Loading...
2003 03 25 PCPlanning 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 MARCH 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2003-015 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-006 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 March 11, 2003. B. Department Report - Report on front yard landscape requirements for Tract 28964 (Talante) and Tract 30331 Amendment #1 (Althea Court) PC/AGENDA V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 Applicant ......... Father Jack Barker/St. Francis of Assisi Location ........... 47-225 Washington Street Request ..........1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) To allow the expansion of the existing uses on a 14.03 acre site; and 3► Consideration to allow church uses within the Low Density Residential Zoning District for the expansion of the parking lot, with an additional entry, landscaping and retention areas and vacation of a right-of-way on 29.16 acres. Action .............. Continue to April 8, 2003 B. Item ................. CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 2003-682 Applicant .......... Dale Frank Location ........... Washington Park Commercial Center, bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Adams Street, Washington Street, & Avenue 47 Request ............ Review the proposed sign program for the Center Action .............. Move to continue to April 8, 2003 C. Item ................. STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-014 Applicant ......... Old Town La Quinta, LLC Location ........... East of Avenida Bermudas, south of and parallel to Calle Tampico Request ........... Consideration of a street name change from Avenida Buena Ventura to Main Street Action ............. Resolution 2003- D. Item ................. ZONE CHANGE 2003-113 Applicant ......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ........... Recommendation for adoption of the City's Official Zoning Map Action ............. Resolution 2003- PC/AGENDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. CONTINUED - PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE 7397 AND 7398 Appellant .......... Donald and Patricia Cross Location ........... 78-570 Saguaro Road Request ............ Appeal of Public Nuisance Determination Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- B. Item ................. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING 2003-002 Applicant ......... Desert Sands Unified School Location ........... East side of Washington Street and south of Darby Road. Request ............ Finding of General Plan conformity for the construction of a Middle School and Alternative Education Complex Action .............. Resolution 2003- C. Item ................. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ISSUES Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Review of proposed changes to the front yard setback regulations and summation of proposed changes to the side yard setbacks Action .............. Provide staff with direction VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of City Council meeting - Commissioner Tyler X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on April 8, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. PC/AGENDA PUBLIC NOTICE The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentation to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Community Development Department at 777-7125. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Community Development Department for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 11, 2003 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Kirk to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler and Chairman Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to reorganize the Agenda by taking Public Hearing Item "C" first. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of February 25, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 5, Item ' j" be corrected to read, "...air conditioning unit was put in the side yard instead of adjacent to the garage." Item "I" corrected to state, "...that a 20 foot setback would not necessarily be consistent. In some developments the property line is the back of curb, and other developments the property line might be seven to ten feet behind the curb. It depends upon what right of way widths were used." Commissioner Kirk reminded staff the Commission had inquired about the turf requirement for the Talante project, and asked staff for a report at the next meeting. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to approve the minutes as modified. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Site Development Permit 2003-760; a request of Gensler Architects for Bank of America for review of development plans for a 4,000 square foot bank facility located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Point Happy Commercial Center. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked about Sheet 2 of 2 of the plans, which showed a shaded walkway coming from the north which stated "proposed accessible route of travel". Staff indicated this was the handicap access route from Highway 1 11 . Discussion followed regarding access routes. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain the "balanced design for the inset tiles". Staff explained this was a recommendation of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee regarding the inset tiles that are viewed from Highway 1 1 1. It was their opinion they needed to be balanced to not look like they are out of order. 3. Commissioner Robbins asked about the rear elevation where the doors appear to be secondary access doors. Staff stated they are man doors and the mounding will hide most of the doors. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant stated he was available to answer any questions. 5. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-010, approving Site Development Permit 2003- 760, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. General Plan Amendment 2003-090, Zone Change 2003-1 1 1, and Specific Plan 2001-055 Amendment #1; a request of California Intelligent Communities and La Quinta Redevelopment Agency to review a request to add an Office land use designation, bringing the zoning into conformance with the General Plan and modify the Specific Plan development standards and uses for the property located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if there would be single family homes adjacent to the boutique hotel. Staff stated yes. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked why they were doing an amendment instead of replacing the specific plan. Staff stated typically when there is an existing document we amend the document unless the applicant wants to completely change the orientation of the specific plan. In this case the only change is to add the "Office" component. Commissioner Kirk asked if the park was designed to serve a broader community, or does it serve those associated with this project. Staff stated it is a neighborhood park that will serve both. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if in the existing specific plan, where it calls out 1,200 square foot detached units as the minimum size, for not less than 30% of the units, what are the remainder of the units. Staff stated they must be 1,400 square feet or greater. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 5. Chairman Butler asked about the two story units. Staff explained no two story units could be built next to the existing single story, single family homes. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Richard Oliphant, the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. He explained that in order to meet the City's requirements for development of the site they were required to build a hotel and provide affordable housing. In order to do this they needed an amenity to attract hotel users and the medical facility will do that. It will be an elective surgery, recuperative building. It will have no emergency facility. Their proposal is for a three story Hilton Hotel. The City is requiring a development that consists of 250 keys and they could not find a hotel, except the Hilton who will build 134 units and 132 casitas units rented by the hotel. The boutique hotel has 30 rooms is like a "fat farm". It is a very special, private, and expensive hotel. Each unit will have its own hot tub. The food menu will be structured for those on diets. It will include exercise rooms, massages and will be similar to the "Gold Door" up by Santa Barbara. He then introduced the architect for the hotel, Mr. Bob Bonney who gave an overview of the hotel uses. He explained the hotel is a maximum of 40 feet, or three stories. It is typical of the Homewood Suites product. The casitas units along Miles Avenue, will be 33 feet in height for the two story and 22 feet for the single story. The third part is the Sanctuary Boutique Hotel. Mr. Oliphant then introduced Mr. Paul Ehline, who would be constructing the residential product. He explained there would be 27 courtyard cluster units with two story units that would be 1,250 to 1,497 square feet. On the perimeter are single story units. The entry is a simulated raised bridge with a roundabout. Between the two story units would be a view corridor of 60-80 feet to maintain the view corridors for the existing homes to the east. The single story perimeter units will be 1,420 to 1,600 square feet. Mr. Oliphant introduced Mr. Jerry Futchlke, designer of the medical facilities, who gave a presentation on the facilities. He explained the wellness center is the surgical component and a rehabilitation center with beds. There will be a courtyard between the two buildings that will also serve as a focal point. The wellness center is a specialty facility with restricted licensing. It will not have an emergency department, nor any treatment offered for infectious diseases. He G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 continued with the types of uses the medical facility would offer. Mr. Oliphant introduced Mr. Marvin Roos, engineer for the project who reviewed the site layout. Ms. Emily Hemphill, attorney for the project, raised questions on the conditions. She explained the specific plan currently shows the minimum building setback at 50 feet with a landscape setback of 15 feet. This is an error and should be a minimum building setback of 20 feet with a landscape setback of 15 feet for boutique hotel as it abuts the existing residential. She indicated where the four units would be that they would be moving to accommodate the pad heights. The second request is for the single family detached residential units within the clustered units. There are six units that have a ten foot setback from the property line. The specific plan currently requires a 20 foot setback from public or private streets. They would like to request some leeway so a few of those units may have a setback of ten feet. In order to allow this, they would like to suggest that the project be conditioned in the CC&R's, for this portion of the project, that all parking has to be in the enclosed garages, or within the designated guest parking area. 7. Commissioner Robbins asked for clarification on the type of surgeries that would be performed. Mr. Oliphant stated the doctors they have spoken with are renown for their work in neurosurgery, orthopedic, vascular care, pain management, breast and prostrate management. 8. Commissioner Kirk asked why they did not apply for the site development permit at this time. Mr. Oliphant stated they had informed their neighbors they would provide as much information as possible as well as letting the Commission know how important the medical facility is to the project; there is no project without the medical facility as it is the economic engine that drives the hotel. Commissioner Kirk asked about the architectural guidelines used for the project. Ms. Margo Thiebault, engineer for the project, stated they are contained in Exhibit "C" and were not modified from the currently approved plans. Commissioner Kirk asked if the intent was to build the models as indicated in the specific plan. Ms. Thiebault stated yes. Commissioner Kirk stated the details did not appear to be shown on the plans. They are missing the arcades, trellis' as mentioned in the architectural details. Mr. Bob Bonney stated the details are preliminary on the plans shown and will not be seen at this time. