The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 05 13 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 MAY 13, 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 2003-027 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-009 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on April 22, 2003. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-768 Applicant ......... Santa Rosa Builders Inc. and Santa Rosa Development, Inc. Location ........... North side of Avenue 58, south of PGA West and approximately 0.3 miles west of Madison Street Request ........... Consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototype residential units that range in size from 2,296 square feet to over 3,700 square feet for a 33-lot single family subdivision (Tract 30487) Action ............. Minute Motion 2003- B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730, TIME EXTENSION #1 Applicant ......... Clubhouse Associates Location ........... A 10.76 acre triangular parcel on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street Request ........... Consideration of a time extension for development plans for a 149 unit apartment complex and ancillary facility. Action ............. Resolution 2003- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751, TARGET ELEVATIONS Applicant ......... Washington 1 1 1, LTD Location .......... Bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams Street Request ........... Review and clarify Condition of Approval No. 40 Action ............. Minute Motion 2003- B. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 83-001 - USE INTERPRETATION Applicant ......... KSL Development Corporation Location .......... 78-501 Calle Ultimo Request ........... Review and clarify the allowed use of the property. Action ............. Minute Motion 2003- C. Item ................. DISCUSSION OF ZONING ISSUES Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Review of proposed changes to drive throughs and summation of proposed changes to the front yard setback regulations Action .............. Provide staff with direction PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 22, 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, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit and Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 8, 2003. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 5, Item #10, be corrected to read "...Lowes is willing to install..."; Page 5, Item #11 corrected to read, "Mr. Randolph stated the rear doors are primarily for delivery and emergency access, but might also become public access doors during busy shopping periods."; Page 5, Item #12 corrected to read: "Mr. Randolph suggested deleting just the last line."; Page 7, Item #5 corrected to read, "There are two parts of the project which will need to have loading areas." , also the last sentence change the last "theirs" to "Building 7"; Page 8, Item #7 corrected to read; "...the rear doors of Building 7 were roll ups."; Item #9 corrected to read "In terms of the landscape setback, he has the same landscape architect as Mr. Paul and Radio Active."; Page 15, Item #25.d. corrected to read, "Mr. Kirk asked if everything that is already built would be exempt." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Continued - Tentative Parcel Map 31 172 and Site Development Permit 2003-761; a request of Klein Building and Development, Inc. for review of development plans for a seven building commercial complex with 63- 550 square feet of floor area and a subdivision of six acres into eight commercial parcels for the property located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, west of Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department and presented a perspective drawing showing one view of the building. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if on the revised landscape plans there is a row of trees on the west property line that screen the rear of Building 7 that are called out as vertical screen trees and they are not on the legend. Staff clarified the tree species was an Acacia which is both a canopy and vertical tree. 3. Chairman Butler asked staff to clarify on the grading plan, on the west side of Parcel 7, where there appears to be a high berm. Staff stated there is a large berm, but no property line wall. The west side of the subject property will be excavated to develop the property. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Neil Kleine, owner and developer of the project, gave a review of the changes they have made to the project. 5. There being no questions of the applicant Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. J. Paul, 79-440 Corporate Center Drive, stated he appreciates the work that has been done to improve the project. He asked about the elevation facing his building, as it appears there are doors that G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 open onto Corporate Center Drive. He is concerned that no parking is allowed on the street, and how will the customers enter/exit those doors. Mr. Kleine stated there are no ingress/egress through these doors. They are conditioned by Fire Department to have fire exits and they need to be shown on the plans. Mr. Paul stated another concern is that there was no architect on the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee when this project was reviewed and there needs to be design guidelines set to protect existing building owners when they are reviewing prospective buildings. 6. Commissioner Tyler reiterated that there are no architectural guidelines. 7. Commissioner Kirk stated this project was designed under a specific plan that should set the architectural guidelines for the entire area. If they wanted to amend it to add additional architectural guidelines, that is possible. 8. Mr. Matthew Johnson, representing Mark Reulman of Radio Active, the adjacent property owner, informed the Commission regarding the reciprocal easements that were being required. He stated they have come to an agreement regarding the easement and they will be granted between the two property owners. Mr. Reulman has agreed to pay for all the paving in the event he goes in first. They have also reviewed the site plan in light of the revisions and they support the project. 9. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-018 approving Site Development Permit 2003- 761, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-019 approving Tentative Parcel Map 31172, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Environmental Assessment 2002-463 Street Vacation RW-C-2003-003, Conditional Use Permit 2002-073 and Site Development Permit 2002- 755; a request of St. Francis of Assisi/Father Jack Barker to Certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; consideration of a street closure of Washington Street frontage road; a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow the expansion of the parking lot, landscaping and lighting, retention areas, and an additional entry on approximately 30 acres. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Martin Magaria presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department, and Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer presented the information regarding the street closure. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked when the two left turn lanes are installed at the intersection will the island be removed. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the small barrier island will be removed and will be converted to a full turn movement. Commissioner Tyler asked when this would be signalized. Staff stated it is to be determined. There are conditions on this development for the Church to pay 25% of the signal costs and the other 75% is currently unfunded. Staff stated the City has to do something to capture the stormwater in the area. The City has been waiting for the property to be developed to joint venture the cost and solution for stormwater retention. Commissioner Tyler inquired about the condition regard the closure of the access road and the rerouting of the new arm. Staff stated that in addition to the Church paying for the new signal, there is also a condition requiring the Church to dedicate part of the road as public right of way. This will allow the Arts Foundation to have direct access to a public road and the City will request the road be kept closed off. This will be a dedicated road. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the northern portion of the closure would accommodate all the nuisance water from the Highland Palms residential area. Staff stated yes, except in the instance of a 100 year storm which will require the City to buy more capacity in the retention basin to the south. Commissioner Kirk asked who would be purchasing the private lot in the Highland Palms neighborhood at the northeast corner, referred to in the staff report. Staff stated it is believed the Church desires to do this. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the signal would be installed before the parking lot is put into use. Staff stated the signal will be installed when warrants are met and should the signal not be working, the intersection will only be a right in and right out. Commissioner Robbins stated he was concerned the Church would have such traffic that if the signal was not operational, there needs to be a condition added requiring a Sheriff to be present to help direct traffic on Sunday mornings. Staff stated a signal would be required at the intersection that before it would be opened to full turn movements. 5. Chairman Butler asked if a signal had not been approved at Lake La Quinta Drive. Staff stated the City only recently approved the signal. Chairman Butler asked if they would be required to pay any portion of the cost for the signal. Staff stated no, as they had already received their entitlement before Council approved cutting the island. Therefore, not all the developers on the east side will participate in the cost of this signal. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Vince Starace and Father Jack Barker, representing the Church, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to the signal they would suggest that if the signal is not installed the frontage road not be closed. What is important is the sequencing of what will happen first to address the traffic problems. In regard to the right of way, he would like the City to understand how much land is being dedicated by the Church for the water retention. They believe this is more than enough to cover their cost of the signal and it is unfair to require them to pay 25% of the signal costs. They have paid the Fringe -Toed Lizard fees on the current temporary parking lot and should only be required to pay the additional fees on the remaining 9.45 acres. In regard to the payment for the proposed work, they have agreed on a partnership with the City. However, G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 the only way the Church can do this is through an escrow account and explained how that would be accomplished. Farther Barker explained that if the City participates in the cost for all the work, they should be able to meet the costs over time. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to describe what an Afghan Pine. Mr. Randy Purnel, landscape architect, explained that the Afghan Pine is a commonly used pine in the desert that does well. 8. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Stephen Hill, 46-965 Highland Palm, stated he was concerned that the Church had not complied with the landscaping plans as they were originally approved by the County, and asked that the Commission require the Church to come into compliance with the originally approved landscaping plan. Staff stated the Code Compliance Division of the Building and Safety Department is still investigating the complaint and will follow up with the affected property owners. 9. Mr. Aldo Corsini, 46-975 Highland Palms, stated he has the same concerns and believes the Commission could place a new condition on the project at this time. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated there is some precedent set such as the problems the City had with the Home Depot building. He sees no difference in this instance. He asked staff if the concerns being raised were valid. City Attorney Kathy Jenson suggested the Commission hear the Church's response. If there is a condition in place, and the Church is not in compliance with any existing conditions, there are mechanisms to seek revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Since the Commission is considering this application, the Commission has the discretion to consider the entire site and add any additional conditions. She would not recommend they try to make a determination of whether or not they are in compliance, but if there is a specific item the Commission would like to address as part of their review, the Commission is entitled to impose it. 11. Commissioner Robbins asked if, as an example, they could require the removal of the existing trees and require the planting of the Oleanders. