2002 11 12 PCTAt 4 4 491aro
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2002-105
Beginning Minute Motion 2002-018
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. 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 October 22, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item ................. VARIANCE 2002-031 AND PARCEL MAP 30892
Applicant .......... Lench Design Group
Location ........... 53-220 and 53-240 Avenida Bermudas
Request ............ Subdivision of a lot into two lots and a Variance to
the lot width and size standards
Action .............. Resolution 2002-
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII1. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Discussion regarding Planning Commission Study Sessions.
B. Discussion regarding canceling the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission on December 24, 2002
C. Report on the City Council meeting of November 5, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting
to be held on November 26, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 22, 2002 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City
Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning
Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
Ill. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 8, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 12, Item #6 and
#7 be corrected to state "...Condition 43.A..." There being no further
corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins
to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VL PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2002-548 Specific Plan 2002-061..
Conditional Use Permit 2002-071 and Tentative Parcel Map 30586• a
request of Winchester Development for Quarry Ranch L.L.C., for
certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact
for Environmental Assessment 2002-548, consideration of a Specific
Plan to allow development on hillside property; a Conditional Use Permit
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
not grade in the hillside above the 20%. The roads were graded
above the 20% slope. The City has never approved a building pad
above the 20% slope. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that above the Enclave development within Specific
Plan 121-E, there was a condominium project proposed to be
developed on a knoll that was downsized and has been graded,
but not built on.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked if it was staff's position that the five
conditions required for development in the hillside had been
complied with. Staff stated yes at this point, but the applicant still
needs to submit a site development permit. Commissioner Tyler
stated the only real pertinent difference between the RL and RVL
is the density factor. Staff agreed that density was the key factor.
9. Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Shaw, representing Winchester
Development and the applicant, gave a presentation on the project
and stated the only issue they had was in regard to the remainder
of lettered lettered Lot I being designated as Open Space. As long
as it could be developed as golf course, they would have no
objection Staff clarified that the entire lettered Lot I is zoned as
LDR. The tract map is approved which allowed lettered Lot I to be
developed as Golf Course, so there is a potential to develop this as
residential.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked if the remainder of lettered Lot I
could be conditioned to be Open Space. City Attorney Kathy
Jenson stated yes.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant had any objection
with the designation as Open Space. Staff explained that a
designation of Open Space would not allow any golf course
development. It would have to be designated Golf Course/Open
Space. Mr. Shaw stated the remainder of lettered Lot I is
intended to be developed as a golf course.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked where on the ridgeline would the daylight
line fall. Mr. Shaw indicated on the map its location.
13. Commissioner Robbins asked about the cul-de-sac adjacent to
lettered Lot I. Mr. Shaw indicated it was part of the tract map
previously approved.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
14. Commissioner Tyler asked why they were asking for the RL versus
RVL zoning. Mr. Dave Dawson, Principal Planner for Keith
Companies, stated the RVL designation is required when
developing in the Hillside Conservation area. They wanted to use
the RL to remain consistent with the General Plan which is LDR
and the RL corresponding with 2-4 units allowed. Commissioner
Tyler stated his concern was that once it was changed to RL it
could create a "pandora's box".
15. Commissioner Kirk stated that under the current General Plan only
one house would be allowed. Mr. Dawson stated the entire
lettered Lot I is designated as Low Density Residential which
allows four units to the acre. If an alternate configuration could be
done, 58 units would be allowed. Lettered Lot I is 18.5 acres.
16. Commissioner Robbins stated that if it was restricted to one unit
per ten acres, it would not restrict any golf course development.
17. Chairman Butler stated that if it is restricted and the zoning is not
changed, the applicant has the opportunity to put golf holes in that
vicinity with more excavation to the slope to the north.
18. Commissioner Robbins stated the Ordinance currently allows one
unit to ten acres but does not restrict the developer from
developing other "things" on the ten acres. If we allow them to
develop golf courses, it does not change the intent of the
Ordinance.
19. Commissioner Tyler asked if the height of the houses could be
restricted to 22 feet. Mr. Shaw stated he had no objection. He
asked if the site development permit was required to be brought
back to the Planning Commission. Staff stated yes.
20. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no other public comment, Chairman Butler closed the
public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter
up for Commission discussion.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated he had some concerns in regard to the
height restrictions, but if the applicant was willing to accept a
condition restricting the height to 22 feet, he had no objection. In
regard to re -vegetation of the area, it is not always successful. He
has concerns about violating the Hillside Conservation Ordinance
in general.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
22. Commissioner Kirk stated he has similar concerns. The applicant
has made some good points, but the Commission knows this will
set a precedent. He would prefer to see the Ordinance changed.
If it does not apply to this type of land, we should make some
adjustments in the Ordinance so this is not covered by the Hillside
Ordinance so we do not have to violate it. This would be a better
development instead of using a specific plan as a way to get out
the unpleasant aspects of the Zoning Code. If the Zoning Code
does not make sense, then it should be changed. He would
suggest a better solution would be to change the zoning on the
property.
23. Commissioner Robbins stated he too has concerns about
developing in the hillside, but does see that this project will not
have visual impacts. He would agree that the remainder of
lettered Lot I be restricted to only golf course development.
24. Chairman Butler stated it is the conditional use permit that allows
the development in the hillside. Approving a specific plan does not
affect the hillside, but the conditional use permit that dictates
what can be developed.
25. Commissioner Kirk clarified the conditional use permit is necessary
in any case you are in the Hillside Conservation Overlay District
and in this specific case, a specific plan is being used to get out of
some "nasty" components of the Overlay District. It is the
specific Plan that is being used to develop the site.
26. Commissioner Robbins asked if lettered Lot I could be conditioned
if it is not contained in the specific Plan. City Attorney Kathy
Jenson stated that if the applicant is agreeable, then yes.
27. Community Development Director explained that a specific plan
was prepared to deal with the issues of development of the land
that is zoned as LDR. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any
20% slope on a parcel, it falls within the District. The 20%
requirement is the development requirement, so it is any 20%.
You fall within the District if you have property that is 20% or
more from the toe of the slope.
28. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that these
properties do not average over 20%. Mr, Shaw stated the average
slope for Parcel 1 is 9.41 %. Principal Planner Fred Baker stated
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-22-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
you could take either the single lot or the entire site and say there
is an average of 20%. From what they have shown to staff they
have an average above 20%. Commissioner Kirk asked if they
could approve the subdivision and determine the two residential
lots are not within the Overlay District and consequently a specific
plan is not needed for their development. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated that by definition they
are caught in the Overlay District. Anything above the toe of the
slope is within the Overlay District. Discussion followed.
29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-101 recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2002-548, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Robbins/Abets to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-102 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2002-061, subject to the findings.
31. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not feel comfortable voting for or
against this until the City Attorney renders an opinion on whether
or not the Overlay District applies, or could potentially apply to this
property.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:04 to allow the City Attorney time to
review the Code and render a decision. The meeting was reconvened at 8:14 p.m.
32. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated that if any part of the parcel
at issue is above the toe of the slope it drawn into the application.
Therefore, it a part of the Hillside Overlay District.
a. Condition added that lettered Lot I is within the Specific
Plan and allowed only two units with a 22 foot height, one
story limit, and the remainder of lettered Lot I be limited to
Golf Course/Open Space.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Robbins, and Chairman Butler,
NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\10-22-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 22, 2002
33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-103 recommending
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2001-071, subject to the
findings and conditions as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abets to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-104 recommending
approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30586, subject to the findings
and conditions as recommended:
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman
Butler, NOES: Commissioners Kirk and Tyler. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the October 15, 2002 City Council
meeting.
B. Commissioners requested staff put Commission study sessions on the
next agenda.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held November 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:22 p.m. on October 22,
2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
GAWPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 0-22-02.wpd 7
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2002
CASE NO.: VARIANCE 2002-031 AND PARCEL MAP 30892
APPLICANT: LENCH DESIGN GROUP
REQUEST: A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE LOTS WIDTH AND SIZE
STANDARDS, AND THE SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE
RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS
LOCATION: 53-220 AND 53-240 AVENIDA BERMUDAS
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
EAST:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WEST:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The subject residential lots are located within the Cove area. On August 13, 1990 the
above -noted lots were merged into one lot. Unfortunately, the County never
consolidated the two lots in their records, and left the two lots with separate Assessor
Parcel Numbers. Subsequently, a developer purchased the properties with the
understanding he was purchasing two lots. Building permits were issued and two
houses were constructed. The lots were apparently separately sold. During the
escrow process, the title company apparently found that the two lots had been
merged. The developer is requesting a Variance and Parcel Map to split the two lots.