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 see it on the medical facility either and if the architectural detail is not to be included on the actual structure, the specific plan should be changed to reflect this. Mr. Futchlick stated they will reflect the architectural designs. 9. Chairman Butler asked if the medical facility is a two story or three story building. Mr. Futchlick stated it is a two story building. 10. Commissioner Kirk asked the purpose of the park as it related to this community and why it was not integrated more into the development. Is there any limitation on what can be done. Mr. Oliphant stated it was integrated, but because the use is for more than just this development it was designed for everyone's use. The single family component is being considered as a walled community and the park would be outside the walls. Commissioner Kirk asked the location of the swimming pools. Mr. Ehline noted them on the site plan. Mr. Ehline stated the residential units are rear loaded garages and there are trails throughout the project that will be managed by a homeowners' association. Commissioner Kirk asked if the streets were private or public. Mr. Oliphant stated private and they could be designed to be 28 feet with parking on one side. Commissioner Kirk asked if the photos shown were the elevations. Mr. Ehline stated they were the idea used for the elevations. 11. Commissioner Tyler questioned the grade elevations of the site and asked if it was going to be graded on the entire site. Mr. Roos stated the high elements will be graded down so the area next to the existing homes is the same elevation. As long as they are able to drain to the Evacuation Channel then will be able to keep the elevations low. Commissioner Tyler noted the two major concerns were the grading and the minimum lot sizes. He asked what areas of the site will have the 4,500 square foot house sizes. Mr. Oliphant stated that at the public meeting, the concerns noted were modified so the floor plans now meet the City requirements where no more than 30% can be 1,200 square feet and the rest would be over 1,400 square feet. Commissioner Tyler questioned the lot sizes. Mr. Ehline explained the lot area owned by the property owner and the area that is common area. He explained the smallest unit is 1,200 square feet and there are no two story units along Miles Avenue. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 12. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. David Lippert, 78-745 Rockberry Court, presented a petition in opposition to the project. He went on to state the approved specific plan and zone change is consistent with the land use compatibility. The approved specific plan conforms and matches the adjacent properties. The proposed plan does not conform to the adjacent properties and especially the 20 foot setback. The approved parking is 1.5 parking spaces per room. The proposed is one space per room. The Medium Density Residential land use designation has been approved for the 20 acres; the proposed is 11.2 acres. The detached dwellings are approved for 7,200 square feet or 4-8 units per acres. The proposed lot size is 4,500 square foot lot. The proposed plan allows up to eight dwellings per acres. The park/retention in the approved plan it is five acres; the proposed park is three acres. Why should this be reduced when there isn't enough parkland now? On the grading, the approved is a 90 degree elevation. The proposed it is 2.5 feet higher than the existing residences. The hotel was 107-108 feet, on the proposed plan and is proposed to be 112 feet. These elevation changes will affect everyones' site lines. The 4,000 square foot lots backing up to their houses of 8,500 square feet which does not allow any view because they can't see beyond the houses. They are requesting this amendment change be denied as it does not conform to the existing zoning. 13. Mr. Gary Boydston, 78-710 Rockberry Court, asked if Dr. Letherman was present. He asked if he was the CEO of this project? In what state is the medical center registered. What is the identify of the investors and who are the doctors to be in the medical building. He would like to have the names of the successful businesses they are referring to. He asked if it is true that there is a $22 million judgement against him. How can the Commission approve a zone change when it does not comply. Is the City willing to take a risk on this person. 14. Mrs. Jan Boydston, 78-710 Rockberry Court, stated they were against the three story medical facility as it is out of place next to a residential development because of light and traffic and will also be a problem with security. She is concerned about the sirens and the number of surgeries and whether or not it will support the project. The smaller homes and lots will affect their property values. Another concern is safety; having transient people behind G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 their house. She also voiced her concern about the amount of noise that would be raised from the existing neighborhood on the "Sanctuary". 15. Dr. Phillip Bretz, 50-105 Grandtraverse, stated he was in favor of the project and it will be world class facility. He also commended the applicant on his presentation. 16. Ms. Celeste Reid, 45-440 Coldbrook Lane, stated her concerns are the height of the buildings and the low income housing next to their homes as well as the lot sizes. She would like a better understanding of what is low income. 17. Mr. Nicholas Hemes, 49-165 Washington Street, stated he is in support of the development as the City needs the tax dollars. 18. Mr. Rick Winslow, 78-830 Zenith Way, stated he was in favor of the project and if the area is to be developed, this developer is the one who can do the best job for this site. 19. Mr. Jeff Burke 47-750 Adams Street, stated he also supports the project. He appreciates the development that has taken place so far in the City and commended the Commission. 20. Ms. Kam Melkesian, 50-795 Calle Guaymas, stated she was concerned about how dense the property will be and the traffic. Currently, at peak hours the traffic is already backed up at the Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street signals. 21. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 22. Commissioner Abels stated a medical facility is great and having a facility like this is needed and he would support the project. 23. Commissioner Tyler stated the grading plan is a great improvement but a condition should be added ensuring the grading is as it has been stated. In regard to the question about affordable housing, it has to do with the average income of Riverside County and you will find that it is mostly the income for our firemen, policemen and teachers. In regard to the density, he would like to see that G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 revisited. Other than that it is a valuable project to the City. However, it does need more work before the site development permit comes before the Commission. 24. Commissioner Kirk asked about the reduction in park size. He asked what the needs of the City were determined to be and why was the park size reduced. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the project to the east has a City park within the development. There is another park on Adams Street park and the idea for this park was for a smaller, more passive park that would be easier to maintain. Commissioner Kirk asked about the grading plan, if the grade would be cut back. Mr. Roos stated it would be 12 feet and the dirt would be moved to the hotel site. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was the reason the hotel was higher. Mr. Roos stated it was in relation to the casitas units to be a single level in relation to the hotel. There will be some dirt that will need to be moved. Commissioner Kirk noted the elevation changes as noted by Mr. Lippert. Mr. Roos stated his statements were correct based on a retention philosophy. Their direction was to ensure all pads are at, or below the existing adjacent homes and this is what they have done. They still need to do a balanced sheet on the site. This document will be contained in the specific plan. Commissioner Kirk suggested the grading plan be required to come back with the site development permit for approval. He asked if the subsidized housing was for the entire development. Staff stated it will be a mixed product with only moderate housing subsidized; maybe up to 40 being moderate. Commissioner Kirk asked how this project will look with this mix of uses. Will the landscaping of the entire site be managed due to the number of common area? Mr. Oliphant stated the HOA will maintain the site. The Ehline company is very detailed company with a lot of imagination given to their product. Commissioner Kirk asked if the conditions include managing the landscaping in perpetuity with a HOA. Staff would add the condition. Commissioner Kirk summarized that the park should be integrated into the residential communities as well as the medical facility. There are a lot of good elements, but maybe not tied together as well as they could be. He does want to see the park possible moved and the applicant given some flexibility to accomplish this. On the design itself he is not tied to the Spanish Colonial. He would support different designs. He supports some of Mr. Lippert's concerns and does not support the applicant's request for the setback changes. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 25. Commissioner Robbins stated his concern was in regard to the landscaping. There are three zones and only one is water efficient. He wants the project to conform to the Water Efficient Ordinance. He is concerned about the density. If these units were larger there still could only be two feet between the units. 26. Commissioner Tyler stated it is not clear if the developer will be required to cement the walls of the wash. Staff stated it will be required under the site development permit. Commissioner Tyler noted this has been a difficult piece of property to develop and was originally designed for high density apartments. 27. Commissioner Abels stated the Commission's biggest challenge will always be infill projects. 28. Commissioner Kirk asked why not adopt a specific plan that would take care govern over both the zone change and General Plan requests. City Attorney Kathy Jenson explained that a specific plan cannot override the General Plan. Staff clarified that in regard to the park, if it is to be a public park, you need the access to that park to be from everyone. If it is to be a private park it isn't accessible to the general public. 29. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-01 1, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-090, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 30. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-012, approving Zone Change 2003-1 1 1, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-013, approving Specific Plan 2001-055, Amendment #1, as amended to add the following conditions: a. Condition #8: Move the last bullet point, "the Public Works Department shall consider the option to install a left turn pocket for Seeley Drive southbound north of Miles Avenue" to the "off -site improvement section". b. Condition #11: January 30, 2002 C. Condition #13: Streets shall be 28 feet wide with 12 foot setbacks with no parking on one side of the street for the six parcels located north of Seeley Drive and west of the Park. d. Condition #14: The grading plan shall be approved with the site development permit by the Planning Commission. e. Condition #15: The HOA shall maintain all common area landscaping in perpetuity. f. Condition #16: The landscaping shall comply with the Water Efficiency Ordinance g. Condition #17: The boundary between the residential development and the park may be designed with compatible uses. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. C. Environmental Assessment 2003-468, General Plan Amendment 2003- 089 Zone Change 2003-1 10, and Tentative Tract Map 31 123; a request of Vista Encanto La Quinta, LLP, for a recommendation to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; a request to amend the General Plan from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 19.6 acres; a request to rezone 19.6 acres from Residential Very Low Density to Residential Low Density; and a request to subdivide 19.6 acres into 60 residential lots on the property located on the north side of Avenue 52, 300 feet west of Vista Bonita Trail. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #55 be corrected to delete any reference to Fred Waring Drive and asked the distance between Vista Bonita and the easterly secondary entrance. Staff noted it had not been measured, but was approximately 400-500 feet. Commissioner Tyler asked that the specific lots be identified in regard to Condition #78. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked the distance between the two access points on this project. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer noted the frontage on the map is approximately 300 feet. A full turning movement was allowed. The westerly access is the primary and the easterly, the secondary. One thought is that either one can be a full turn. Staff is more inclined to think the full turning movement should be the easterly access. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Matthew Hladeck, the applicant, stated the distance between the two access points is 382 feet. They have no preference as to which one should be primary. The street design is to not be a straight line development. 5. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. Dr. Robert Jones, Jr., 80-748 Vista Bonita Trail, stated the reason he was interested and bought his property was to have the rural atmosphere. His concerns are the aesthetics and the need for a transition between the two projects. The height restrictions are 22 feet and their height restrictions are 18 feet. The zone change appears to be spot zoning. The population and housing was sparse in this location and to use that as an excuse to now allow the higher density is not right. Lastly, he has a concern about the traffic issues. 6. Ms. Shirley McGinty, 80-820 Vista Bonita Trail, gave a history of the area and stated a lot of consideration was given when the annexation took place. They were guaranteed this area would remain rural. This project will affect their property values. 7. Mr. Kjell Ostbye, 80-645 La Docena Trail, voiced his opposition to this project. They moved here five years ago and were ensured by G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 the City the zoning would remain the same. They are now looking at 20 acres that are going to be developed with high density. The property to the west of this is a nursery. He requested this zoning be retained. 8. Mr. Stewart Woodard, 80-880 Vista Bonita Trail, asked if Avenue 52 was a Primary Arterial and noted that Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 are some of the busiest streets in the Valley. If you take the two access points from this project, and the ones from the Polo Estates you do not meet the limited accesses for a Primary Arterial street. We are surrounded by low density because of the golf courses. This project does not have a golf course. He asked if this project would be a left turn only. Staff stated one access would have a full turning movement and the other would be limited. The easterly entrance barely exceeds the distance for a Primary Arterial street. The westerly entrance is 1,200 feet between this project and the Hideaway. Either access qualifies for a full turn movement. The Polo Estates will be a left turn in and a right turn in. Mr. Woodard asked that at least the lots adjoining the Polo Estate lots be limited in size and decreased the height limit at 18 feet. 9. Mr. Holmes, 80-800 Vista Bonita Trail, stated he is opposed to this zone change because he did research on what the adjoining property was zoned and purchased his home based on that information. His second concern is the traffic onto Avenue 52. 10. Mr. Hladeck stated he did a study in regard to property values and found that this project would not affect any adjoining properties. In regard to traffic, The Hideaway will be widening Avenue 52 to its full width as part of their development conditions which should alleviate traffic concerns. 11. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 12. Commissioner Robbins stated he shares the concern of changing the zoning. If they did not change the zoning, it would only reduce the number of houses backing up to half acre lots to three. 13. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern is not the density, but rather changing the General Plan project by project. If this request was G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 being considered in the context of the General Plan update he would agree with it, but he cannot support the request just to generate more money on a piece of land. He has sympathy for the neighbors concerns. 14. Chairman Butler stated he concurs with the comments made so far, but if the zone change is not allowed there could still be a problem with the property to the west of this site. He understands the applicant's desire to develop the lots for the best economic value. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was an overlay on this site. Staff stated no. He asked if the project could be stipulated to have no more than three units per acre. Staff stated yes, as the General Plan allows up to four units to the acre. 16. Commissioner Kirk asked if the mitigation measures contained in the environmental compliance could be conditioned on the density to mitigate the problem. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the designation is up to a certain number of units. You can approve less than the maximum number. Staff stated the Commission could increase the lot size to reduce the density, or state the density cannot exceed a certain size. 17. Commissioner Tyler noted the Polo Estates is a premier subdivision in the City, but there are a lot of empty lots which may indicate there isn't presently, a need for this size lot. 18. Commissioner Abels concurred that the size of the lots was not adequate for this site. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-014, denying certification of Environmental Assessment 2000-468, as recommended. 20. Commissioners Abels/Tyler withdrew their motion. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to deny the project. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Sign Application 2003-682; a request of Dale Frank for review of a proposed sign program for the Washington Park Commercial Center bounded by Washington Street, Highway 1 1 1, Adams Street, and Avenue 47. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Staff informed the Commission the applicant had requested a continuance of this project to March 25, 2003. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to continue Sign Application 2003- 682 to March 25, 2003. Unanimously approved. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Continued - Sign Application 2002-616, a request of Graphic Resources for Desert Automotive, LLC for a revision to a previously approved sign program for the car dealership located at the southwest corner of Simon Drive and Highway 1 1 1 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the monument sign. Staff noted it was at the corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Simon Drive. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked for an explanation of the staff report in regard to the square footage of the sign. Staff stated it is 134 square feet more than what was approved. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Berg, representing the applicant, gave an explanation of how the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 15 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 signs got installed larger than what was approved. 5. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked about the sign squeezed between the two buildings facing west. Mr. Berg stated it is to be seen from the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. Commissioner Tyler recommended it be eliminated. Mr. Berg stated it is 56 square feet. 6. Commissioner Kirk noted the sign program had been considered by the Commission and after a lot of thought and discussion, a program was approved. Now the owner has installed signs that were illegal and is requesting approval of that illegal installation. Based on this information he suggested the request be denied. 7. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this item. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 2003-006, denying Sign Application 2002-616. Unanimously approved. B. Appeal of Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398; a request of Donald and Patricia Cross for consideration of an appeal of a Public Nuisance Determination for the property located at 78-570 Saguaro Road. 1. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter asking for a continuance of this item to the Commission meeting of March 25, 2003. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue Public Nuisance Cases 7397 and 7398 to March 25, 2003. Unanimously approved. C. Discussion of Zoning Issues, a request of staff for review of zoning issues pertaining to front yard setbacks and review of the side yard setback summary. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 16 Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2003 1. Chairman Butler asked that this item be continued to the meeting of March 25, 2003. Unanimously approved. Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Abels gave a report of the City Council meeting of March 4, 2003. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 25, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:37 p.m. on March 11, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-11-03.wpd 17 CC A T44f 4 4Q" MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 REQUEST: FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACTS 28964 (TALANTE) AND 30331 AMENDMENT #1 (ALTHEA COURT) BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2003, the Planning Commission requested information on the front yard landscaping requirements for the Talante and Althea Court developments on Avenue 50, namely the amount of turf allowed for each project. The pertinent requirements for each project is listed below: 1. Talante (Site Development Permit 2001-707; Condition 2A of Planning Commission Resolution 2001-103) - "Front yard landscaping shall consist of 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." 