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 12. Father Barker stated he has never seen any drawings dated 1984, in regard to this issue. When the Church was first built in 1984, they went to great pains to keep the lighting levels extremely low on the parking lot to the north. The shrubbery/trees that were first planted have worked well and have now reached their full height of 50-60 feet. They did prune the trees to the cost of $13,000 and were told at that time that if the tree heights were reduced more than 25% it will kill them. He does believe there are some alternative plantings that could be considered. He is concerned that if a different tree were approved, they would then be faced with other complaints such as the Church bells or noise. 13. Mr. Hill stated the lights in the parking lot are not the issue, but rather the cars pulling in and out of the parking lot cause the problem. He also has a concern for safety as there is an elevation change between the two properties of 4-5 feet. There is no barrier to keep children from falling down the embankment onto his property, or the neighbors. 14. Mr. Tim Bartlett, 73-382 Salt Cedar Road, Palm Desert, stated he owns the commercial property across the street from the Church and directly across from the Omri and Boni's Restaurant and he was concerned with having to share the cost sharing of the signal. While there are no vertical improvements on his property, the site is fully developed and they have paid their share of the costs for the signals at Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. His request is that since he has not gone vertical on his property, he should not have to bear the cost of the signal. The site improvements and street improvements were completed under the original development of this site. 15. Commissioner Robbins asked if staff was considering conditioning this property to pay for the signal. Staff stated it was a consideration, but it would not be 25 %. It would be prorated down to a some extent as they will benefit from the signal. 16. Mr. Aldo, stated another concern is that the trees are so tall that when the wind blows the yards are covered with leaves and the other problem is that the trees hide the sun from neighbor's backyard which keeps the sun from shining into their yards and swimming pools. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 17. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 18. Commissioner Tyler stated he supports the project, but has concerns and compassion for the issues raised by the neighbors. He does not believe their concerns, however, are a problem to be considered at this meeting. 19. Commissioner Kirk commended the landscape architect on his design as it does solve a lot of problems. It does not, however, solve the problems for the neighbors to the north in regard to the nuisance water and transportation issues. He agrees with the sequencing and that the signal be required before the intersection is operational. In regard to the 25% payment for the signal, the applicant will receive benefit from the signal and should therefore share in the cost. 20. Commissioner Robbins stated he agrees with conditioning the project to have the signal installed, or some type of traffic controlling measures, before the intersection is operational. The City buying capacity into the retention basin could be more than the cost of the signal which should be a great help to the Church. He asked if the applicant was paying for all the landscaping, etc, in the street closure area. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer clarified the City will pay for the removal of the existing pavement, the installation of the retention basin, the sand filters, the landscaping that is in the closure area. The Church will pay for the widening of Washington Street that is across the frontage of the property they are now improving. They will pay for the extension of their own driveways and the sidewalk that runs across the frontage of their newly acquired property. The City will pay for the sidewalk that passes in front of their existing property. This is detailed in the Conditions of Approval. 21. Commissioner Tyler asked about the condition that addressed the timing on when the applicant would be required to dedicate additional right of way; what is the timing for this to happen? Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated it is in the process of being addressed. There is an environmental analysis needed to determine the final width of Washington Street that will be brought back to the Commission. The dedication would be done now and the City will accept either six or 12 feet. It depends G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 upon the final design of the median, whether or not it will be six or 12 feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the General Plan calls for Washington Street from Avenue 48 to Highway 111 to be an augmented Primary Arterial which is an eight lane facility versus the current six lanes. The Walgreens project was required to dedicate six additional feet. Whether or not the City will built Washington Street now or in the future was not determined, but required the needed right of way during the approval process. If there is a surplus of land after the completion of the road, it will be deeded back to the appropriate property owners. 22. Chairman Butler stated he agrees with the 25% shared cost on the signal. His other concern is the problem with the neighbors. City Attorney Kathy Jenson stated the Conditions of Approval approved in 1984, required a submission of plans to be approved by the Community Development Department and it shows the plans were approved. Once they have been submitted and approved, there is no further action by the City and it may be a civil issue. Based on what she has heard, she is not convinced it is a violation, but rather a civil action. It still needs to be determined whether or not there is a maintenance problem. Staff stated it is unknown whether the violation exists at this time; there is still an investigation in process. 23. Staff stated the drafting of the agreement will be done after the approvals by the City are completed and staff has no objection to an escrow account being established, but the issue will be determined by the City Council. 24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-020, recommending Certification a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2002-463, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-021, recommending approval of Street Vacation RW-C-2003-003, as recommended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 9 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-022, recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2003-073, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-023, approving Site Development Permit 2002-755, as recommended/amended: a. Amend Condition #36.1: This access driveway cannot be used until the frontage road is closed and the intersection is signalized. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Site Development Permit 2001-71 1, Time Extension #1; a request of the Baden Family Trust for consideration of a time extension for development plans for a supermarket, drug store and bank building in a Neighborhood Commercial Center at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street. 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 why the temporary bank was not included in the time extension. Staff explained there are various components to the Specific Plan and the only portion submitted for the time extension were those listed in the staff report. The bank is part of the specific plan, but not the site development permit. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 10 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Tim Bartlett, representing the owner of the project, presented the reasons for the time extension. 4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk suggested the architectural design be reconsidered when the applicant comes back with their new anchor. Mr. Bartlett asked for clarification. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like the architecture redesigned. Mr. Bartlett stated the architecture was approved under the Specific Plan. If they were to go to a different style they would need additional height. This design will keep that height at 26-28 feet. 5. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Joesph Bruido, 77-510 Calle Nogales, stated he was concerned with all the development at the corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 being commercial. 6. Mr. Larry Allen, 54-407 Shoal Creek, asked if there was to be any reconsideration of the architectural design, the height of the building should be kept at the 26-28 foot height. 7. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-024, approving Site Development Permit 2001- 71 1, Time Extension # 1, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. D. Site Development Permit 2003-763; a request of Paul and Bobbie Jean Kouri for consideration of development plans for construction of a 5,250 square foot commercial restaurant building located on Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 29889 located on the east side of Washington Street, southeast of Avenue 47. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 11 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 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 in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked if this was located between the medical building and restaurant. Staff stated it was east of the temporary bank building. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked what type of service they would be offering. Staff stated the applicant would have to answer that question. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mitchell Gardner, architect representing the owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation on the project. 5. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Tyler asked if they would be full service restaurants. Mr. Gardner stated Louise's Pantry would be full and the Barbeque restaurant would be lunch and dinner only and both would be in the moderate price range. 6. Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment on this project. Mr. Joseph Boudi, stated he was in support of this project. 7. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-025, approving Site Development Permit 2003- 763, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 E. Site Development Permit 2003-765; a request of Madison Development for consideration of development plans for two, two story retail/office/ restaurant buildings totaling 34,400 square feet and a two story parking structure at the northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, 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 where the lower level access was taken from. Staff indicated the location on the site plan. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the owner and developer of the project, gave a presentation on the project. 4. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Robbins stated this is a new standard in the City, both in terms of the rear elevation and parking structure. His issue has always been the rear elevations for projects that back up to the Channel where in some instances they are ugly. This is an excellent job and a standard for any future projects in the City. 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. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-026, approving Site Development Permit 2003- 765, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2003 Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler gave a report on the City Council meeting of April 15, 2003. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 13, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. on April 22, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\4-22-03.wpd 14 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 13, 2003 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-768 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: SANTA ROSA BUILDERS INCORPORATED AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2,296 SQUARE FEET TO OVER 3,700 SQUARE FEET FOR A 33-LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION (TRACT 30487). EACH HOUSE PLAN HAS A TWO STORY AND/OR GUESTHOUSE OPTION. