural design, colors, and materials to abutting subdivision developments in the vicinity. The one story houses utilize similar architectural features such as concrete roof tiles, exterior plaster, popout stucco surrounds, inset windows, decorative eaves and lighting. The proposed conditions require that the final construction plans be approved by the Community Development Department before building permit issuance. B. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that three to four facades per plan are proposed, including roof height variations and designs. The applicant's plans, including architectural themes, are in compliance with City design requirements and complement other adjoining developments such as Rancho La Quinta and Painted Cove. C. Housing sizes (liveable area) exceed the City's RL Zone District requirement of 1,400 square feet. Each proposed single family house will have a minimum three car garage. D. The plans provide specific design and planting information for the front yards that exceed City Zoning Code requirements. The plant pallette is varied and blends with the proposed houses and is compatible with the surrounding area. Final review by staff for these plans is required. SR PC SDP707 Business P-GREG T. - R7/2; Res7/16 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Site Development Permit 2001-707, subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval 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 to the final plans to the Community Development Department. A. Front yard landscaping shall consist of turf, two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.0 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Corner lots require an additional three 15-gallon trees (i.e., 0.75 inch caliper or larger). Lodge poles (2" diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. 3. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract Map 28964. P'repa4 by: Submitted by: 04,0,46�c�- J�-; vjl�- ell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Tract Map Exhibit 2. Draft ALRC Minutes of July 11, 2001 (Excerpt) SR PC SDP707 Business P-GREG T. - R7/2; Res7/16 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS I � • • o i ram) i •. 0 .. IELM n � LLL% � rin �I I • c� can It � c� 5 4 3 2 1 � ® (ia cow 0 �ET. 1 (Under Construction) 46 Qwjj 47 49 50 mm 51 52 ® ra �4--) s 'N CD A ca 55 ..n C 56 ra U ro 57 58 59 41J M Attachment 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes July 11, 2001 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked changes recommended by staff. conditioned to meet the species give �gtaidelines to see the p buing. if this plan represented the Staff stated the project was n for this entire area and to r posal is consistent for the 4. /Ms. Paul,Jb'hnson, represe ng AT&T, stated AT&T owns the uilding and leases from rea from the Hotel. It will house the switching units to free ace at the hotel. —1 5. Committee MembefCunningham as1d if this was to esemble the units built in th 1970's apd--asked if KSL ha approved the design. Staff stated it wet "'built to resemble t 1970 units and it had been apprd`ve�y KSL. 6. There being no further discussion, it wa oved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Rey Ids adopt Minute Motion 2001-028 recommending approval o Si"evelopment Permit 2001-706, subject to the conditions as submitted. C. Site Development Permit 2001-707; a request of PM La Quinta, LLC for review of landscaping and architectural plans for four new prototype residential units with three to four facades each for the property located at the northeast corner of Orchard Lane and Avenue 50. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the landscape plans would be submitted separately. Staff stated the Committee could conceptually approve what was before them. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked about the perimeter landscaping. Staff stated it was approved by the Planning Commission under the original tract map. Committee Member Cunningham stated his concern was what would be seen from the street. The product design is an asset. He wanted to be sure the landscaping design was cohesive with the existing. 4. Mr. Jeff McComic, representing PM La Quinta, stated the wall would be structured and colored the same as what has been built by Rancho La Quinta. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC7-11-01.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes July 11, 2001 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds adopt Minute Motion 2001-029 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-707, as presented. D. Site Development Permit 20;01-706; a request of Country Club of the Desert for review of preliminary landscaping plans for Jefferson Street, Avenue 52, and Avenue 54 parkway. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Reynolds stated he was concerned about the 24-foot high berm on Avenue 54. You can't landscape 24 feet as you do a 6 foot berm. The plans do not agree with what is on the ground. Staff stated that in regard to the berm, staff is waiting to see if an appeal is filed regarding the berm height. That could affect this plan. 3. Committee- Member Bobbitt stated th4tas it is presented it would _J-SgTlre double the plant material to lant Avenue 54, as what is stated on the plan. The original an was six feet. If the City Council approves the height of t e berm, the proposed trees will accentuate the height even re. Staff stated the berm was reviewed by the Planning Co mission and approved. There has been mention that it may b appealed. 