2. Althea Court (Site Development Permit 2001-707 Amendment #1; Condition 2A of Planning Commission Minute Motion 2003-004) - "Front yard landscaping shall consist of two trees (i.e., a minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting), ten 5-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (two-inch diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water conservation, no more than 50% of the front yard landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers shall be offered G:TTM 30331Folder/MemoPCTa1anteFina1.wpd Page 1 of 2 an option to have no turf areas in their front yard through the use of desertscape materials." Under the existing Conditions of Approval, the Althea Court development is restricted to the amount of turf that can be used in the front yard area (Attachment 1). STAFF COMMENTS: In the last few years, the Community Development Department has recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council consider restrictions that reduce the amount of area devoted to high water use plants, such as grass, until the City's Water Efficiency Ordinance (Chapter 8.13) can be modified. Currently, the cities in the Coachella Valley have been meeting with the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to examine revisions to the current requirements to conserve water and implement new design parameters for future landscape improvements (e.g., ZCA 2000-066 pending). Therefore, limiting turf areas to no more than 50% of the home's front yard landscape area is a way to implement water conservation measures. Policy 3 of the Chapter 7 of the City's 2002 General Plan also sets forth the requirement that "new development projects shall be required to use native, drought -tolerant landscaping materials to promote and enhance water conservation efforts." Another issue that the Planning Commission raised on February 25, 2003, is the size of tree calipers for residential developments. Under Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, a minimum of one front yard tree shall have a caliper of 1.5 to 2.0 inches ensuring a 10-foot height once installed. This Code provision only applies to new unit designs within an existing, partially -built subdivision. The Althea Court project, a standalone project, is governed by the RL Zoning District standards which do not prescribe specific front yard landscape requirements thereby leaving landscaping requirements to the discretion of the Planning Commission during consideration of a Site Development Permit (Chapter 9.210 and Section 9.60.330 of the LQMC). The Planning Commission may wish to direct the Community Development Department Staff to process an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish specific standards for residential projects that are not within an existing development, or take over action as deemed necessary. However, the landscape requirements will have to be consistent with the water conservation requirements; therefore, the Planning Commission may wish to wait until the valley cities complete the landscape water conservation requirements. Attachment: 1 . February 25, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) QTTM 30331Folder/MemoPCTa1anteFina1.wpd Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS MINUTES Attachment #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 25, 2003 I. CALL TO 7:00 P.M. s meeting of the Planning as called to order at 7:00 . by Chairman Butler who aske missioner Abets to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners ues Abets, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler and Chair utter. C. Staff present: unity Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kat nson, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer S peer, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executi Secretar y Sawyer. it. PUBLIC Q� ENT: None. III. CONAWATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. _ICISENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were rrections to the Minutes of February 11, 2003. There being orrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners irk to approve the minutes as modified. Unanimously appr B. Department Report: V. PRESENTATIONS: N IC HEARINGS: None Site Development Permit 2001-707 Amendment #1; a request of Trans West Housing and La Quinta Talante LLC for review of architectural plans for three prototype single story residential units that range in size from 3,172 square feet to 3,555 square feet for a 12 lot single family subdivision (Tract 30331, Amendment #1) located on Althea Court, a private cul-de-sac street on the north side of Avenue 50, east of Tract 28964 and west of Jefferson Street. 4 v _ GAWPOOMPC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler noted the caliper of trees was below the City's required minimum and asked that any reference to corner lots be deleted. 3. Commissioner Abels asked that the tree sizes be brought up to Code. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked how staff reached the requirement for the percentage of turf. Staff explained they are the same conditions placed on the adjoining tract which is also owned by the applicant. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Geoff McComic, the applicant, stated he did not remember a specific percentage of turf being a condition. 6. Commissioner Kirk noted they were above the 50% turf. Mr. McComic stated he concurred with the condition. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked if he had any objection to the increase in the caliper of trees. Mr. McComic stated he had no objection. Commissioner Tyler commended the applicant on the Talante development. 8. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 9. Commissioner Robbins stated he did not agree with Commissioner Abels comment on the quality of the application package. Discussion followed regarding the application package and the quality of the house product. 10. Commissioner Kirk commented on the quality of the product, but still thinks there is too much turf. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 2 J 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2003 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 2003-004, approving Site Development Permit 2001-701 Amendment # 1, amending the caliper of tree size to 1.5 inches. Motion passes with Commissioner Robbins voting no. VIL BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sion Application- equest of Graphic Resources Lpr Desert Automotive, LLC for on to a previously approved si ram for the car dealership d at the southwest corner o n Drive and Highway 111 AW" 1. C an Butler asked for rh- report. Community I pment Director Jerry Hered the Commission that e applicant had requested of this item to the next Planning Commission me 2. There being no d' ion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners ins/Kirk to continue Sign Application 2002- 616 to Marc , 2003. Unanimously approved C. Discussi f Issues, a request of staff for rev' . zoning issues pertV. to side yard setbacks and second s initions. 1. rman Butler asked for the staff r Planning Manager scar Ordi gave the staff report, a c which is on file in the Community Development Depart 2. Chairman Butler asked if changes would require a Zoning Ordinance change. Sta ed it would require a public hearing at a later date with fin ton by the City Council. Chairman Butler asked if jZays ✓are approved will it alleviate the accidental setbackthat have been occurring. Staff noted applicanhave the opportunity to apply for a v e to allowion. ,. 3. Si&mT�rd Setbacks. Commissioner Robbins sr understands the basic side yard setbacks are five feet pThis setback is appropriate in the Cove, but in othe re you have larger lots, it is inappropriate to have houses with five foot side yard setback on both sides house. The Commission should consider increasing it t al of 15 feet, or ten feet. J� G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-25-03.wpd 3 PH #� STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-073 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-755 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: FATHER JACK BARKER/ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT, LANDSCAPING AND RETENTION AREAS, AN ADDITIONAL ENTRY, AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND STREET CLOSURE OF A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES. LOCATION: 47-225 WASHINGTON STREET ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-463. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has modified the project, therefore, staff recommends that this project be continued to the April 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting to allow staff an opportunity to review the modifications. This project will be re -noticed. Prepared by: Martin Magana Associate Planner PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd • STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-682 LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 1 1 1, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: DALE FRANK AND ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 1987-011, AMENDMENT #4, WASHINGTON PARK COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) The applicant has not resubmitted the revised Sign Program; the item can be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2003. AASA 2003-683 2nd continuancempd PH K PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-014 APPLICANT: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC (WELLS MARVIN) REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM AVENIDA BUENA VENTURA TO MAIN STREET LOCATION: AVENIDA BUENA VENTURA, SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS STREET NAME CHANGE HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15301, CLASS 1. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: Site Background This street exists from Desert Club Drive east and curves south to connect to Avenida La Fonda, west of the Senior Center parking lot (Attachment 1). Between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas the street existed only as a paper street, until the recent lot merger. The applicant is presently constructing his "old town" project between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas with two parking lots east of Desert Club Drive on Avenida Buena Ventura. One of his streets will align with Avenida Buena Ventura west of Desert Club Drive. Applicable Code Provisions The Municipal Code permits an applicant to request a street name change. The request requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council. Required is the written concurrence of at least 60% of the affected property owners along the street in question. The General Plan requires that new extensions of exiting streets use the same name as the existing street. p:\stan\wells old town Iq\pc rpt snc 2003-014.wpd REQUEST: The applicant had submitted a request for street names for his "Old Town" project in the area bordered by Calle Tampico, Desert Club Drive, Avenida La Fonda, and Avenida Bermudas. His request included naming the primary east -west street "Main Street." Because it is required to be called Avenida Buena Ventura, he has submitted an application to change the entire street to Main Street. The majority of the property owners (80 t %) along the frontage of the street have submitted letters supporting the name change. DISCUSSION: Presently there are two small older single family residences on the street on the portion east of Desert Club Drive. A portion of the street at the east end is owned by the City and part of the Senior Center parking lot. The balance of the property east of Desert Club Drive is vacant. To the west of Desert Club Drive is the "Old Town" project under construction. A change in the name of the street would not detrimentally affect the street. With the exception of Desert Club Drive which runs north -south, bisecting Avenida Buena Ventura, the street names in the surrounding area start with either Calle or Avenida, and are Mexican in nature. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2003- , recommending approval of Street Name Change 2003- 014 to the City Council. Attachment: 1. Location Map for street name change Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner p:\stan\wells old town Iq\pc rpt snc 2003-014.wpd RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM AVENIDA BUENA VENTURA TO MAIN STREET CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 2003-014 APPLICANT: OLD TOWN LA QUINTA, LLC (WELLS MARVIN) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of March, 2003, consider a street name change from Avenida Buena Ventura to Main Strreet; and, WHEREAS, said street name change consideration has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department has determined that the proposed street name change is categorically exempted pursuant to Section 15301(Class 1) of the guidelines and no further review is deemed necessary; 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 a recommendation for approval of Street Name Change 2003-014: 1. The change would not detrimentally affect a large number of owners and/tenants due the small amount of developed properties. 