As required by Section 9.210.030 Variances, of the Zoning Code, all findings can be
met as listed below:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The approval is consistent in that the
request does not exceed the density for the area and complies the land use
designation of Cove Residential/Medium Density (up to 8 units per acre).
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\LenchPM-Var.wpd
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code. The request is not consistent with the
Zoning Code in that the lot division will create two lots smaller in size and width
than what is currently allowed in the Cove Residential Zone. Therefore, the
Variance and Parcel Map applications were filed to allow the request.
3. Consistency with CEQA. This project is Categorically Exempt per Section
15303 (Class 3).
4. Surrounding Uses: Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map will not create a
condition that is detrimental the public health, safety and general welfare or
injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity.
The two lots with two houses are consistent with all the immediate surrounding
properties. They are consistent with the adjacent parcels in that within the
immediate block the parcels created are consistent in size with every parcel.
With regard to the block immediately to the south, they are consistent with
every lot. With regard to the block immediately to the west and east they are
consistent with all but two parcels.
5. Special Circumstances: There are special circumstances applicable to this
property. Those circumstances include that, through no fault of the Community
Development or Building and Safety Department, when the two lots were
merged, Riverside County left these parcels with two separate Assessor Parcel
Numbers creating the appearance there were two lots. When building permits
were issued they were issued for two separate parcel numbers. The lots were
apparently purchased without the purchaser knowing the two lots had been
merged.
6. Preservation of Property Rights. Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by the
other property in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to
the subject property.
7. No Special Privileges. Conditions have been placed on the Variance and Parcel
Map to assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed on other
properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations.
8. No Land Use Variance. This approval does not authorize a land use or activity
which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district.
An alternative to the staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission can deny the
Variance and Parcel map applications which would require the developer to demolish
one of the single family residences.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\LenchPM-Var.wpd '-4
i..
Staff recommends approval of Variance and Parcel Map, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The builder shall pay into the appropriate Assessment District the amount due
for one 50 X 100 parcel of land.
2. The subdivider 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 site
development permit thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting
its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\LenchPM-Var.wpd
_ �J aJ
a
\OQpkh
cir) v
z Z,
4
J �•A��
vQkit
e
OU�W�o
v
g d
0 O 4 ly 4
LJ.fk
V — *;t
til Q hbD�
\�w..X
AWRAWO
bdwww
rqr
b
V
.1
V
yy
V
V
4
L=,
M;,ir. to.oas
.ov
M
a3
V
0
�
ova
• «ae
V
Q d �
.00•oi
,aszt
'
I M�1s1, 20�OOs
� oianer-roiivr�r j
M.ib,do,00s
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF LOT SIZE AND
STREET FRONTAGE FOR TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT 53-
220 AND 53-240 AVENIDA BERMUDAS
CASE NO.: VARIANCE 2002-031
APPLICANT: LENCH DESIGN GROUP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 12th day of November, 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request by the Lench Design Group for a Variance to Section 9.50.030.B. to allow
the reduction of lot size and street frontage for two parcels located at 53-220 and 53-
240 Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as follows:
APN: 774-043-01 1 and 012
WHEREAS, this project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63) in that this project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303
(Class 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section
9.210.030 Variances, of the Zoning Code, all findings can be met as listed below:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The approval is consistent in that the
request does not exceed the density for the area and complies the land use
designation of Cove Residential/Medium Density (up to 8 units per acre).
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code. The request is not consistent with the
Zoning Code in that the lot division will create two lots smaller in size and width
than what is currently allowed in the Cove Residential Zone. Therefore the
Variance and Parcel Map applications were filed to allow the request.
3. Surrounding Uses: Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map will not create a
condition that is detrimental the public health, safety and general welfare or
injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity.