4. Committee Member Cu Ingham stated that if the berm height is changed it will drastic ly change the landscape plan. 5. Mr. Steve Garcia, I�hdscape architect for the project, stated the Avenue 54 work i divided into two units: street scape and golf course. There is fence that has been relocated lower on the berm to denote th scope of work between the golf course and streetscape. The he rm varies on enue 54. This is what is represented on the plans before the C mmittee and it will not impact the look for Avenue 54 as present No trees will be planted on the top of the berm as part of the golf course. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if thg wall is the dividing point, the design will work. G:\WP) ,OCS\ALRC7-11-01.wpd 4 PH # PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 24, 2001 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY-WIDE REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 (ZONING CODE) AND TITLE 13 (SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (13)(3). BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 2001, the Commission approved Village Use Permit 2001-009 (Resolution No. 2001-089) allowing for an office building to be built on Calle Estado. As part of the discussion, the Planning Commission requested that staff amend the zoning ordinance to eliminate a required 10 foot setback along the front property line. This setback, previously necessary to provide pedestrian access, has now become obsolete due to the sidewalk improvements that the City of La Quinta is installing along both Calle Estado and Avenida La Fonda. In addition, staff has made several minor changes to other chapters to allow for better interpretation and implementation. Included in these changes are an increase in the size of standard parking spaces, as well as issues regarding fences, signs, and development processing procedures. An explanation of the proposed changes is as follows: PROPOSED CHANGES: Section 9.50.090 (A), (B) and (C). The requirement for Master Design Guidelines for the La Quinta Cove be removed. At this time, any builder who builds 5 or more houses in the Cove must have guidelines approved by the Planning Commission. This requirement was implemented to ensure architectural variation among adjoining residences. However, Staff has found that an inspection alone would Page 1 serve the same purpose as approval of Master Design Guidelines without the added expense of preparing guidelines by the builders and staff time to prepare the report. 2. Section 9.50.090.E will require a conditional use permit for affordable housing projects in the RC district. 3. Section 9.60.030 (C)(4) currently requires a corner cutback for walls and fences within residential land use districts "between two points located on and twenty feet distant from the point of intersection of 2 ultimate street right of ways". The Public Works Department finds that the cutback is not necessary due to the majority of dedicated right-of-way that exists are 12 feet. This right-of-way provides sufficient visibility at corners to preserve motorist site distance, thereby eliminating the need for a corner cutback that reduces the property owner's usable open space area. 4. Section 9.60.030 (C). The fences and walls section is proposed to undergo several text amendments. 1) The first of which is to increase the maximum fence height between residential and non-residential properties from 6 to 8 feet. This would provide for greater privacy and noise reduction for the residential properties. 2) The second proposal is to increase the maximum height for entry arches and trellises attached to courtyard walls from 8 to 9 feet. This allows for easier access through these structures for pedestrian traffic. 5. Section 9.60.045. In addition, staff is proposing a new section discussing the issue of built-in structures such as barbeques, waterfalls, fireplaces, and fountains. Location of these structures is not specifically addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Section 9.60.070 (13)(2). Implementing the code with respect to the placement of pool equipment within a residential yard has proven confusing. Therefore, staff is recommending some minor changes to the wording to allow for easier interpretation and enforcement. 7. Section 9.60.075. Ground mounted mechanical equipment (air conditioning compressors) location requirements, is recommended to be added. This section will be similar to pool equipment development standards. 8. Section 9.60.160 (3). This lighting restriction requirement is currently in the Cove district and staff, for better enforcement leverage is requesting it be added to all residential districts. 9. Section 9.60.240 (E). This revision requires that planting and obstructions be maintained at a low height at corners to ensure visibility. 