2. More than 60% of the affected property owners agreed to the street name change as required by Municipal Code Section 14. 08.020. 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 in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Street Name Change 2003-014 per the attached Exhibit A; 3 P:\STAN\wells old town Iq\snc 2003-014 pc res2.wpd Resolution 2003- March 25, 2003 Street Name Change 2003-014 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 251h day of March, 2003, 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 P:\STAN\wells old town Iq\snc 2003-014 pc res2.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- MARCH 25, 2003 i V nemn ar. a tlNnm � � sys�a sr�ii °�Icr�mu sum. ss�s•s wm su ssnr nm tarot su.ssrt a srxsls sln amusm Q -- — —- — — — — I ----1 I I I 1•,"- —r 121 j� ) I 1 I I I 1 1 3 III TT—T—T—T---7@z- I I I I 1 T — DlylylD;D ls'n �D�DIN�DIx�als'a1N �(o) w'eIN'olaI — 'u'ENIDA 122 u o — 4 yy W i CASE No, EXHIBIT A POR.SW 6 T.6S.,RA t.0.�. 020-010 770-12 CITE' OF u WHO ON-067 Me OYO-Ofl N N N N Y4r • 0 O 1 (D ! O i N a t2 ©o O5 TM DMO 124 as n n� 0 as � s 13 OP j — s CASE MAP sNC 2003-014 OATH SCALE: NTS ocu g I y �I 7y l� I ri Y ATTACHMENT #1 I II L�AAM/�t� I PA in Si, I � Q 0rn N 2 • I V P'7 I �I 1 .I I I I I J I I �I I I ta' \ C N > o 0 0 � O N N� N bo 0 Li � o I N a V CD In N G ° Q —i a - N SING 2°oa3.014- b \ a � a a� a� }JZ }JZ a o 500 000 } Z Z 500 / w I U. > > an. co a Y Q U I Q m c W — —� zl Q IU. 0 Cal m = I 4 0 } T _ Z Z 00-+ O0J .e 3AIHa anla 183s3a oI LU I� sVanWa38 VaiN3AV W Q o1 O a ♦ 9 I` X f` W -5 0 ZI C �OZ =0w co 0 v— PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 25, 2001 CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-1 13 REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA OFFICIAL ZONING MAP LOCATION: CITY OF LA QUINTA JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS, THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, PLANNING AREA ONE, AND PLANNING AREA TWO APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ZONING: ALL DISTRICTS GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ALL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Project Description The City is experiencing a tremendous amount of growth and development. The trend for the future is more new businesses and new housing opportunities. The City adopted the Updated General Plan on March 20, 2002 to guide the City's expansion in an orderly and planned manner. The General Plan Update process involved the community in providing ideas for the future to accomplish the City's goals. Residents and interested parties were encouraged to bring their ideas to City Hall. The General Plan provides direction for growth and provides practical policy implementation tools to manage that growth. The Zoning Code and the Official Zoning Map are the primary tools implementing the General Plan. The proposed Official Zoning Map brings the map up to date and into consistency with the updated General Plan Land Use Map. In addition to bringing the Official Zoning Map up to date, it provides pre -zoning for sphere of influence areas and two "planning areas" outside the City's current jurisdictional boundaries to allow the City to act in a timely manner should annexation be requested. The Official Zoning Map has been and will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis for consistency with the General Plan. P:\FRED\Official Zoning Map PC staff rpt .wpd PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper with a 1 /8 page display ad and posted on March 15, 2003 per Zoning Code Section 9.200.1 10. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: There are no issues with this request and findings required (per Zoning Code Section 9.220.010) to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City Council adoption of the City of La Quinta Official Zoning Map. ATTACHMENTS 1. City of La Quinta Official Zoning Map (Large copy Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner P:\FRED\Official Zoning Map PC staff rpt .wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2003-113 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of March, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the City of La Quinta for a comprehensive update of the City of La Quinta Official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the current Official Zoning Map (Zone Code Section 9.20.020) consisting of Zoning Districts requires revisions and updating to assure consistency with the General Plan and compliance with current State laws and regulations; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did adopt, under Resolution 2002-43, a comprehensive update the General Plan for the City; 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Official Zoning Map for the City of La Quinta. 1. The Official Zoning Map is consistent the 2002 General Plan Update, in that the Zone Districts proposed are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the adopted 2002 General Plan Update. 2. The Official Zoning Map is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an implementation tool for the adopted 2002 General Plan Update. 3. The proposed Zoning uses and districts on the Official Zoning Map are suitable for the lands on which they are proposed, insofar as the majority of the City's developable lands are generally flat, and those lands with significant slope are proposed for preservation as Open Space. 4. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of current conditions, and this Official Zoning Map reflects these conditions and accommodates changes in development patterns which have occurred. t P:\FRED\PC RESO ZC 2003-113.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Zone Change 2003-113 March 25, 2003 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of March, 2003, 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 PAFREMPC RESO ZC 2003-113.wpd • , TAIAIL DATE: CASE NO.: APPELLANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 25, 2003 CONTINUED - PUBLIC NUISANCE CASE NO. 7397 AND 7398 DONALD AND PATRICIA CROSS APPEAL OF PUBLIC NUISANCE DETERMINATION 78-570 SAGUARO ROAD At the request of the appellant, this item was continued from the Commission's meeting of March 11 th to this meeting. On February 11, 2003, a letter of appeal was received in regard to a Notice of Public Nuisance. The Public Nuisance was declared to exist on January 30, 2003, at the above -noted address. The determination was based on the existence of a partially constructed, approximately five foot high garden wall at the location, for which the owner had not obtained a building permit. Based on LQMC 8.01.060 (Attachment 2), it is unlawful to construct any structure without first obtaining a building permit unless the project is exempt from the permit requirements. A five foot high garden wall is not exempt from obtaining a building permit. Section 8.01.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) (Attachment 3), specifically indicates that, "Fences not over six feet high" are note exempted from the Uniform Administrative Code, which is adopted by the City. Section 11.72.030 M. (Attachment 4), of the LQMC declares any violation of the uniform codes adopted by the City to be a Public Nuisance. Case Background 12/1 /99 Applicant applies for a permit for a wood framed plastered garden wall. After review by staff, he is informed that a structural design will have to be provided by a licensed professional. 12/6/99 Applicant picks up his plans 5/9/00 Applicant resubmits plans without a structural design by a licensed professional. Plans sent to City's structural consultant for review. G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Crossmemo.doc 5/16/00 Plans returned from the City's consultant with corrections (Attachment 5) specifying components of the wall that must be designed. Plans returned to applicant. 10/18/02 A Cease and Desist Order (Attachment 6) is issued for the partially constructed wall at the site. Owner instructed to obtain building permit for the wall. 11 /18/02 Owner meets with City Manager and Building and Safety Director to discuss the issue. The requirement for a permit and a structural design for the wall by a licensed professional is reiterated. 12/27/02 Final Notice of Violation is sent to the owner (Attachment 7). 1/30/03 The wall is officially declared a public nuisance (Attachment 8). 2/11 /03 Owner appeals the determination that a Public Nuisance exists to the Planning Commission. During this time, staff has consulted with two licensed engineers to inquire as to the feasibility of developing an engineered City standard for wood framed plastered walls. Both were reluctant to provide such a design because they considered a wood post embedded in concrete to be an inherent design weakness. At some point the wood will rot (even if it is treated) and the structural integrity of the wall will be severely compromised. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2003- upholding the Public Nuisance Citation as issued. Attachments: 1. Appeal letter 2. Section 8.01.060 3. Section 8.01.020 4. Section 11.72.030 5. Correction list 6. Cease and Desist Order 7. Final Notice of Violation 8. Public Nuisance notice G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\Crossmemo.doc vr- ATTACHMENT #1 RECEIVED 2003 FEB 11 PM 4: 5 2 CITY OF L A QU1WT4 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 7o zt-) -e-, a-u r-o jtl:�vm� r -, G 003 ATTACHMENT C 8.01.060 Permits required. Section 301.1 of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1994 Edition, shall be revised to read as follows: Permits Required. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official. (Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 8.01.070 Construction site security and debris. A. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an existing building shall maintain security measures as deemed necessary or as required by the building official to control vandalism, fires, blowing dust, sand or debris. B. The owner, contractor or responsible party constructing a new building, addition, or alteration to an existing building, shall keep the construction site clean by having on site an all metal, minimum three yard container with hinged lid (except rolloff containers), compatible for use with standard trash removal trucks, commonly referred to as dumpsters, for the depositing of trash and debris. Containers are to be provided by commercial trash collection companies and shall not be placed in the right-of-way. As used in this section, "trash and debris" shall include papers, cartons, bottles, cans, garbage, roofing materials, insulation, plaster, concrete, boards and other substances that may be accumulated as a result of construction activities. C. A trash container shall remain on the construction site until the building inspector has completed the final inspection. Said container shall be emptied of its contents on a regular schedule or as ordered by the building inspector in order to avoid blowing debris or other public nuisances. D. Disposal shall be by transportation to a legally established dump site by the city's refuse contractor or other person authorized by law to remove any container from the location where the container was placed by the person in charge for storage and collection. E. Refusal to comply with the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable as stipulated in Section 205 of the Uniform Administrative Code; and/or be sufficient cause for the revocation of the issued building permit pending compliance. (Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 130 § 1, 1988; Ord. 97 § 1, 1986: Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 8.01.080 Violation —Penalty. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, equip or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this title. Any person, firm or corporation violating, or failing to comply with, any of the provisions of this title or a code adopted in this title is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this title or such code is committed, continued or permitted, and upon conviction of any such violation, such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The application of the penalty provided in this section shall not be held to prevent the abatement of prohibited conditions as a public nuisance as provided by Section 1.01.250 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. (Ord. 68 § 3, 1985) 167 (La Quinta 9-99) 004 ATTACHMENT #3 Chapter 8.01 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Sections: 8.01.010 Adoption of the Uniform Administrative Code. 8.01.020 Modification of certain parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. 8.01.030 Establishment of board of appeals. 8.01.040 Fees. 8.01.050 Exempted work. 8.01.060 . Permits required. 8.01.070 Construction site security and debris. 8.01.080 Violation --Penalty. 8.01.010 Adoption of the Uniform Administrative Code. Certain documents marked and designated as the "Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, are adopted for establishing administrative, organizational and enforcement rules and regulations for technical codes which regulate site preparation and construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, use and occupancy of buildings, structures and building service equipment. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of such "Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition," published by the International Conference of Building Officials, on file in the building and safety department, are referred to and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (Ord. 330 Exh. A(1), 1999; Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part), 1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 150 § I (part), 1989; Ord. 114 § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 8.01.020 Modification of certain parts of the Uniform Administrative Code. The following portions of the Uniform Administrative Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted: A. Section 204 (Board of Appeals); B. Section 301.2 (Exempted Work): 1. Section 301.2.1.2. Fences not over 6 feet high, 2. Section 301.2.1.5. Retaining walls which are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, unless supporting a surcharge or impounding flammable liquids, 3. Section 301.2.1.11. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R, Division 3 occupancy in which the pool walls are entirely above the adjacent grade and if the capacity does not exceed 5000 gallons; C. Section 304.2 (Permit Fees); D. Section 304.3 (Plan Review Fees); E. Section 304.5.2 (Fee) Change reference to "...Tables Nos. 3-A through 3-H" to read "...the Resolution of the City Council establishing fees."; F. Section 305.8 (Reinspections) Change reference to "...Tables Nos. 3-A through 3-H" to read "...the Resolution of the City Council establishing fees."; G. Table No. 3-A (Building Permit Fees); H. Table No. 3-B (Electrical Permit Fees); 1. Table No. 3-C (Mechanical Permit Fees); J. Table No. 3-D (Plumbing Permit Fees); K. Table No. 3-E (Elevator Permit Fees); L. Table No. 3-F (Elevator Annual Certificates of Inspection Fees); M. Table No. 3-G (Grading Plan Review Fees); N. Table No. 3-H (Grading Permit Fees). (Ord. 330 Exh. A(2),1999; Ord. 276 § 2 (Exh. A) (part),1995; Ord. 208 § 2 (part), 1992; Ord. 114 § l (part), 1987; Ord. 68 § 1 (part), 1985) 165 (La Quinta 9-99) 005 11.72.010 ATTACHMENT #4 Chapter 11.72 PUBLIC NUISANCES* Sections: 11.72.010 Definitions. 11.72.020 Public nuisances prohibited. 11.72.030 Public nuisances declared. 11.72.040 Inspections. 11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances. 11.72.060 Costs of abatement. ' Prior ordinance history: Ords. 10, 72, 79. 11.72.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: A. Polluted water. "Polluted water" means water in a swimming pool, pond, or other body of water containing bacterial growth, algae, remains of insects or deceased animals, reptiles, rubbish, refuse, debris, papers or any other foreign material constituting an unhealthy, unsafe or unsightly condition, B. Premises. "Premises" means any lot or lots and the buildings or structures located thereon. ' . C. Property Owner. "Property owner" means the owner of the premises where a public nuisance is located as indicated on the last available tax assessment roll. D. Refuse and Waste Matter. "Refuse and waste matter' means unused or discarded matter having little or no substantial market value including but not limited to: rubble, asphalt, concrete and building materials, plaster, tile, rocks, bricks, soil, crates, cartons, containers, boxes, machinery or parts thereof, scrap metal, furniture, inoperative vehicles, vehicle bodies or parts thereof, trimmings from plants or trees, cans, bottles, and barrels. E. State of Partial Construction. "State of partial construction" means buildings and structures which are partially constructed when the building permit for such construction has expired. (Ord.160 § 1(part), 1989) 11.72.020 Public nuisances prohibited. No person shall create, maintain, or allow any nuisance as declared in this chapter to remain on any premises within the city. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.030 Public nuisances declared. The following are declared public nuisances: A. Buildings or structures which are abandoned, partially destroyed or in a state of partial construc- tion; B. Buildings or structures that have dry rot or warped materials, are infested with termites, or the paint is cracked, peeled or blistered, rendering the building unsightly; C. Exterior walls, fences, driveways or sidewalks in a condition of deterioration or disrepair which are defective or unsightly; D. Broken windows, damaged doors or gates which constitute a health or safety hazard or which act as an invitation to trespassers, vagrants, wild or domestic animals or minor children; E. Parking or storing construction equipment, machinery or building materials in a residential zone except during excavation, construction or demolition operations conducted pursuant to a building or grading permit; F. Land graded without a grading permit which causes or may cause eroding, subsidence or surface water drainage problems and is injurious or potentially injurious to adjacent properties and the public health, safety and welfare; G. Any excavation, pit, well or hole maintained in a manner that is dangerous to life or limb; 424 006 11.72.030 H. Any accumulation of dust, sand, gravel, refuse and waste matter or discarded materials including building and construction materials that endangers public health and safety; I. Outdoor stairs, porches, hand railings, balconies and swings not maintained in accordance with the Uniform Building Code adopted by the city; J. Any swimming pool, spa, pond, foundation or other body of water which is abandoned, unattended, unfiltered or not otherwise maintained resulting in polluted water; K. Premises so maintained as to cause the accumulation of polluted or stagnant water from any source which may cause a hazardous or unhealthy condition, breeding area for insects or erosion of foundation walls or soil; L. The use of any spray, paint, dye, chalk or similar substance to mark or deface any building, structure, hillside, rock(s), stormchannel, or any other surface open to public view which is commonly known as graffiti; M. Violation of any of the zoning or sign ordinances of the city or any of the uniform codes adopted by the city including the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, plumbing code, electrical code, mechanical code, swimming pool code, fire code, health code and Uniform Housing Code; N. Maintenance of property so out of harmony or conformity with the maintenance standards of adjacent properties which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties; O. Outdoor burning of any material or structure unless sanction by the fire department as a training fire or when used as a cooking or comfort fire contained in a fireproof container no larger than four feet in diameter, P. Permitting any abandoned, unattended or discarded icebox, refrigerator, freezer or other similar container with an airtight door or lid that cannot be readily released from the inside to remain unattended inside or outside any building or structure; Q. Stockpiling fill dirt or other material without a grading permit; R. Maintenance of grounds, landscape, shrubs, plants or vegetation visible from the public right-of-way which causes a substantial diminution in the enjoyment, use or value of adjacent properties; S. Landfills containing organic materials except those permitted by the building director or the public works director of the city; T. Allowing the following to exist on property: 1. Lumber, junk, refuse and waste matter or abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as furniture, appliances, and play equipment which is visible from the public right-of-way, 2. Attractive nuisances such as abandoned or broken equipment and machinery, hazardous pools, and excavations, 3. Clotheslines located in front yards or side yards of corner lots, clothes hung to dry on walls, fences, trees, bushes or inside open garages or carports which can be observed from the public right-of-way, 4. Materials stored on rooftops which are visible from the public right-of-way, 5. Trash containers or plastic bags causing offensive odors or a breeding place for flies, 6. Gasoline, oil, grease, water or other materials flowing onto a right-of-way or an accumulation of refuse, waste, grease and oil on any surface including but not limited to, surfaces such as improved or unimproved ground, rights -of -way, buildings, structures, walls or fences, 7. Any tree, shrubbery or plant growing onto or over the public right-of-way which impairs pedestrian or vehicular traffic or prevents drivers from clearly observing safety signs and signals, 8. Dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous trees, hedges, weeds, shrubs and overgrown vegetation likely to harbor rats or vermin or constitute an unsightly appearance or fire hazard; U. Dumping refuse and waste matter upon the following: l . Any public or private highway or road, 2. Private property where the public is admitted by easement or license, 3. Private property with or without the consent of the property owner, and 4. Any public property not designated for such purpose; V. Dumping or placing any rocks or dirt upon private property without the consent of the state or local agency retaining jurisdiction over such highway or property; W. Repairing, storing, or otherwise working on any motor vehicle or parts thereof not belonging to the person residing on the premises in any residential area within the city unless: 1. Such activities are completely enclosed and not visible from the public right-of-way, or 425 (La Quinta 2-96) n.ni 11.72.030 2. Such activities constitute emergency repairs, provided that such repairs do not exceed seventy-two hours; X. Parking a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, in public view when a failure to maintain its exterior causes such vehicle to constitute an eyesore. Vehicles shall be deemed unsightly when body parts rust or become corroded, paint becomes faded, chipped, or peeled or the vehicle exterior becomes otherwise dilapidated; Y. Sanding or painting a vehicle, as defined in Chapter 11.80, anywhere in a residential zone; Z. Failure to obscure vehicles and equipment which are stored in a residential zone out of public view; AA. Storage of any item in a residential zone in a manner which