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENUE 58, SOUTH OF PGA WEST AND APPROXIMATELY 0.3 MILES WEST OF MADISON STREET ARCHITECT: SANTAMARIA AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: CASA VERDE LANDSCAPE CIVIL ENGINEER: JOHN HACKER AND ASSOCIATES GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2002-442) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 6, 2002, FOR THIS PROJECT BY ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2002-128 LEGAL: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 762-240-013 G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 1 of 7 SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: HERMITAGE STREET IN PGA WEST WITH SINGLE STORY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES BEYOND SOUTH: ACROSS AVENUE 58, VACANT RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS EAST: VACANT RESIDENTIAL PARCEL AND LIONS GATE DEVELOPMENT (19+ ACRES) BEYOND WEST: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON A 9.78 ACRE PARCEL BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map 30487 was approved by the City Council on August 6, 2002, by adoption of Resolution 2002-129, establishing a 33-lot single family subdivision on 9.78 acres (Attachment 1). Each single family lot measures approximately 70 feet wide by 140 feet long (9,800 square feet) and larger, and fronts onto a private cul-de- sac street. Final map and grading permit processing is ongoing with the City's Public Works Department. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Avenue 58 parkways and on - site retention basin plans during consideration of the subdivision map requiring that parkway shade trees to be ... delivered to the site in 24" wide or larger boxes with minimum 1.25-inch calipers" per Condition #71 of City Council Resolution 2002-129. Existing tract conditions that apply to this request are: Condition #70 - Prior to building permit issuance, a front yard landscape plan shall be prepared for each homesite to include a minimum of two shade trees (15 gallon with 0.75 caliper), five ten-gallon shrubs, and groundcover. No more than 50% of the front yard area shall be devoted to lawn. Condition #94 - Design guidelines for the housing product shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission per Section 9.60.330 (Tract Development) or Section 9.60.340 (Custom Homes) of the Zoning Code. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The developer is requesting approval to build three prototypical single family houses in the Santa Rosa Trails development that range in size from 2,296 square feet to 3,308 square feet using one and two story design configurations. To supplement the primary dwellings, detached casitas units are also being offered in sizes up to 406 square feet (Attachment 2). G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 2 of 7 Houses are one-story unless the loft, two-story option is chosen. A Mission Revival architectural theme is being used consisting of exterior stucco walls, mudded red clay roofs (barrel S-tile), exposed rough sawn roof beams, arched multi -paned windows, accented building entrances, and other decorative fenestration (e.g., carriage lantern light fixtures, cultured stone veneer, ornamental wrought iron, sectional wood garage doors, clay pipe attic vents, wood window shutters, French doors, corbeled rough sawn wood outriggers, parapet roof elements, exposed wood lintels, multiple lite dual glaze windows, cantera stone column option, projecting roof eaves, etc.). Plan types are as follows: El Serrano El Viejo EI Rancho Square Feet 2,296 2,502 2,898 2,703 w/loft 2,786 w/loft 3,308 w/loft 290 casitas option 406 casitas option 401 casitas option 2,993 (max.) 3,192 (max.) 3,709 (max.) No. of Bedrooms 3 or 4 3 or 4 3 or 4 Garage Parking 3 (front -loaded) 3 (side -loaded) 3 (front- and side - loaded Development Topics Project Attributes RL Code Provisions Building Height Up to 26' + (varies) Up to 28' tall (two story) Roof Pitches 3:12 - House & Garage Unspecified; As determined 5:12 - Patio covers by the Planning Commission Roof Material Barrel clay the Unspecified; As determined by the Planning Commission Exterior Wall Finish Cement Plaster w/ Mission Unspecified; As determined Finish by the Planning Commission Garage Parking 3 Enclosed spaces" * 2 Enclosed spaces"" Building Sq. Ft. 2,296+ sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. (Min.) Multiple Facades* Loft and Guesthouse 2 Facades per unit type options * * * Per Zoning Code Section 9.60.330 * * Some lots may have two enclosed parking spaces due to lot size constraints. * * * Architectural compatibility is required for guesthouse additions per Section 9.60.100 of the Zoning Code. * * * * One additional parking space is required for a detached guesthouse option. G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 3 of 7 Roof designs are a variation of hip and gables (3:12 pitches) and each plan has a prominent, vaulted ceiling foyer. Tile roof patio covers use a lower roof pitch of 5:12 to augment the overall design theme. Building color schemes are variations of white and brown. A conceptual front yard landscaping plan is provided showing 15-gallon trees and various shrubs oriented around irregularly -shaped turf areas. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee On May 7, 2003, the house plans and front yard landscaping plans were recommended for approval by the City's Architecture and Landscape Review Committee by adoption of Minute Motion 2003-19 (Attachment 2). STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Mandatory findings as required by Chapter 9.210 of the Zoning Code can be made as follows: A. The City's General Plan Land Use Element identified this area for low density residential uses provided a density of up to four dwellings per acre is not exceeded. Per Tract Map 30487, the project density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre which is less that the maximum allowed. B. Tract 30487 is within an RL Zone District which allows various forms of residential development, including the applicant's detach housing product and two-story design elements and the Code will not allow multilevel houses abutting the existing one story home at 80-600 Avenue 58 pursuant to Section 9.60.310 of the Zoning Code. Condition #7 addresses this Code requirement. Since Avenue 58 is not an Image Corridor, two story houses may be located within 150 feet of the public street. C. The proposed dwelling units, and their accessory guesthouses, are architecturally compatible with abutting subdivisions (e.g., PGA West and Puerta Azul) in that the houses utilize similar architectural features such as barrel roof tiles, exterior plaster, multi -paned and arched windows, decorative and projecting eaves, and other ornate features. The developer's early California architectural motif complements the historic elements of the City and typifies construction features used in building the La Quinta Hotel on Eisenhower Drive. D. The Zoning Code (Section 9.60.330) requires a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 4 of 7 elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that roof heights vary, architectural features change, garages openings vary from front -loaded to side -loaded, and loft and guesthouse options are provided. E. House sizes exceed the City's RL Zone District requirement of 1,400 square feet and have garage parking areas. RL Zone District provisions shall be met during plan check, including a minimum rear yard building setback of not less than 20 feet for habitable areas (Condition #9). As side -loaded garages may be placed within 15 feet of the front yard property line, building setbacks in the Tract can vary from 15 feet to over 20 feet assuring a distinct streetscape design theme. F. The developer is aware of the City's requirement to provide front yard landscaping for each new housing unit pursuant to Tract Condition #70. Since approval, the Planning Commission has requested that new projects upgrade the size of trees being used so that tree trunks (calipers) measure no less than 1.5 inches when installed. Condition #2A addresses this new requirement. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of Minute Motion 2003-_, approve Site Development Permit 2003-768, subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape professional and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval in compliance with Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal of the final plans to the Community Development Department. A. Front yard landscaping for each dwelling 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. G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 5 of 7 Future home buyers shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front yard through the use of desertscape materials. B. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of street curbs. C. The developer shall resubmit retention basin landscaping plans to the Community Development Department before working drawings are prepared, ensuring design attributes are simplified. 3. A centralized mailbox delivery system shall be used for the project pursuant to any requirements of the U.S. Postal Service. 4. Building permits shall be issued within one year, unless an extension is applied for and granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. Minor amendments to the development plans (e.g., architectural details, house plotting, etc.) shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. 5. Permits for temporary development facilities and/or signs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. 6. Building sites with detached guesthouses shall file a Minor Use Permit with the Community Development Department pursuant to the requirements of Section 9.60.100 of the Zoning Code. A use covenant shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder before a building permit can be issued for an accessory unit. 7. A two-story house may not be built next to the existing single family house to the west of the site pursuant to the requirements of Section 9.60.310 of the Zoning Code. 8. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract Map 30487, unless modified by this action. 9. RL Zone District provisions shall be met during plan check, including a minimum rear yard setback of not less than 20 feet for habitable areas. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, parkland dedication fees shall be paid unless these fees are taken care of during recordation of the subdivision map. 11. Model home sales complexes shall comply with the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Ordinance during on -site sales activities. A cash bond shall be posted to convert a garage parking area to a sales office. G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 6 of 7 Prepared by: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Attachments: 1 . Tract Map Exhibit 2. May 7, 2003 Draft ALRC Minutes (Excerpt) 3. Architecture and Landscaping Exhibits (Planning Commission only) G:Tr30487 folder/SRPCSDP768Businessltem.wpd; Final Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENTS V V 4-t V s PAD ELEV 64.6 PAD ELEV 64.6 1 ISTRUCT TURF BLOCK PAD ELEV 6J 6 7-4Z 4L 07J Cl7dn/Alr / INF INDEX MAP UTILITIES GAS - SOUTHERN CALIF01MA GAS CO. (760)-T23-1851 J STRIPPINQ ._.;ENDS AND PAVEMENT MARKERS, TYPE 6. THE CONTRA -'OR SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING SUR1 DURING CC'YS'RJCTION. REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT BELOW 33,5EE. OR A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR ONL' 7. GRADING SHA-_ BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST ED'_ AND SOILS REPORT NO. _ 08394 PREPARED Eorth Systems Southwest WC 9. ATTACHMENT 1 DRAINAGE C <UL Z11— 10. CONSTRUCTC% OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE & t( PERFORMEC %LY DURING THE TIME PERIODS AS FOL OCTOBER 1st TO APRIL 30th: MONDAY - FRIDAY 7:C MAY 1st TO SEPTEMBER 30th: MONDAY - FRIDAY 6: WORK SHAD BE PROHIBITED ANY TIME ON SUNDAY C 11. AFTER CLEAR'YG, EXISTING GROUND SHALL BE SCARIF BY THE S0,_S REPORT. 12. MAXIMUM C.- AND FILL SLOPES - 2:1 13. PADS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90% SOILS REPOR'. 14. MINIMUM BU'iLJ NG PAD DRAINAGE SHALL BE 2%. DR A MINIMUM GF 2' FROM THE TOP OF CUT OR FILL SL 15. ALL FILLS Sr ALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF I BUILDING CCCE SEC. 7010 OR EQUIVALENT AS APPRC ACCORDANCE 'KITH THE UNIFORM BUULDING CODE, SE( 16. ALL STREE' SECTIONS ARE TENTATIVE, THE MINIMUM BE REQUIRE AFTER ROUGH GRADING TO DETERMINE 17. LOCATION OF FELD DENSITY TEST SHALL BE DETERM BE SUFFICiE\T IN BOTH HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL I IN AREAS OF A CRITICAL NATURE OF SPECIAL EMPH; 18. ALL UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITH LATERALS, SHALL LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: SEWER, WATER, ELECTRII 19. THE FINAL �--STY LINE BACKFILL REPORT FROM THE THE BACKF_- S SUITABLE FOR THE INTENDED USE. 20. THE FINAL CCVPACTION REPORT AND APPROVAL FRC PERFORMEC EACH TEST SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH DRIVE RING AND SHALL BE SO NOTED FOR EACH TE`. VERIFY T,E ACCURACY OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY CL 21. ALL TRAVE_ WAYS MUST BE CLEANED DAILY OF AI OPERATION CLEANING IS TO BE DONE TO THE SATI 22. BLOCK WA-S ARE NOT PART OF THE GRADING PERT 23. ALL CONS`i_CTION AREAS SHALL BE PROPERLY PO`. SIGNS, L,C--S AND DEVICES FOR USE IN THE PERFO 24. THE SOILS ENGINEER AND ENGINEER NG GEOLOGISTS COMPLIANCE KITH THE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND 25. THE DESIGN CVIL ENGINEER SHALL-XERCISE SUFFIC WITH THE PANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND CODE WITHIN 25. THE CITY E^.SNEER WILL REVIEW FOR APPROVAL THE ROADWAY 5-3-BASE. 27. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PREVENT SILT CONSTRUCTION OF SUBSEQUENT IMPROVEMENTS BY DRAINAGE RETENTION/INFILTRATION FACILITIES. THE PERFORMANCE TEST DESIGNED TO CLEARLY DEMONS 28. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WIND EROSION AN PLAN APPROVED FOR THIS PROJECT. LEGEND: =� FIN&- =_OOR ELEVAT'CN EXS \ - FINISH CRC\C PRCr•C' � S FINIS, S_ WACE EXIS- N GB GRADE t-EAK FINISH; GF GARACc ` CSR DRAINA �P HIGH Pl- \' PROPEf PAD FINISH 'AE-EVAT,ON CENTEF °A PLAN'ERAREA RIGHT- ?JE PUBLIC _-_TY EASEMENT EXIST. TC TOP O C..RB EXIST. - FLOWL'._ EXIST. NV INVER- RETAIN "G TOP C= CKA-E SCREEt 'W TOP C7 .A__ ROOF I 'F TOP Cw CC' NG CONCR 'OS TOP 0; S_C'E BOS BOTTOV O= S_OPE WS WATER S..RFACE //� . INao CITY of CC LA QUINTA w�c� elro. PROJECT SBN Ad VKNI M MAP Haws m:wc, w.0 wo. GPoD rk TCDO C✓'10.Y - - VICINFTY MAP ESTIMATED QUAN accepted ELECTRIC - 1UPER/AL IRRIGATION (760) 398-5851 some sole T V - TIUE / WARNER (760) J40- IJ12 ,nstruction :quirement TELEPHONE - VER/ZON (760) J2J-12JI ina hours, ROUGH ILL - 8,348 C.Y CUT - 6,435 C.Y. SJBSIDENCE (0.2') - 3,'3.7 C OUD-V. r ronwl Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 May 7, 2003 3. Mr. Scole explained there will be a two piece barrel made of concrete that has a boosted look to create a more reach look. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated he defers to the architect and developer for projects that are behind gates. The will suffer for the lack of detail. If the buyers aren'tFthnre, they will change the style. The market will make tdetermination. A consideration may be to lower the pitchllow less roof to be seen. Staff stated the buildings are at 22 feet. 5. Committee Member Thorns agreed, but when something is shown at this meeting, to him that is the a #mple of what is proposed to be used. Applicants should be Priven. wing what will be used. He understands they are market If the attitude of the Committee is to allow the developer to make that determination he does not see why the prof cts should be brought before the Committee. 6. Committee Member Bob itt stated he likes the units and the comments on the roof ar well stated. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2003-018, denying a Development Permit 2003-764, with the following recomme ations: a. The roof treatment as verbally presented by the architect shall be used. Unanimously approved. ® D. Site Development Permit 2003-768; a request of Santa Rosa Builders for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Tract 30487 located on the north side of Avenue 58, south of PGA West and west of Madison Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell gave an overview of the project and introduced Dave Brudvik, representing the project, who gave a presentation on the project. 2. Committee Member Thorns stated this is an exciting plan even though it is long project. He asked who designed the retention basin planting schemes in the front of the project. Mr. Brudvik G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\5-7-03.wpd 6 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes May 7, 2003 stated they were his landscape architects (Casa Verde Landscape) who were unable to attend the meeting. Committee Member Thorns stated the planting designs are not very good. It appears to be complicated and probably not what they want at the front of the project. The street exposure is like the front yard of a house. This needs to go back to the landscape architect as it is too complicated for this project. Staff gave a history of the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the French doors were to be made of wood. Mr. Brudvik stated it is not wood, but composite wood material. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 2003-019, approving Site Development Permit 2003-768, as amended: a. The five retention basins shall be redesigned by the landscape architect and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. Unanimously approved. E. "\Siti a Development Permit 23-769 ; a request of Jim Hayhoe for Mike for review of architectural and landscaping plans for Tentative Tract 312 located at the northeast corner of Caleo Bay and Via Florence within I ke La Quinta. 1. Committee Member David Thorns excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest due to the proximity of his residence to this project and left the room. 2. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell gave an overview of the project and introduced Ray Martin, who gave a presentation on the Caleo Bay parkway landscaping. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the visual relief for Lake La Quinta to take the residential out to Caleo Bay to make them mini -estate houses. GAWPDOCS\ARLC\5-7-03.wpd 7 PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 13, 2003 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 149 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-443 FOR ZONE CHANGE 2002-106, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730. 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 21 166 A 10.76 ACRE TRIANGULAR PARCEL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 52, EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. CHUCK CROOKALL, MANAGING MEMBER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR) NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/VACANT SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/CANAL AND PLANNED CASITAS EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)/CANAL AND PLANNED CASITAS WEST: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/TEMPORARY BANK AND FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER A:\Time Extension\PC Staff rpt. 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW• This Site Development Permit was recommended for approval by the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee on March 13, 2002, and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on March 26, 2002 and approved by the City Council on April 16, 2002. The currently vacant triangular 10.76 acres project site is located on the south side of Avenue 52, approximately 600 feet east of Jefferson Street; with the All American Canal on the eastern property line (Attachment 1). •. M. ffema 104 Site Development Permit Time Extension The proposed plans and elevations are the same plans, as conditioned, that were approved by the City Council (Attachment 2). The applicant proposes eighteen apartment buildings with eight different floor plans having similar elevations including a one story 6,000 square foot Clubhouse/Administration building, pool, putting green, barbeque areas and a great lawn. Apartment buildings are one, two, and three stories with four buildings at the maximum 40 foot height. Units proposed are one and two bedrooms (some with dens). Floor plans are one and two bedrooms (some with dens) ranging in size from 752 square feet to 1,308 square feet. Four apartment buildings are one story at approximately 24 feet in height, 10 buildings are two story at approximately 33 feet in height, and three stories with a maximum 40 foot height and all with a 5:12 roof pitch. All buildings are proposed to have a similar contemporary design, each proposed building will be covered with flat concrete tile and walls will have a stucco finish. The proposed roof style is a gable style with pyramid and dome style roofed stairwells with flat concrete tile and ceramic the respectively. Also proposed is a twenty-two foot high 6,000 square foot "L" shaped Clubhouse with a similar design using the same materials as the proposed units. The landscaping plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the entries, the setbacks, the on -site planting areas, and the building perimeter planters. For the required landscape setback on Avenue 52 the applicant proposes 26 "Desert Museum" Palo Verde trees. California Fan Palms and Mexican Fan Palms accent the two gated project entries and entry wall on Avenue A:\Time Extension\PC Staff rpt. 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd 52; Queen Palms surround and define the pool area. Date Palms are scattered throughout the courtyards and walkways. A variety of additional trees for shade and accent are proposed (all with 1.25 to 1.5 calipers) throughout the site. They include: Hong Kong Orchid Tree, Flame Tree, Palo Brea, Chinese Pistachio, Chilean Mesquite, Pomegranate, and Texas Mountain Laurel. Colored pavers are proposed to delineate courtyards, pathways, patios, and pool decking. A water efficiency calculation has been completed and the project is in compliance with the Water Efficient Landscaping requirements (Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code). The project was sent out for comment to City departments and affected public agencies on March 28, 2003, requesting comments be returned by April 18, 2003. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on May 1, 2003. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code. The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit Time Extension can be made, as noted in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION• Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development Permit 2002-730 Time Extension No. 1 subject to the findings and Conditions of Approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Plans and Elevations (Large copy Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Q-- �-- — Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner AATime ExtensionlPC Staff rpt. 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 149 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 APPLICANT: CLUBHOUSE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of May, 2003, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Clubhouse Associates, L. L.C., to extend the a Site Development Permit, located on the south side of Avenue 52, east of Jefferson Street and more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 772-300-002 & 772-300-003 and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval, in accordance with Zoning Code Section 9.210.010, to justify said Site Development Permit 2002- 730, Time Extension No. 1 : A. The project is consistent with Goal 2 of the residential goals, policies, and programs and intent of the La Quinta General Plan which states: "A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City" in that the proposed housing is not extensively available in the City. B. The project is consistent with the allowed density of up to 16 units per acre and stated purpose to allow multi -family housing (Table 2.1) for the High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation in that the proposed density for the project is 14.9 units per acre and the project provides multi -unit residential buildings. C. The design and development of the apartment complex will be consistent with the City's Zoning Code provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment 2002-443. D. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development quality in the area and accommodates site generated traffic. A:\Time Extension\PC RESO SDP 2002-730, Ex No. 1 .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-730, Time Extension No. 1 Clubhouse Associated L.L.C. Adopted May 13, 2003 E. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and mounding, and uses a high quality of plant materials. F. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that IT is a similar scale, massing and building height of other development in the area. The building materials will be high quality, durable and low maintenance, provided conditions are met. G. The architectural design of the project is consistent with the Zoning Code in that the land use and circulation considerations, scale, massing and building height of the facility are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2002-730, Time Extension No. 1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 13th day of May, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A:\Time Extension\PC RESO SDP 2002-730, Ex No. 1 .wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2003- Site Development Permit 2002-730, Time Extension No. 1 Clubhouse Associated L.L.C. Adopted May 13, 2003 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\Time Extension\PC RESO SDP 2002-730, Ex No. 1 .wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-730, TIME EXTENSION NO. 1 CLUBHOUSE APARTMENTS, L.L.C. ADOPTED MAY 13, 2003 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the improvement plans for City approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08- DWQ . A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). AATime Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC: 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this project. F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been accepted by the City. 4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 7. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: AATime Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) 110 foot ultimate developed right of way, 55 feet on the south side. 8. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of- ways as follows: A. Avenue 52 (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the Right of Way/Property Line. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit. 12. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access points shown on the Site Development Permit. 13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur. 14. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, any existing right-of-way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 15. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit AATime Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd and the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. Off -Site Street Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. B. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' C. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' D. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal E. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal F. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal G. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal The plans shall be submitted a minimum of 8 to 10 weeks prior to the issuance of construction permits to allow adequate time for plan check and revisions. Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor AATime Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets. "Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage systems. "Rough Grading" plans shall include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 18. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City. 19. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete, approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a basic AutoCAD program. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to reflect the as -built conditions. Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept raster -image files of the plans. 20. Prior to the conditional approval of this Site Development Permit, or the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Off -Site Improvement Agreement ("OSIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 21. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments. 22. When improvements are to be secured through an OSIA, and prior to any permits being issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed off -site improvements for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the security determination of the OSIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8- 1 /2" x 11 " reduction of the Site Development Plan, along with one copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates for its own on and off -site improvements. Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements will not be required. 23. When improvements are phased through an administrative approval (e.g., Phasing Plan, Site Development Permits, etc.), all off -site improvements and common on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through an OSIA, prior to the occupancy of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be completed, or secured through an OSIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The same submittal criteria shall apply to all subsequent phases as required for the first phase submittal. (E.g. detailed cost estimates, 8-1 /2" x 11 " reductions, etc.) 24. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 26. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 27. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit. 28. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 29. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the pads within this development. The existing approved SDP 2001- 71 1 is located immediately west of the subject property and has proposed grades at the southerly end approximately 6 feet lower than the proposed parking grade for the subject project. The applicant shall provide a workable design which either minimizes the grade difference between the two projects or design and construct a retaining wall/garden wall system in accordance with the City's standards to accommodate the grade differential. Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 30. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any building pads within the project site by more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 32. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 33. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. 34. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leach field approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be designed to contain surges of up to 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. of landscape area, and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 35. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 36. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 37. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 38. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 39. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 40. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd 41. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 43. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 44. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 45. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 47. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 48. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) 110 foot Right of Way Option Widen the south side of Avenue 52 along the project frontage. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd a rural county road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components such as, but not limited to, curb, gutters, cross gutters and spandrels, traffic control striping, legends, marking and signs. Other significant new improvements required for installation in, or adjacent to the subject right of way include: a) 6 foot wide meandering sidewalk b) 18 foot wide landscaped median from the westerly property line to the easterly project limits. Necessary transitions and tapers into the existing bridge at the All American Canal will need to be designed and is subject to approval by the City Engineer. The pavement rehabilitation/reconstruction and landscape median improvements are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial Major Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 4.0"/5.00" 4.0"/6.00" 4.5"/6.00" 5.5 "/6.50" or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 49. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings, and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 52. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 53. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking). Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Avenue 52) at the Westerly Property Line. This driveway shall be a shared access drive/road with the adjacent landowner (See SDP 2001-71 1) and shall be centered on the westerly property line. This driveway shall have right in, right out and left in turning movements. The median improvements shall accommodate a left in, only, design. The shared access drive/road layout shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The security gate for this project shall be located away from the property line a sufficient distance with the following access road design features: adequate stacking, a rejection turnaround feature, and a separate lane for guests. Nothing in this condition requires the adjacent landowner to pay for sufficient improvements to implement the shared access requirements in a manner that serves the development proposed by SDP 2002-730. However, reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. B. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52) approximately 740 feet east of the westerly property line. This driveway shall have right in, right out and left in turning movements. The median improvements shall be designed for left in only turning movements. The location of this proposed driveway shall take into account the proposed entry for the Mountain View Country Club on the north side of Avenue 52. The Mountain View Country Club entrance will also have a left in only turn lane design. The driveway for SDP 2002-730 may need to shift easterly to provide adequate separation from the Mountain View Country Club Entrance to accommodate the proposed left in only turn lane designs for both projects. The location of the driveway and median design is subject to City Engineer's approval. C. Secondary Entry (Avenue 52) approximately 240 feet east of the westerly property line. This driveway shall be a right in/right out driveway. 55. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 30-foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot, or alternatively provide a combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will equal a total of 30-feet. AATime Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd CONSTRUCTION 56. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include the most recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that the design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs have been approved. 57. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 58. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall identify an average three foot mounding within the Avenue 52 landscape setback to screen the parking lot. 59. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall not use Queen Palms on -site in an organized pattern as this tree will not provide the intended effect. 60. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which shall eliminate the use of Date Palms trees along pedestrian corridors and courtyards and substitute it with another palm tree type such as a California Fan Palm or a Mexican Fan Palm. 61. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval which provides vines on all perimeter walls/fences; and eliminates plant material from the perimeter landscape setback adjacent to parking. 62. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 63. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd 64. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 65. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 66. Only incidental storm water will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. QUALITY ASSURANCE 67. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 68. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such or other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 69. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. 70. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As - Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. MAINTENANCE 71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. A:\Time Extension\PC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd 72. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 73. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. FIRE MARSHALL 74. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT 75. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff Department should be directed to the Senior Deputy at (760) 863-8950. MISCELLANEOUS 76. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall provide a minimum of six spaces in close proximity to the Clubhouse facility to be signed and striped for apartment managers and prospective renters only. 77. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall redesign the Monument Signs, consistent with Section 9.160.040 of the Zoning Code, to be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 78. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall provide a 6 foot high block wall design consistent with Section 9.60.030 and Section 9.150.080 (Parking Facility Design Standards) to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 79. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, applicant shall submit a revised Illumination study to the Community Development Department for review and approval which provides driveways with illumination to allow overall site illumination to achieve an average of two footcandle or less. 80. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, applicant shall record a Parcel Merger for A. P. N.'s 772-300-002 & 772-300-003. A:1Time ExtensionlPC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd 81. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened by roof parapets so that they cannot be viewed from adjacent properties. Prior to occupancy of the proposed building complexes, a visual inspection shall be made by the Community Development Department to confirm that parapets conceal any roof -mounted equipment. A:1Time ExtensionlPC COA SDP 2002-730 Time Ex No. 1.wpd ATTACHMENT I Avenue 52 1u - z PROJECT LOCATION MAP BI #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 10, 2003 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751, TARGET ELEVATIONS LOCATION: BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON STREET AND ADAMS STREET APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD REQUEST: REVIEW AND CLARIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 40 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) Site Location/Project Description: The currently vacant site for the proposed Target building is generally bounded by Highway 1 1 1, Washington Street, Adams Street, and Avenue 47 and consists of 50.62 acres (Attachment 1). The Washington Square Specific Plan and Site Development Permit for Target was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on November 26, 2002 and approved by the City Council on December 17, 2002 (Attachment 2). The Target approval is for a 126,000 square foot retail facility with a 10,000 square foot outdoor garden center. The elevation originally submitted for consideration is attached for comparison (Attachment 3). Request by Applicant: The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission clarify Condition of Approval No. 40 requiring Target to have an average vertical height of 35-40 feet as it relates to the proposed elevation submitted to staff (Attachment 4). The Site Development Permit Condition of Approval No. 40 reads: k Target. Review Condition No. 40.wpd "The Target Building shall have a vertical average height of 35 feet up to 40 feet; and work with staff to design variations in color or materials on the mid -section of the front of the building." The proposed north elevation is 36 feet high at the entrance with two architectural pop -outs at 32 feet providing a balanced design and discernable relief at the mid- section of the building. By way of comparison, Lowe's Home Improvement north elevation heights range from 32 feet to 41 feet at the entrance. Lowe's finished floor elevation is at 74.2 feet. Target's proposed finished floor is at 73 feet. The length of both Lowe's and the proposed Target north elevations are approximately 490 feet. The north elevation of both Lowe's and the proposed Target building are approximately 400 feet south of Highway 111. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: The proposed Target elevation has been raised from the original submittal and is in scale with the adjacent "big box" development, Lowe's. The proposed elevation does not achieve the 35 foot average minimum required by Condition No. 40. The architectural team for Target believe raising the elevation to satisfy the condition will make the building appear out of proportion and artificial. Staff has a similar concern, but has not reviewed an elevation that achieves the 35-40 foot average height to be able to make a more definitive determination. A change to the height requirement of Condition No. 40 will require a formal application to amend the Site Development Permit which requires a Public Hearing. The proposed Target elevation is consistent with the architectural objectives of the Specific Plan in that the proposed elevation is a high quality development and is compatible with surrounding development. 1. Review the proposed elevation and provide staff with direction. Prepared by: Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Attachments: 1 . Project Location Map 2. Minutes for the November 26, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting and City Council meeting of December 17, 2002 3. Elevations for Target originally submitted 4. Letter from Washington 1 1 1, LTD 5. Proposed Elevations for Target (Large copy Planning Commission only) kJarget. Review Condition No. 40.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 26, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Butler who lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, City Engineer Tim Jonasson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Engineer Elsa Paisley, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of November 12, 2002. Commissioner Kirk noted that on Page 2, Item 5 under Roll Cal9, Commissioner Tyler's vote should show that he was in favor of the project. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Environmental Assessment ••_ ' •- .n 87-011 Amendment #4. Conditional Use Pernit 2QO2-072. Tentative Parcel Map 30903, and Site Development Permit ••2-751; a request of Dale Frank and G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 Associates/Washington 1 1 1, LTD, for: 1) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2) consideration of design guidelines and development standards for a 488,050 square foot commercial center; 3) consideration of a conditional use permit to allow a health club over 50.62 square feet; 4) consideration of a tentative parcel map to allow the subdivision of 50.71 acres into six parcels; and 5) Consideration of a site development permit to allow construction of five commercial buildings for the property bounded by Highway 1 1 1 on the north, Avenue 47 on the south, Washington Street on the West and Adams Street on the east. 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 if La Quinta Center Drive is a public or private street. Staff stated it is private and pointed out all the access points. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the traffic assessment portion of the Environmental Checklist. Environmental Consultant Nicole Criste stated the traffic assessment looked at overall trips and pass by trips are those trips that would be on Washington Street regardless, and would stop in at the center. Commissioner Kirk asked if a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan would be required. Staff stated it would be required. This is the first project that has been conditioned to provide a TDM. Commissioner Kirk asked what the use was for the drive through on Shop 3. Staff stated at the present there is no specified use, but they are talking to Starbucks. The drive through would be approved as part of the Specific Plan. 4. Commissioner Robbins asked if the Champion Chevrolet building and the building at the corner, comply with the height requirements. Staff stated La Quinta Court does have buildings that were approved in excess of the 22-foot height limitation. Commissioner Robbins asked if a Big 5 Sporting Goods store had not already been approved for the center across the street. Staff stated they have decided to be in this project. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 2 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 5. Commissioner Tyler asked about Condition 7 of the Specific Plan where the applicant is being asked to comply with a future General Plan Amendment. He asked how the City can require the applicant to meet a condition that is not in place at the time of approval. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the current General Plan identifies Washington Street as an eight lane roadway and there is a potential to reduce that within a General Plan Amendment. The applicant will be required to comply with whichever General Plan requirement is in place at the time the project is built. Commissioner Tyler asked the City Attorney if this was possible. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he was uncertain and would respond after reviewing the appropriate document. Commissioner Tyler asked why the applicant was being required to pay 50% of the signal at Adams Street and Avenue 47 when it only has one third of the corner or 25%. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated 50% has already been paid for by the Auto Mall and there is no other developer who can be charged, so the applicant has the burden of the remainder of the cost. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dale Frank, applicant, gave a presentation on the project. In regard to the General Plan Amendment he would dedicate six feet on Washington Street so, if the City goes to four lanes, the land is available with no utilities in the street. 7. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Abels asked about the proposed market that would be in competition with the existing market. Mr. Frank stated Jensons is a specialty market and the proposed Henry's is a national company that is similar to a Trader Joes which is a different product type. 8. Commissioner Robbins asked about the ancillary doors on the front of the Target building. Mr. Frank stated the site plan is from the Target corporation. Mr. Saeid Shantiyai, representing Target, stated they are offices that need outdoor access. He went on to explain the building design. 9. Commissioner Kirk stated the Target elevation seems to suffer architecturally in comparison to the other parts of the center. By itself it is a good design, but in comparison to the other buildings G:\wPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 it falls short. Buildings 3 and 4 are very well done. The Target needs some work between the entrance and the garden center. The height of Target building is 35 feet and you are asking for additional height on the other buildings. Mr. Frank stated functionally they may need to raise the height. Commissioner Kirk stated that giving more height may be a trade off for additional facade. He would like to see ways to improve the facade design on the Target building. Mr. Frank stated that the parking is sunken which may raise the building. Commissioner Kirk asked about the accesses on Avenue 47. Mr. Frank stated it was an error on the plans and his architects will have to reconfigure the accesses. Commissioner Kirk asked about the impact on the residents on the south side of Avenue 47 in regard to circulation. Mr. Frank stated they have considered the residents and believe they have taken everything into consideration. Commissioner Kirk asked why the landscaping was being phased. Mr. Shantiyai stated the landscaping is colored only for affect, it is not a phasing plan. Mr. Frank stated that as each building is built, the landscaping will be complete for that entire portion of that site. 10. Commissioner Tyler noted that the landscaping looks great on paper, but does not always translate into reality. He asked the location of the loading dock. Mr. Frank noted the location on the site plan. Mr. Shantiyai stated the plan is based on Target's prototype. Commissioner Tyler asked about color variations on the buildings. Mr. Shantiyai stated the color palette shows the colors intended to be used. 11. Commissioner Abels stated he thought there should be a vestibule on the front of the larger stores. Mr. Shantiyai stated they do intend to use one. 12. Chairman Butler stated he is not in favor of a drive through in association with a fast food. He noted the landscaping and extensive trees, but in reality they do not reach any real growth. Mr. Frank stated they are looking for larger trees to initially plant. 13. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Adam Zack, Vice President of Jensons Food, stated they do not oppose the project, but have an objection to Henry's. It is similar to their G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 store. They are trying to build their store and there lease does have exclusive uses. Besides bring competition to an existing tenant, they believe it may violate their lease. 14. There being no further public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 15. Commissioner Abels stated he thinks it is a great project and he supports it. 16. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees and asked if the health club was an uncertainty. If the health club was not a known entity, why process the conditional use permit. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it gives the applicant the opportunity to secure a health club owner. 17. Commissioner Kirk stated this is an outstanding project and he likes the landscaping. Circulation issues are minor and could be worked out with staff. His greatest concern is the Target building. He thinks it would be appropriate for the building to be taller than proposed and would suggest conditioning the building to be larger and higher with landscaping enhanced along the front. There could be some additional vertical relief as well as horizontal relief. 18. Commissioner Robbins stated that in this case he likes the rear of the building more than the front. They need to do something with the doors on the front of the building. 19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-107 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2002-459, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-108 recommending approval of Specific Plan 87-01 1 Amendment #4, subject to the findings and conditions as amended. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 5 U Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 a. Condition #82: add after lighting plan, "including illumination plan". ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-109 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-072, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-1 10 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30903, subject to the findings and conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-111 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-751, subject to the findings and conditions as amended. a. Condition # The Target building shall have an average vertical height of 35 feet and up to 40 feet and work with staff to seek variation in color or materials on the mid- section of the front facade. b. A vestibule shall be added at the entrance. C. Articulation shall be added around the doors on the front elevation. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2002 24. Commissioner Robbins/Kirk moved to reconsider the Specific Plan Amendment. Unanimously approved. 25. It was moved and seconded by Chairman Butler and seconded by Commissioner Abels to add a condition to the Specific Plan that no drive through associated with a fast food stores shall be allowed. Unanimously approved. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m. B. Village Use Permit 2002-015; a request of Prest Vuksic Architects for consideration of development plans for construction of a 6,700 square foot office building on a 0.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Calle Amiga and Desert Club Drive. 1. Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest due to proximity of the project to his residence, and left the dais. 2. 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 in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the small sliver of land across from Calle Amigo was buildable. Staff stated probably not as a commercial building. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern was that if it is not buildable, this facade would be seen from Avenue 52. Also, it appears the planter in the middle of the parking lot could be eliminated to give more parking spaces. Staff stated they are required to have two-way travel in the parking lot. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave Prest, representing the applicant stated he was available to answer any questions. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked how the applicant feels about the suggestions of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee. Mr. Prest stated they had no objections and had offered to eliminate a parking space to create a gathering place for the workers of the office building as they suggested. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\11-26-02.wpd 7 City Council Minutes 14 December 17, 2002 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-459; 2) SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011, AMENDMENT NO. 4, DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 488,050 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER; 3) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072, TO ALLOW AN ATHLETIC FACILITY USE OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET; 4) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 50.62 ACRES INTO SIX PARCELS; AND 5) SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOCATED ON PROPERTY BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, AVENUE 47, WASHINGTON STREET, AND ADAMS STREET. APPLICANT: WASHINGTON 111, LTD. The Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:45 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. Principal Planner Baker reviewed the site plan and elevations and the development standard modifications requested by the applicant in the specific plan. In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Baker advised the applicant is requesting a modification to the building height allowance along Highway 1 1 1. The proposed height for the Washington Mutual Bank is 26 feet and the standard is 22 feet. Council Member Sniff asked about the fabric awnings, and Mr. Baker stated he would refer that question to the architect. Mr. Baker stated the applicant has also requested a modification to the parking standards. The applicant proposes more than the City's standard for retail but because restaurants consume more parking spaces than retail, the proposed standard for the entire project will be close given the proposed square footage of the restaurants. If other restaurants are proposed at a later date, the developer will be held to the number of parking spaces and building square footages proposed in the specific plan. Council Member Perkins stated he did not want to see another parking problem like the one existing at LG's Restaurant. He also wished to have the City's parking standards brought back for future discussion. Mr. Baker stated the applicant has also proposed a 20-foot building setback along Washington Street, which would be the same as the golf cart store at the La Quinta Court. 11 0 City Council Minutes 15 December 17, 2002 In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Herman confirmed the building setback for the bank under construction at Avenue 47 and Washington Street is also 20 feet. Mr. Baker confirmed the setback along Highway 111 will be the same as Lowe's and the Auto Centre. Dale Frank, the applicant, gave a brief presentation on the project. He stated the landscaping along Highway 111 will include meandering sidewalks, and certain architectural elements will be used at focal points to make the development stand out. The architecture of the typical box building constructed by Target has been modified for the La Quinta store. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Frank stated the awning fabric is warranted for ten years. The architecture of the buildings will be flat roofs like La Quinta Court and the wall texture will be similar to what is found at The River project in Rancho Mirage. As for the circulation plan, he stated he would like to work with staff to eliminate one of the exits onto Avenue 47. Council Member Sniff noted good internal circulation allows people to access other businesses within the development without exiting onto Avenue 47, Washington Street, or Highway 111. In response to Council Member Osborne, Mr. Herman stated there will be two southbound access points to the development from Washington Street. Mayor Adolph asked if the project is conditioned to construct medians on Washington Street, to which Mr. Frank responded, "yes." In response to Council Member Henderson, Mr. Frank reviewed bus shelter locations on Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Herman stated the project will have 3,212 parking spaces. In response to Council Member Perkins, Mr. Frank stated the proposed tenants so far are Washington Mutual Bank, Henry's Market, Big 5 Sporting Goods, Target, Stein Mart, and three to five smaller tenants. He didn't feel there would be a conflict between the two markets because Henry's Market is a health food store. Council Member Henderson asked if the developer has commitments from the tenants listed in the specific plan, to which Mr. Frank responded, "yes." City Council Minutes 16 December 17, 2002 Mr. Frank stated they hope to begin grading after the first of the year and to have Target open by March 2004. Mayor Adolph asked what can be done to mitigate the concerns of the Lake La Quinta residents who own upscale homes across Avenue 47. Mr. Frank stated they plan to use major landscaping along Avenue 47 and to keep the building square footage down. Additionally, the tenants in that area will most likely be office -type users, such as title companies or doctor's offices. Mayor Adolph commented on Council's concerns about the landscaping at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. He stated he understood the fountain would be one continuous fountain instead of three smaller ones, and feels the landscaping in that area lacks any height element. Mr. Frank stated the landscaping will fill out as it matures, and he noted trees were not used in the landscaping because of the visibility and safety element. Council Member Sniff commented on the sparseness of the landscaping. Mayor Adolph questioned visibility on that corner being an issue since drivers using the right -turn lane are looking to the left before merging into traffic. He feels the Council wanted to see something first class at that corner, not what exists there. He has a problem if that is the type of enhanced landscaping the developer is suggesting for this project. Donald Rector, 46-450 Cameo Palms Drive, voiced concern about potential impacts of this project on the housing development across Washington Street, including traffic, color scheme, water supply, archeological and biological resources, and drainage. Traffic congestion from additional businesses in the area is a big issue, and he didn't feel setbacks along Washington Street should be reduced to 20 feet. He didn't like the color scheme of the La Quinta Court project and hopes the colors are not used in this project. He also encouraged Council to uphold the Dark Sky Ordinance. Diane Blasdel, attorney with Selzer, Ealy, Hemphill, & Blasdel and representing Jenson's Finest Foods, stated Jenson's objects to the project based on potential significant impacts on the existing drainage pattern and traffic. She stated CEQA requires mitigation measures to be incorporated prior to certification of a negative declaration, and studies conducted after a project is approved does not guarantee an adequate inquiry nor provide proper notification of the public to review the mitigated measures. As for traffic impacts, she noted there is no left turn onto Washington Street except at Avenue 47, resulting in a majority City'Council Minutes 17 December 17, 2002 of the traffic traveling northbound. She feels the mitigated monitoring program fails to include mitigation measures that are set forth in the mitigated negative declaration. She added Jenson's objections to the project is not based entirely on the basis of competition, however, the exclusive provisions provided in their lease states that they will be the sole retail food store, including butcher shop, bakery, produce store, delicatessen, liquor and wine, florist, and speciality gift baskets. They believe locating Henry's Market, which is very similar to Jenson's, within this project is a violation of their lease. She stated although this is a civil issue, Jenson's feels the City should take it into consideration, especially since Henry's Market is proposed to be located at the closest proximity possible to Jenson's. In response to Ms. Blasdel's comments, City Attorney Jenson stated Condition Nos. 31 through 37 of the Specific Plan have been included to control the standards to which the hydrology study needs to show compliance. She advised CEQA allows deferred mitigation and future study to satisfy a current mitigation obligation if specific performance criteria exists. She noted no evidence has been submitted that suggests a significant impact exists and that no expert testimony has been provided. Regarding the traffic issue, she pointed out the mitigated negative declaration indicates a potential for substantial impact along with nine mitigation measures. In response to the City Attorney, Public Works Director Jonasson confirmed the nine mitigation measures reduce the traffic impact to a level of insignificance. He added the setback includes an additional six feet that can be used to widen Washington Street to eight Danes should that be needed in the future and that is also addressed in the document. Ms. Jenson stated she feels the evidence provided in the mitigated negative declaration is sufficient for Council to make the needed findings, and that nothing substantial has been submitted to suggest the existence of a substantial impact. Regarding the mitigation monitoring plan, she feels the objection is without merit because the form is correct and stated the City is not required to include the conditions of approval. As for the economic issues between the tenant and the landlord, she noted they are not CEQA issues, and since the City is not a party to the lease, the City has no legal standing to make an assessment about the civil issue. In response to Mayor Adolph, Ms. Jenson confirmed she is comfortable that the City has done its due diligence and is within its legal rights to proceed. Should there be a challenge to the project, she noted the applicant is responsible for defending the issue and paying for the defense of the City. City' Council Minutes 18 December 17, 2002 In response to Council Member Henderson, Ms. Jenson stated the Fringe Toed Lizard is covered by an MOU, which is considered full mitigation for any impacts on the Fringe Toed Lizard. Council Member Henderson asked if the project is conditioned to uphold the Dark Sky Ordinance and if appropriate steps have been taken to protect any archeological concerns, to which Mr. Herman responded, "yes." She also asked about the water supply issue. Mr. Herman stated CVWD has indicated their capability to serve the project. They will review the plans, and require well sites and necessary improvements to provide water services to the site. There being no other requests to speak, the Mayor declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:17 p.m. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2002-459) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011 AMENDMENT NO. 4, PARCEL MAP 30903, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072 (WASHINGTON 111, LTD.) It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2002-166 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A 66-06-ACRE COMMERCIAL CENTER (SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011 AMENDMENT NO. 4 - WASHINGTON 111, LTD.) It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Perkins to adopt Resolution No. 2002-167 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COMMERCIAL ATHLETIC FACILITY USE OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-072 - WASHINGTON 111, LTD.) It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. 