10. Section 9.60.250 (E). As currently worded, a "guarantee" is required for model home complexes prior to approval. This guarantee is not specifically stated. Staff Page 2 is proposing to specify that a cash bond be required. This change simplifies the process and provides the same standard for all developers. 11. Section 9.60.300 (1)(1). Deleting the later portion of the sentence regarding two story homes in partially constructed subdivisions offers more protection to existing homeowners. 12. Section 9.65.030 (A)(1) and (3). With the recent improvements in the Village including on -street parking and parking lots, staff is requesting that the requirement for front setbacks and in -lieu fees be deleted. 13. Section 9.65.040 (D and E). Staff has found the development review process to be challenging to follow. Therefore, staff has re -written most of this section to clarify the wording and provide for easier interpretation. 14. Section 9.65.040. This section currently contains a typo. Subsection G has been mislabeled as E. Staff is requesting that this error be corrected. 15. Section 9.100.150 (G). Pursuant to City Council direction, the restriction which prohibited internally illuminated awnings is being deleted. 16. Section 9.150.060, Table 9-11. The requirement for three garage spaces for a residence with four bedrooms or more allows conversions of interior space (primarily third car garage spaces) to a room even if it creates a four bedroom residence, with a resulting two car garage. Staff recommends an amendment to prohibit interior conversions to bedrooms or dens, etc., if a three car garage cannot be provided. 17. Section 9.150.080 (13)(1). This section requires the width of a regular parking space to be 9 feet. Per City Council direction this width is being increased to 10 feet. The effect of this would be that compared with the current parking space width requirement, one parking space for ten, ten -foot wide spaces would be lost. In addition, the length of a regular space would be decreased to 18 feet from 19 feet. 18. Section 9.150.080 (13)(7) discusses how parking spaces should be marked. Currently, this section applies to parking lots other than single family, single family attached, and duplex residential. Staff would like to amend this section to apply to all parking lots, which would provide uniformity throughout the city as to how parking spaces are marked. 19. Section 9.160.100. Staff is requesting that being translucent or transparent signs placed on awnings allow light to shine through be prohibited. This proposed change is intended to require that signs on awning be opaque and not allow light to shine through them. Page 3 20. Section 9.200.110 (D). Staff is proposing to adjust the wording regarding the total number of days public hearings are noticed to provide clarity and consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act. The requirements for who is noticed would not change. 21. Section 13.12.170. Delete the subdivision requirement regarding recordation of tentative tract map conditions of approval. The City Attorney has determined that requiring recordation of conditions of approval is no longer necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-070. Attachments: Proposed amendments Prepared by: Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: b- Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager �t Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 AND TITLE 13 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NO. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of July, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendments in the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, said request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by the City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Director has determined that the project could not have any significant adverse effect on the physical environment; therefore, the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3); and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zoning Code Amendment. 1. 'The proposed revisions will not adversely affect the planned development of the City as specified by the General Plan for the City of La Quinta because the regulations provide requirements which work in concert with and enhance the community. 2. 'The proposed Amendment would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the City because the regulations will enhance the community. 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 to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-070 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of this Resolution. Page 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 241h day of July, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: TERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 REVISE - Section 9.50.090 A.1 - Al! simg1e farigily residenees shell be review using the Cove Residential Design Proeedures. As a part of the Building and Safety Department plan check for residences in the RC zone district, the Community Development Department shall review the submitted plans and visit proposed site to ensure that the architectural features of the front elevation of the proposed residence has design features that vary from other residences