endangers public health and safety;; BB. Any offensive or unwholesome business or establishment operated in a manner dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare; CC. Those offenses declared a nuisance anywhere in the code of the city or the statutes of the state of California or known at common law as nuisances when the same exist within the jurisdiction of the city. (Ord. 265 § 1, 1995; Ord. 177 § 1, 1990; Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.040 Inspections. A. Authorized Representative. The city manager and the community safety director or their representative(s) are authorized to make inspections and take such actions as may be required by this chapter to provide for the abatement of public nuisances. B. Right of Entry. Whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that a condition, activity, or use of property exists which constitutes a public nuisance the city manager or community safety director or their representative(s) may enter the premises at a reasonable time for the purpose of inspection. If such premises are occupied, entry shall be requested and proper credentials shall be presented. If such premises are unoccupied, a reasonable effort shall be made to locate the property owner. If entry is refused or if the property owner cannot be located after a reasonable time, a twenty-four hour written notice of intent to inspect shall be left at the premises. The notice shall state that the property owner has the right to refuse entry and if such entry is refused, the city may seek assistance from a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain entry to inspect the premises. (Ord. 160 § 1 (part), 1989) 11.72.050 Abatement of public nuisances. A. Dangerous Buildings. The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings shall apply and preempt the provisions of this chapter whenever the public nuisance to be abated constitutes a dangerous building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. B. Notice of Public Nuisance. Upon determination that a public nuisance exists a notice shall be issued to the property owner. The notice shall read "Notice of Public Nuisance," in letters not less than one inch in height. The notice shall direct abatement of the nuisance, identify the nuisance by referring to this chapter, and contain a general description of the property sufficient to identify the location of the public nuisance. C. Service. The notice of public nuisance may be served by one of the following methods: 1. Personal service; or 2. Certified mail; or 3. Posting the notice at a conspicuous place on the premises where the nuisance is located or at the abutting public right-of-way in addition to personal service or notice by certified mail. D. Time to Abate. Public nuisances shall be abated by the property owner no more than twenty-one days from the date of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. If a public nuisance constitutes an immediate fire hazard, within five days of personal service or mailing the notice of public nuisance. E. Summary Abatement. Whenever a public nuisance exists which constitutes an emergency present- (U Quinta 2-96) 426 008 ATTACHMENT #; YOUNG ENGINEERING SERVICE'S • Engineering *A rchitecture•S-urveying• Bitildireg & Safety Semites Letter of Transmittal To: City of La Quinta Attn: Tel No.. Greg Butler We are forwarding: By Messenger No. o f Copies 1 1 Comments: This Material Sent fur: Description: Plans Correction list Date: 5/16/2000 Project: PC 2000-001 (1 `` check) Wood framed stucco site wall W. 0.. Tract No.: By Mail X Your Pickup Your Files X Per Your Request Your Review Approval Checking At the request of. Other By: John W. Thompson Phone # 760-342-9214 47-1-59 Youngs Lane o Indio, CA 9220J a (760) 342-9214 •Bronz Young • 009 0 • Plan Check Corrections Mc3l Wood framed stuccoed courtyard fence D.G. Cross 78570 Saguaro Rd. ]La Quinta, California Plan Check No.: 2000-001 (V check) Design fence structure to resist wind lateral loading of 70 mph, exposure C. Provide calculation for embedded wood post with an applied lateral load. Is M bottom plate anchor bolted to the footing or curb? Provide footing calculation and detail for embedded post. Specific how the embedded wood post are to be preserved. Bottom plate shall be at least 6" above finish grade. Spec]& all finishes, stucco application, and weep screed, etc... 010 �,:t-✓ t)1` Lfl' '1111 TA onicial Order TO lease & resist Pursuant to U Quints Municipal Code Section 1.01.250, any condition caused or permitted to exist or any such threatened violation of City Code shall be deemed a Public- Nuisance and may be summarily abated as such. It is hereby ORDERED that the Activity, as described below, be �STOPPED� IMMEDIATELY ATTACHMENT #6 Muni,*W Code Section(s): 5?0). 08-0 Explanation of Violation(s): q a-65i /&� g ies ._ _......,r.c� cecccccececrxeeccceecmccr Any person or persons that continue to violate this Cease and Desist Order beyond the Date and 7Yme, as indicatedt will become subject to all available legal remedies This Cease and Desist Order may be accompanied with a Notice of Violation (Citation) and/or a Citation may be issued to any person(s) in the event that violation(s) are allowed to continue beyond the indicated date and time and/or any calendar day. Issuing Officer. - Date o7,3a- Contact Phone #: 760-777- j P 9-�_or 760-777-70S0 Code Compliance Division Department of Building and Safety 011. sr �' ATTACHMENT J P.O. Bux 1504 - — ""' i 8-495 CALLS TAMPICO !%60) i i-iUQI1 LA jQUIN I -A, CALIFORNIA 92253 (TDD) (760) i i ; - 122 i FINAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION December 27, 2002 Donald Cross Patricia Cross 78570 Saguaro Road La Quinta, California 92253 RE: VIOLATION(S) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE AT 78570 Saguaro Road (646-312-044), LA QUINTA, CA. On October 18, 2002, you were notified by this office that you were in violation of the City's Municipal Code. Our records indicate that you were made aware of the nature of your violation's), the action necessary to correct the violation(s), and that you were given ample time to remedy the violation's). Another inspection was made of the subject property on December 19, 2002. That inspection revealed that the necessary corrective action had not been taken. This letter will serve as notice that if the violation is not corrected before January 13, 2003 an administrative citation will be issued or a notice to appear in court or this matter will be scheduled for a nuisance abatement hearing to force compliance. If you have any questions concerning this matter, you should contact the undersigned immediately at (760) 777-7021, Monday - Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Sincerely, Jac e QAi U&we ""— Cod mr)liance Officer nit � 4 ATTACHMENT #E P.O. Box 1504 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA ,QUINTA, CiALIFURNIA 9c[53 o� P%,TBLIC (760) 77 7-70( FAX (760) 7 7 7-71 ( TIFi��iNCE January 30, 2003 Donald Cross Patricia Cross 78570 Saguaro Road La Ouinta, California 92253 Dear Owner(s): RE: 78570 ,Saguaro Road Parcel #646-312-044 Case # 7397 & # 7398 1 0' cer: J. Misuraca THIS NOTICE is hereby submitted to you as owner(s) of the above referenced property n recast inspection of your property revealed conditions in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code. You are required to correct these violations within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of this notice. Your property will be re -inspected to verify compliance after the twenty-one (21) day time frame has lapsed. 013 4( i NOTICE OF VIOLATION Case # 7397 & # 7398 — January 30, 2003 Page 2 of 3 SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT FOR VIOLATION(S) AND CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED. Failure to correct the listed violation(s) within the time frame, indicated may result in the City initiating abatement proceedings and/or criminal prosecution to correct the violation(s). if the City is forced to proceed with the abatement proceedings, the owners)' of record may incur the direct costs of the abatement. Also, any additional costs assessed due to possible judicial process. In addition to the above referenced costs, all contractor abatement cuts plus an additions! 25°! will be charged to the property owner(s) as a lien upon the property and shall become the personal obligation of the owner(s) of record. You are entitled to appeal the determination that a public nuisance exists to the planninq commission. Within ten (10) days from the date of personal service, posting or mailing the notice of public nuisance, the appeal shall be in writing and filed with the city clerk. By acting immediately to correct the violation(s) referenced, you will avoid these and any future costs. If you have any questions, please contact J. Misuraca at (760) 777-7021. Please provide the complaint number (#7397 & #7398) and the property address. Your assistance in supporting the Code Compliance Department to maintain the safety and appearance of our city is greatly appreciated. You may contact me at the above referenced phone number if you require assistance. Si e Compliance Officer CC: 01.4 NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATIONS PUBLIC NUISANCES CASE NUMBER: 7397 Location: Front yard Garden Wall Code Violation: L.Q.M.C. 8.01.060 Permit Required Violation Text: It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish any building or structure, including a swimming pool, spa, or hot tub, or make any installation, alteration, repair, replacement, or remodel any building service equipment, including swimming pool, spa and hot tub equipment, regulated by this Title, except as specified in Section 301.2.1, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate, appropriate permit for each building, structure or service equipment from the Building Official. Correction: Acquire construction permit for front yard garden wall. Reinspection Date: February 20, 2003 PUBLIC NUISANCES CASE NUMBER: 7398 Location: Vehicles parkedlstored in drivcway, Code Violation: L.Q.M.C. 11.80.090 (B) Registration Violation Text: Vehicles located on private property which are in public view that are nat registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles will be deemed as being stored. Correction: Remove the vehicles from public view or acquire current registration from the Department of Motor Vehicles (a non -operational permit still means the vehicle is stored). Reinspection Date: February 20, 2003 ni !; am PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 REQUEST: FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR THE DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT'S MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION COMPLEX. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF DARBY ROAD APPLICANT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BACKGROUND: California Public Resources Code Section 21151.2 (PRC) requires that a jurisdictions planning agency (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether a proposed acquisition of real property for school purposes is consistent with the adopted General Plan. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Desert Sands Unified School District has identified the need for a new middle school and new alternative education complex. The site is approximately 33.9 acres in size and located on the east side of Washington Street, south of Darby Road, with proposed access from Palm Royale Drive (Attachment 1). If the property is ultimately acquired, the property would be used to construct a new middle school to relieve overcrowded conditions at Desert Sands' middle schools as well as develop a continuation school complex. FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to determine whether the proposed acquisition of property for school purposes is consistent with the adopted General Plan. Several current General Plan policies are applicable and are referred to for conformance determination as follows: LAND USE ELEMENT: The recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as office (0) as well as High Density Residential (HDR). Both land uses allow school facilities. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT: This Element indicates the need to establish and maintain a transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City, while maintaining and protecting its P: oscar/StfRpt\GPConsisschoodi strict.wpd residential resort character. Washington Street is designated as a Major Arterial/Primary Image Corridor with no designation for Darby Road and Palm Royale Drive. Washington Street functions as a restricted access higher -volume thoroughfare, while Palm Royale Drive will function as a collector street from the project site to Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, further south of the site. This project, if acquired, will comply with the street system, which ensures movement of traffic around the site and consistency with the circulation found in the General Plan. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT: This element indicates the need to distribute recreational facilities in a manner that is convenient to the City neighborhoods and proportionally balanced within population concentrations. In addition, the element indicates that the City will work with the School District to coordinate integrated recreational facilities during non -school periods (i.e. weekends, afternoons, and during the summer). This project will provide recreational opportunities; therefore, it is consistent with this Element. NATURAL RESOURCES: This element provides several policies and programs designed to protect and preserve the unique and/or valuable resources, including biologic resources. To the extent applicable, this project will be subject to the requirements the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Fee Mitigation Program and other applicable related requirements. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT: Several policies and programs within this Element address the need to provide an adequate number of schools to serve the City's existing and future student population, develop high quality public educational facilities, promote educational opportunities for all residents, and provide educational facilities that are convenient to City residents. If the property is acquired and developed with school facilities, it would be consistent with the Element's policies and programs. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT: This Element indicates that the site is within an area that is susceptible to wind-blown sand, collapsible soils, potential liquefaction hazard, and seismically induced settlement. If the property is acquired, the construction of the school facilities will meet all applicable engineering requirements, and the improvements, including landscaping, will reduce the potential for blowsand in the vicinity of the subject property. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , confirming findings of conformity with the La Quinta General Plan for the acquisition of property for a new middle school and alternative education complex, east of Washington Street, south of Darby Road. P: oscar/StfRpt\GPConsi sschoodistrict.wpd Prepared and Submitted by: Oscar W. Orci, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Site Location P: oscar/StfRpt\GPConsisschoodistrict.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONFORMITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21151.2, FOR A POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIDDLE SCHOOL, ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION COMPLEX, AND HORIZON SCHOOL. MIDDLE SCHOOL, ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION COMPLEX, AND HORIZON SCHOOL GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FINDING APPLICANT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, said Section 21151.2 also requires the jurisdiction's planning agency's (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether the proposed acquisition of real property for public purposes is consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 25th day of March, 2003, hold a pubic meeting to consider a finding of conformity with the General Plan for said potential Project Site, more particularly described as, EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF DARBY ROAD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did make the following findings of conformity with respect to the proposed project: The proposed acquisition is in conformance with the La Quinta General Plan, as follows: 1. LAND USE ELEMENT: The recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as office (0) as well as High Density Residential (HDR). Both land uses allow school facilities. 2. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT: This Element indicates the need to establish and maintain a transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City, while maintaining and protecting its residential resort character. Washington Street is designated as a Major Arterial/Primary Image Corridor with no designation for Darby Road and Palm Royale Drive. Washington Street functions as a restricted access P:\Oscar\Resolutions\reso school consistency.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Middle School, Alternative Education Complex, and Horizon School General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: March 25, 2003 Page 2 higher -volume thoroughfare, while Palm Royale Drive will function as a collector street from the project site to Washington Street and Fred Waring Drive, further south of the site. This project, if acquired, will comply with the street system, which ensures movement of traffic around the site and consistency with the circulation found in the General Plan. 3. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. 4. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT: This Element indicates the need to distribute recreational facilities in a manner that is convenient to the City neighborhoods and proportionally balanced within population concentrations. In addition, the Element indicates that the City will work with the District to coordinate integrated recreational facilities during non -school periods (i.e. weekends, afternoons, and during the summer). This project will provide recreational opportunities; therefore, it is consistent with this Element. 5. NATURAL RESOURCES: This Element provides several policies and programs designed to protect and preserve the unique and/or valuable resources, including biologic resources. To the extent applicable, this project will be subject to the requirements the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Fee Mitigation Program and other applicable related requirements. 6. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT: Several policies and programs within this Element address the need to provide an adequate number of schools to serve the City's existing and future student population, develop high quality public educational facilities, promote educational opportunities for all residents, and provide educational facilities that are convenient to City residents. If the property is acquired and developed it would be consistent with the Element's policies and programs. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT: This Element indicates that the site is within an area that is susceptible to wind-blown sand, collapsible soils, potential liquefaction hazard, and seismically induced settlement. If the property is acquired, the construction of the school facilities will meet all applicable engineering requirements, and the improvements, including landscaping, will reduce the potential for blowsand in the vicinity of the subject property. 8. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. P:\Oscar\Resolutions\reso school consistency.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Middle School, Alternative Education Complex, and Horizon School General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: March 25, 2003 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby adopt this finding of conformity for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as shown on the Map attached hereto as Attachment 1. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25th day of March, 2003, 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 P:\Oscar\Resolutions\reso school consistency.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 -*-4 middle, Schot mdGH SCHOOL 11 21]r t m LEM N Proposec RUHNAU - RUHAM - CLARKE Ardik" / Planrx-a 24.6 ACRES 6.1 ACRES 3.2 ACRES 33.9 ACRES Me v y CD a n 0 3 3 CD 0 v' CD CD 0 N 0 0 �i CD �CD o m o CL 0 w 0 BI #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 25, 2003 REQUEST: REVIEW ZONING ISSUES PERTAINING TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS. LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: Staff presented a review of side yard setback zoning issues to the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 25th. At that meeting staff was directed to bring back front yard setback issues for discussion at the following meeting and to provide a summary of side yard setback discussion (Attachment 1). Due to the length of the Commission's meeting on March 1 1 th, this item was continued to March 25th. There are no recommendation requested by staff at this time. This information is provided for consideration and discussion purposes only. The Planning Commission can provide staff with direction. If changes are recommended to be made to the Zoning Code those changes would be brought back at a public hearing and would ultimately require City Council approval. The balance of this report will: 1. Outline the issues, 2. Present relevant Code requirements, and 3. Identify discussion points. Issues The Planning Commission has expressed concern regarding the various front yard setback requirements, including the setback requirements for bonus rooms and casitas. P/oscar/StfRpt/front setback issue 1 Code Requirements Table 1, below, provides front yard setback requirements for garages based upon the type of garage door. Table 2 provides front yard setback requirements for carports. Garages or carports that have access from the rear of the lot may have a 5 foot rear yard setback. Tnhlo 1 • rnranc Ccthnrrlr¢ Zoning District Pivot Door Roll -Up Door Side Entry RVL 30' 30' 20' All other residential districts 25' 20' 15' Table 2: Carport Setbacks ZONING DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS RVL 30' ALL OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 20' Discussion Points The following is a list of discussion points for the Commission's consideration: 1. Uniform setback requirements (e.g. uniform distance from back of curb); 2. Front yard setback requirements for bonus rooms and casitas, especially those bonus rooms within a garage building envelope. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the issues listed in the report and provide the appropriate direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Summary of side yard setback discussion. P/oscar/StfRpt/front setback issue Attachment 1 Summary of Side Yard Setbacks Discussion 1. A total ten or 15 feet side yard setback . Accessary structures would be required to comply with the setback requirement. 2. A five foot side yard setback for all structures in the Cove residential area. 3. Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be located adjacent to a block wall located on the side and/or rear yard property line. 4. A minium five foot access way must be permitted within the side yard. 5. A 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback, with a minimum distance of five feet to be provided on at least one side yard. 6. That only one side yard provide access from the front yard to the rear yard, a minimum feet provided. 7. That accessory structures, including garden windows may be permitted within the "dead" side yard. P:/Oscar/StfRpt/side setback summary