The two lots with two houses are consistent with all the immediate surrounding
properties. They are consistent with the adjacent parcels in that within the
immediate block the parcels created are consistent in size with every parcel.
G:\WPDQCS\PC ResolutionsWar-Lench.wO ^ r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
VARIANCE 2002-031 - LENCH DESIGN GROUP
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
With regard to the block immediately to the south, they are consistent with
every lot. With regard to the block immediately to the west and east they are
consistent with all but two parcels.
5. Special Circumstances: There are special circumstances applicable to this
property. Those circumstances include that, through no fault of the Community
Development or Building and Safety Department, when the two lots were
merged, Riverside County left these parcels with two separate Assessor Parcel
Numbers creating the appearance there were two lots. When building permits
were issued they were issued for two separate parcel numbers. The lots were
apparently purchased without the purchaser knowing the two lots had been
merged.
6. Preservation of Property Rights. Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by the
other property in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to
the subject property.
7. No Special Privileges. Conditions have been placed on the Variance and Parcel
Map to assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed on other
properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations.
8. No Land Use Variance. This approval does not authorize a land use or activity
which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district. 9.210.020 of the Zoning
Code to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Variance.
2. That it does hereby approve Variance 2002-031 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution.
G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWar-Lenchmpd iJ
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
VARIANCE 2002-031 - LENCH DESIGN GROUP
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 12th day of November, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWar-Lench.wpd �`
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION
OF A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SEPARATE
RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT 53-220 AND 53-240
AVENIDA BERMUDAS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30892
APPLICANT: LENCH DESIGN GROUP
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
a request of the Lench Design Group to allow one residential lot to be developed into
two separate residential lots located at 53-220 and 53-240 Avenida Bermudas, more
particularly described as:
APN 774-043-011 and 012
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63), in that this project is Categorically Exempt per Section
15303 (Class 3).
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify approving said
Tentative Parcel Map:
1. Consistency with the General Plan: The approval is consistent in that the
request does not exceed the density for the area and complies the land use
designation of Cove Residential/Medium Density (up to 8 units per acre).
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code. The request is not consistent with the
Zoning Code in that the lot division will create two lots smaller in size and width
than what is currently allowed in the Cove Residential Zone. Therefore the
Variance and Parcel Map applications were filed to allow the request.
3. Surrounding Uses: Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map will not create a
condition that is detrimental the public health, safety and general welfare or
injurious to, or incompatible with, other properties or land uses in the vicinity.
The two lots with two houses are consistent with all the immediate surrounding
properties. They are consistent with the adjacent parcels in that within the
immediate block the parcels created are consistent in size with every parcel.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Lench-PM.wpd n �J
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Parcel Map 30892 - Lench Design Group
November 12, 2002
With regard to the block immediately to the south, they are consistent with
every lot. With regard to the block immediately to the west and east they are
consistent with all but two parcels.
4. Special Circumstances: There are special circumstances applicable to this
property. Those circumstances include that, through no fault of the Community
Development or Building and Safety Department, when the two lots were
merged, Riverside County left these parcels with two separate Assessor Parcel
Numbers creating the appearance there were two lots. When building permits
were issued they were issued for two separate parcel numbers. The lots were
apparently purchased without the purchaser knowing the two lots had been
merged.
5. Preservation of Property Rights. Granting of the Variance and Parcel Map is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by the
other property in the same vicinity and zoning district and otherwise denied to
the subject property.
6. No Special Privileges. Conditions have been placed on the Variance and Parcel
Map to assure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed on other
properties in the vicinity subject to the same zoning regulations.
7. No Land Use Variance. This approval does not authorize a land use or activity
which is not permitted in the applicable zoning district.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning
Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
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 constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 30892 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
GAWPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Lench-PM.wpd �'
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Tentative Parcel Map 30992 - Lench Design Group
November 12, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 12th day of November, 2002 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
n -I r
�- _i '..
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30892 - LENCH DESIGN GROUP
NOVEMBER 6, 2002
1. The builder shall pay into the appropriate Assessment District the amount due
for one 50 X 100 parcel of land.
2. The subdivider 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 site
development permit thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting
its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Lench-PM.wpd