within two hundred feet on the same street, and cross street if the lot is on a corner. ADD - New Section 9.50.090 B. - Conditional Use Permit Procedure for Affordable Housing. Applications for conditional use permits shall be made for variations of development standards pursuant to Section 9.60.270 (D)(4) for affordable housing units produced in compliance with state or federal housing program implementation. p:\stan\zca 9.50.090 rc zone.wpd Page 1 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 _ - T � -- i - --_ - i i i• ii i ii ii i .a AD - SECTION 9.60.030 C.4. - Adjacent to a nonresidential zone or use. The maximum fence height between a residential zone or use and a nonresidential zone or use shall be eight feet. REVI:3E - SECTION 9.60.030 C.1.c. - Arches or trellises up to nine €k3hrt feet in height and five feet in width may be constructed over a gate on a lot provided the arch/trellis is integrated into the fence/gate design. ADD - SECTION 9.60.045 - Barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar structures. A. Applicability. Permanently installed freestanding barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar structures such as permanently installed tables and benches, etc., may be constructed on a residential lot containing a primary residence. B. Standards. Freestanding barbeques, waterfalls, fountains, fireplaces and similar structures shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Said construction of structures, except freestanding fireplaces, are allowed within the required front, side, or rear setbacks, including adjacent to a property line. In side yard areas, a single clear passageway of five feet wide shall be provided. 2. Allowed construction of structures shall not be attached to property line walls or fences, with all required distance clearances (i.e., for barbeques, fireplaces) provided. 3. Within five feet of any property line, the height of the feature or construction shall not exceed the height of the closest wall or fence. If no wall or fence exists, the construction or feature shall not exceed the height of the wall allowed along the property line in question. 4. Outdoor fireplaces shall not be closer than five feet from a property line, except when adjacent to permanent open space such as a golf course, common landscape or hardscape area, drainage channel, etc., in which case it may be within three feet of the property line. The height of the chimney may be up to six feet unless required to be higher p:\star\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 2 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 to comply with building code requirements. In such cases, the height shall not be higher than the minimum height required. REVISE - SECTION 9.60.070 B.2. Filtering and Heating equipment. Use of equipment shall comply with the following requirements: a. Mechanical pool equipment such as a pump, filter, or heater, may be located within the required front or rear yard setback areas. The equipment shall be enclosed on at least three sides by a masonry wall with an open side not visible to the street or an adjacent property. with the exception of a roof. b. Mechanical pool equipment may be in an area between the side property line and the residence provided a five-foot side yard, clear of any permanent obstructions is maintained between the side yard property line and any mechanical pool equipment. A five-foot side yard, clea, of any permanent lobstructions shall be maintained between the side property "no and the building. Foot equipment that can be accommudated in this area, shall enclosed, with the exception -of a roof. The 6oniniunity Development Director shall detmmine if t'iis piovides effective noise and vibration attenuataon. C. Mechanical pool equipment may be in a side yard of five feet or less only if a recorded easement in perpetuity exists for the subject property to use the adjacent side yard of the abutting property for access and a minimum five feet distance between the equipment and adjacent obstruction (i.e. building wall) is provided. 4111 Leila ON :: *Jr., _ : ADD - SECTION 9.60.075 GROUND MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. Use of equipment shall comply with the following requirements: a. Ground mounted mechanical equipment such as air conditioner compressors, water softeners, etc. may be located within the front or rear yard areas. The equipment shall be enclosed on at least three sides by a masonry wall with an open side not visible to the street or an adjacent property. p:\stan\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 3 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 b. Mechanical equipment may be in an area between the side property line and the residence provided a five-foot side yard, clear of any permanent obstructions is maintained between the side yard property line and any mechanical equipment. C. Mechanical equipment may be in a side yard of five feet or less only if a recorded easement in perpetuity exists for the subject property to use the adjacent side yard of the abutting property for access and a minimum five feet distance between the equipment and adjacent obstruction (i.e. building wall) is provided. ADD - SECTION 9.60.160 OUTDOOR LIGHTING 3. All exterior lighting shall be located and directed so as not to shine directly on adjacent properties or streets and shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). REV;EE - SECTION 9.60.240 E.1. Height of landscaping along all streets and - boundaries shall comply with Section 9.6E).E)SE) (fences and walls). At intersections or corners of streets, alleys, or driveways, the height of shrubs, planting, and other visual obstructions (such as boulders, etc.) shall be limited to a maximum height of 30 inches within the following triangular areas: L At a corner, the area formed on two sides by the straight portions of the intersection of the back of street curb or edge of pavement. The third side of the triangle is formed by drawing a line that is tangent to the intersection of the two closest property lines and creates a triangle of approximately equal length sides with the curbs. ii. Between two points located on and five feet distant from the point of intersection of an ultimate street or alley right- of-way on one hand and the edge of a driveway or another alley right-of-way on the other if parkway width is less than 12-feet wide. b. For purposes of this Code, "point of intersection" shall mean the intersection of the prolongation of the street right-of-way lines, excluding any curved portion joining the two lines. p:\stan\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 4 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 C. Trees may be planted within this triangular area provided the bottom of the canopy (leafy branches) of the tree is at least four feet above finish grade of the street adjacent to the tree. However, trees shall not be planted in such numbers that their trunks create a visibility obstruction for vehicles or pedestrians. REVISE - SECTION 9.60.250 E. - Requirements for approval. Any approving action shall include those conditions and requirements deemed by the decision -making authority to be necessary or advisable to protect the public safety and the general welfare, together with a $1000.00 cash deposit that the structures and facilities will be removed or made consistent with applicable zoning regulations within 90 days after the expiration of the permit or discontinuation of the use the permit is approved for. REVISE - SECTION 9.60.300 1.1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision. unless proof can be provided showing that a two-stmy unit was proposed for the lot by the prior ttder. REVISE SECTION 9.65.030(A) 1. Setbacks. Setback criteria shall be determined based on the existing site conditions and surroundings, in conjunction with the guidelines and the proposed project characteristics. Desert Dub Drive, of ten feet must be provided fmfn pfoperty limes fronting an these streets and at their imterseetions, to allow fo pedesti a. Setbacks along side and rear property lines are not required; however, any setback provided must be made wide or deep enough to be usable space, such as for pedestrian access to side -loading commercial space, stairwells, or through -access between front and rear of the building(s). b. Arcades, trellises, awnings and similar architectural treatments are exempt from setback requirements, but must be designed to accentuate a pedestrian atmosphere, the proposed use(s), and the project architecture. c. Upper floors of buildings shall be designed to be set behind the immediately lower floor, to achieve a terraced effect. This reduces the appearance of mass to the structure, allows for upper floor outdoor areas and walkways, and enhances pedestrian scale. p:\stan\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 5 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 d. Projects with any retail commercial components shall maintain a minimum ten -foot landscaped setback from any RVL, RL or RMH zoned properties. REVISE - SECTION 9.65.030 (A) 3. Parking. Parking area requirements for permitted uses shall be determined by staff as set forth in Chapter 9.150 of the zoning code, with the following consideration: a. All current parking regulations shall be applicable, such as required number of stalls, space and aisle dimensions, location of parking areas, etc. However, in the VC zoning district, variations to any parking standards can be approved. off -site parking petemtiallyinel--li — nt of in lieu fees. REVISE - SECTION 9.65.040 D. Village Use Permit Requirements. All new development proposals in the Village Commercial District shall be required to file an application for a village use permit. A "new development proposal' is defined as any of the f illowing: new building construction proposed for vacant property or associated with demolition and reconstruction of an existing building. Village use permits shall be subject to review by the planning commission as a public hearing. area of the eriginaliY F permitted use; and pefeemt or fnere imeresse in the existing building's met floor area. E. Any development proposal in the VC zoning district without prior Village Use Permit approval determined as not meeting the criteria in subsection D of this section shall be subject to review by the Community Development Director :. -; - : - .:- - - ::::.- : -: - - ::::- --- -- - - p:\stan\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 6 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE: AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 1. Administrative approval may be given by the Community Development Department for any building additions and/or exterior building, architectural design and site modifications that are determined by the Community Development Director to implement the concepts set forth in the "Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines". The Community Development Director may refer the project to the Planning Commission. 2. Additions and exterior building and site modifications that do not fall under subsection 1 above shall be approved the Planning Commission as a public hearing under the Village Use Permit process. REVISE - SECTION 9.65.040 E- G. Appeals, Amendments and Time Extensions. Appeals, amendments and time extensions relating to Village use permits shall be reviewed pursuant to Chapter 9.200 of this title... 3. Illuminated aw-ings Th translucent ground. Prohibited. REVISE - Table 9-1 1 of Section 9.150.060 - Minimum off-street parking requirement for homes with four or more bedrooms. Same as above but with 3 spaces per unit in a garage. For additions constructed outside of the existing building walls raising total number of bedrooms to 4 or more, third garage space is not required provided addition does not increase value of house by 50% or more as determined by Director of Building and Safety. Interior conversions which create four bedrooms or more are required to provided 3 spaces in a garage. For existing lots of 6,000 square feet or less and affordable which housing, this requirement is optional. One garage space of the three spaces may provided in tandem. REV - Section 9.150.080 B.1. - Regular Space Dimensions. All parking spaces up to the minimum required shall be designated for regular vehicle parking. Regular vehicle spaces shall have the following minimum dimensions: width ten flute feet; length seventeen sixteen feet plus two feet overhang: where curbs are not provided, a minimum length of nineteen eighteen feet is required. p:\stan\zca 9.60.030 C.4.wpd Page 7 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- EXHIBIT "A" CODE AMENDMENTS - RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2001-070 J U LY 24, 2001 REVISE - Section 9.150.080 B.7. - Space Marking. With the exception of single- family, All parking spaces in a residential or nonresidential parking lot shall be clearly marked with white or yellow paint or other easily distinguished material with each space marking consisting of a double four inch wide hairpin stripe, twelve inches on -center. Marking shall be a minimurn foui-inch-wide single or double ("hairpin" style) strirpe., ADD - SECTION 9.160.100 Prohibited Signs. 24. Translucent or transparent signs on internally illuminated awnings so that they allow light to shine through the letters of the copy. REVISE - Section 9.200.1 10 D. - Noticing Requirements. The lead agency shall provide a review period of not less than 20 calendar days Not less th 2E) calendar days prior to the heajorq-, for projects requiring an environmental assessment. The lead agency shall provide a review period of not less than 10 calendar days Not less than I E) calendar days prior to the hearing-, for projects not requiring environmental review. The City shall: "'_I"'r 1`6 - .. ..: p:\stan\zca 9.200.110 D.wpd Page 8 of 8 B I #A DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT J U LY 24, 2001 SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION 98-415 (AMENDMENT #1) SOUTHWEST SIGN COMPANY (FOR STORAGE USA) WILLIAM WARREN GROUP REVIEW OF PROPOSED SIGN PLANS FOR AN ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION SIGN. 46-600 ADAMS STREET Storage USA is requesting to install an additional identification sign. (Attachment 1) The business has recently expanded its building, and has requested one additional sign. The proposed sign would be located on the south elevation of the building facing the new Corporate Centre Drive. This building has two existing identification signs (one wall mounted and one monument sign). Both signs are located on the Adams Street frontage of the building and were permitted by the Planning Commission under Sign Application 1998-415 on February 24, 1998. The monument sign is an aluminum cabinet finished in stucco matching the building color. This sign is 10 feet long and 5 feet tall at its tallest point, measuring approximately 39 square feet. The current building mounted sign is approximately 30 square feet, measuring 2 feet high and 15 feet long. This sign consists of internally illuminated channel letters in blue and red. SIGN DESCRIPTION: As proposed, the sign under consideration consists of internally illuminated individual channel letters of red and blue color with 3/4 inch white trim caps. The attached detail shows an exposed wireway (smaller than a raceway) running the length of the text. The sign consists of 2 lines of text. The top line would be 2 feet, 2 inch tall letters, while the second line would be letters 1 foot, 4 inches tall. The top line of copy reads "STORAGE USA" and the bottom line of copy reads "SELF STORAGE". The proposed length of this Page 1 sign is 14 feet, 8 inches. The proposed sign measures a total of approximately 58 square feet. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Section 9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning Code requires that the following findings be met: Additional Area: The Zoning Code requires that a sign such as the one proposed be no more than 50 square feet. Because this is an additional sign and the building is not set back from the street by any significant distance, staff finds no justification why the 8 additional square feet should be approved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the sign be modified to be no larger than 50 square feet. (Condition No. 1) Additional Number: The Zoning Code states that a building such as Storage USA is allowed to have one sign per street frontage. The building has two street frontages (Adams Street and Corporate Centre Drive), but currently only has one sign on the Adams Street 'Frontage. The applicant is entitled by code to an additional sign on the second street frontage. Staff discourages the use of any exposed conduit in a sign such as this one. The proposed sign contains an exposed wireway to contain the required wiring. The definition of a building sign states that the sign be installed directly to the building itself. In addition, the existing wall sign on the west elevation of the building does not include a wireway. Staff is recommending that the additional proposed sign conform to the design of the existing sign. Therefore, a condition of approval has been added to modify the sign to eliminate the wireways. (Condition No. 2) As proposed, the sign copy includes not only the name of the business ("STORAGE USA") but also the product offered ("SELF STORAGE"). The definition of a sign indicates it is for "identification of the business." Therefore, staff recommends that "SELF STORAGE" be removed from the sign. (Condition No. 3) Additionally, the existing building sign does not have this copy, while it is included on the monument sign. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2001- approving the Sign Permit Application subject to the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the plans shall be redrawn to reflect a maximum size of 50 square feet. 2. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the plans shall be redrawn to eliminate the exposed wireway. Page 2 3. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the text "SELF STORAGE" shall be removed from the sign. This requirement shall be reversed in the event the applicant can prove that "SELF STORAGE" is part of a registered trademark. Attachments: Proposed sign. Prepared by: K) i C, D Michele Rambo, Associate Planner Page 3 Submitted by: 142 * Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager j,% July 23, 2001 P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Pepper Maggies 78259 Indigo Dr. La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Proprietor: (760) 7 7 7 - 7 0 0 0 FAX (760) 777-7101 It is my understanding that Pepper Maggies has relocated their restaurant business to the City of La Quinta within the Palm Royale Country Club. We are pleased to hear we are having such a fine restaurant enhance our choices of dining establishments to experience. During ,your transition of moving, it was probably an oversight that a business license is required. I am enclosing a Business License Application and a Worker's Compensation Form. Please forward them to the address designated on the bottom of the application with the respective fee within ten (10) days of this letter. I would also like to address the signage at the south east corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street and the entry to Palm Royale Country Club. I would like to refer you to the Community Development Department at (760) 777-7125 regarding application for sign review and approval. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact me directly at (760) 777-7034. Your service to our community is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, John Hardcastle Community Safety Manager Anthony Moreno Code Compliance Officer c: Community Development 0 lJ June 26, 2001 CITY OF LA QUINTA, Planning Commission Community Development Department Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2001-426, Conditional Use Permit 2001-061 and Site Development Permit 2001-706 Dear Sir or Madam: We are opposed to the application by KSL for the installation of an antenna, as per the case numbers mentioned above. KSL is changing the whole ambiance of La Quinta and not for the better. They have taken a wonderful property "The La Quinta Hotel" and with the concurrence of the City, by the increased densities allowed, have taken away all its previous charm. This Resort that had nothing higher than a palm tree was really special and now KSL wants to construct a 65' high wrought iron palm tree. Can a roller coaster and waterslide be far behind? Again, we are opposed to the construction of this antenna and hopefully the City will have enough courage to say no. Yours truly, e y S anger, Sr. 41 Vista Bonita La Quinta, California f�� i '. �D I�✓ �Ot1N �'cT-- ` D l ^ DLO.—r1 �1 .Z.S c