2002-168 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. City Council Minutes 19 December 17, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30903 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50.62 ACRES INTO SIX LOTS (WASHINGTON 111, LTD.) It was moved by Council Members Osborne/Henderson to adopt Resolution No. 2002-169 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR FIVE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-751 - WASHINGTON 111, LTD.) It was moved by Council Members Henderson/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. 2002-170 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Council Members Sniff/Henderson to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California ATTACHMENT #3 DATE 05.3002 NCG JOB p 02.21110 DATE REVISIONS -- 0 n�SY�iuY;'IrRn,4�Y,�yl (IIILf�lll I Target Eleva Scheme A Scare 1, = 6 0 B t5 a 200 South Las Robles, Sutte 300 Pondene, Celf(omle 91101 T 826.793.9119 T 626.796.9295 mtgerchitecture.com ATTACHMENT I Washington 1119 LTD April 28, 2003 Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of La Quinta PO Box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Dear Mr. Herman: Bill Sanchez Owner's Representative 78-365 HWY 111, #351 La Quinta, CA 92253 T 760.485.5308 F 760.564.3499 gsanchez@dc.rr.com Please accept our request for Planning Commission clarification of conditions set forth under Planning Commission Resolution 2002-111 and Site Development Permit 2002-751. Washington 111, LTD is requesting to be added to the May receive further clarification on the condition requiring the North vertical height of 35 feet and up to 40 feet. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Bill Sanchez Owner's Representative 13t' Planning Commission hearing to Target elevation to have an average DATE: CASE NO.: REQUEST: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: SURROUNDING USES: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: BACKGROUND: Site Background STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 13, 2003 PLOT PLAN 83-001, USE INTERPRETATION REVIEW AND CLARIFY THE ALLOWED USE OF THE PROPERTY 78-501 CALLE ULTIMO KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PER SECTION 15301 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE OPEN SPACE (GC) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM) In 1983, the City approved Plot Plan 83-001 (Attachment 1) for the construction and use of a storage building and two 500 gallon underground pumps for golf course maintenance equipment. Additional site improvements included eight on -site parking spaces and landscaping along the perimeter of the property. As a result of a citizen complaint, staff conducted an investigation that revealed the following activities and equipment that are not consistent with the City's approval: 1. Maintenance of lawn care equipment occurring inside the building; 2. A trash bin located on the parking lot; 3. Two storage containers located on the parking lot; 4. Non -permitted room/office and lockers; 5. Outdoor storage of pipes, pots and maintenance equipment; 6. Gasoline tank located on the parking lot; and 7. Insufficient landscape screen around the perimeter of the site. Staff directed the property owner to take the necessary measures to correct the violations including the option to take this matter to the Planning Commission to review and clarify the use of the property. Project Request The applicant requests that the Planning Commission review the use of the facility (Attachment 2). The applicant indicates that for the past 12 years the property has been used for storage and light maintenance of various golf course and hotel equipment and that they would like to maintain these activities. To reduce visibility of the site from private and public view the applicant proposes to install a wooden fence to supplement the existing landscaping. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: The La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) does not currently allow storage or maintenance activities in residential zones; however, the City initially determined that this storage facility was acceptable because of its location adjacent to the Washington Street Bridge and substation. The City placed numerous conditions of approval (Attachment 3) to minimize visibility and noise intrusion, including the requirements to install landscaping and restrict maintenance activities and outdoor storage. The current use of the site is not consistent with the conditions of approval. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant either comply with the conditions of approval or submit an amendment to modify the project approval. Please note that more than one application may be required, including but not limited to, a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change. RECOMMENDATION: As deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; Prepared and Submitted by: Oscar W. Orci, Planning Manager P/oscar/vupLQGrill/pcstfreport Attachments: 1. Site Plan for Plot Plan 83-001 2. Applicant's request for Planning Commission's review 3. Letter to the applicant outlining the Conditions of approval for PP 83-001 P/oscar/vupLQG rill/pcstfreport Sx ATTACHMENT #2 DEVELOPMENT February 25, 2003 Oscar W. Orci City of La Quinta/Community Development P.O. Box 1504 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via Facsimile RE: Plot Plan Number 83-001 Dear Oscar: CORPORATION In response to your January 27, 2003 letter 1 received on February 171", please let this letter serve as a request to have the Planning Commission review the storage/maintenance use of the property located at 78501 Calle Ultimo, La Quinta, California. For 12 years we have used the subject property as a storage and light maintenance for various golf course and hotel related equipment used for a number of our properties. Due to a contractual obligation with the City of La Quinta, we recently had to relocate our off -site hotel operations to the subject property and would like to continue use of the property as we had in the past. We are currently using the site to store landscaping parts/materials and equipment (lawn mowers, company vehicles/carts, ... ). Since we store this equipment at this site it is practical for us to do maintenance of said equipment on an as needed basis. We also have our approved gas pump on this site for use for the same equipment stored on this site. In the interest of the surrounding residents, we do not create any noise before 7:30a or after 3:00p, Monday through Friday plus Saturdays, only on an as needed -basis. We also minimize the impact of noise by not activating more than 2 pieces of equipment at any given time. We will not be generating any more noise than a typical homeowner doing their lawn would create. We have 2 regular employees on site everyday for maintenance and day to day office operations. Plus, we only remove and replace the lawn mowers from the storage facility once a week (between the same hours noted above). We would like to maximize our use of the facility/property for storage, all within the delineated fencing, and it will continue to not be visible from the public right of way. We propose to install wooden fencing to supplement the current live fence screening between our property and the adjoining properties (south and west of the subject property). We are only asking to use the property as it has been used for years and respectfully request clarification of our use tc insure compliance with the City. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely C nthia Zamorez —� Director of Land Management/Project Director KSL Development Corporation 50905 Avenida Bermudas La Quinta, California 92253 (760) 564-8000 Fax (760) 564-8090 Ell T-&t 4 4aa" ATTACHMENT #3 L:_ 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 June 30, 1983 Landmark Land Company P. O. Box 1000 La Quinta CA 92253 RE: PLOT PLAN NO. 83-Q03;�A Request by Iandmark Land Ccnpany to Construct ir'Storage Buil*g and Install T-wo Gasoline Ptmlps for Golf Course intenance-FquipTient Dear Sir: This letter is to report approval of Plot Plan No. 83-001, your request to construct a storage building for golf course equipment on a lot located on Avenida Ultimo, east of Washington Street. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the Exhibit A as contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 83-001, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. This approval shall be used within one year of the date of approval; otherwise it shall beccare null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is started within the approval period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the standards of the County Health Department. 4. Fire Protection shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City Fire Marshall and the Municipal Fire Code. 5. The Applicant shall provide eight (8) off-street parking spaces. 6. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall enclose the parking area within a six-foot high cyclone fence. The perimeter shall be landscaped with bushes which will adequately screen the parking area and gas pump from view. 7. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, -the Applicant shall submit a landscaping and irrigation plan shoR-ring the species, genus, size and location of the plants on the site and within the right of way to the City Ccnrunity Development Department for review and approval. The approved landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and thereafter maintained by the Applicant in a viable condition. 8. No outdoor storage of equinTent or materials is permitted. 9. No repair or maintenance of equipment is permitted on the site. MAII INC; AnnRFSS - P_O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 i LarrImark Land ompany June 30, 1983 Page Two. 10. No mechanical equipment shall be mounted on the roof. 11. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install curb, gutter and connecting pavement along Avenida Ultimo. Plans for the street improvements shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 12. Prior to the operation of the approved fuel pumps, the Applicant shall obtain clearance from the State Air Quality Resources Board. 13. Doors on the south and west sides of the building shall be limited to one (1) pedestrian door. Very truly yours, Sandra L. Bonn Associate Planner B 1 #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 13, 2003 REQUEST: REVIEW ZONING ISSUES PERTAINING TO DRIVE- THROUGHS AND GAS STATIONS LOCATION: CITY-WIDE APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: Staff presented a review of various zoning issues to the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 11 th. At that meeting staff was directed to bring back the issues one at a time for discussion at following meetings. Attached is a summary of the previous issues (front yard setbacks) discussed by the Planning Commission on March 25th (Attachment 1). 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 concerns regarding the number of existing and approved gas stations and drive -through businesses in the City. The Commission, during the review of a variety of development applications, has previously raised the following issues in regards to gas stations and drive -through businesses: • Concentration of businesses, especially along Highway 1 1 1; • Visibility of businesses along Image Corridors; and • Design of businesses. PAOscar\StfRpt\ZlDrivethrusgasstat.wpd Code Requirements Section 9.80.040 of the Zoning Code lists the permitted uses in the Commercial Zoning Districts within the City, which include: Regional Commercial Commercial Park Community Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Tourist Commercial Office Commercial Table 1 below, shows the gas stations and drive -through businesses permitted in the Commercial Districts and the type of permit that is required, unless prohibited: Table 1: Permitted Uses in Commercial Districts District Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO Service Stations C C C C X X Banks P X P P P P Restaurants, drive -through P A P X P A Retail Stores under 10 KSF P j A P P A A Retail Stores under 10 -50 KSF P X P P X X Retail Stores under over 50 KSF C X C X X X P = Principal Use; A = Accessory Use; C = Conditional Use Permit; X = Prohibited Gas stations and drive-throughs are also permitted in the Village Commercial District. Table 2 below, lists the existing and proposed gas stations and drive-throughs within each Commercial Center (a map is also included as Attachment 2). PAOscar\StfRpt\ZIDrivethrusgasstat.wpd Table 2: Existing and Proposed Gas Stations and Drive-throughs within each Commercial Center Commercial Centers Drive-throughs Service Stations Existing Approved Existing Approved 1. Point Happy Del Taco 2 Union 76 1 2. 1 1 1 La Quinta Plaza Carl's Jr. PFF Bank Taco Bell McDonald's 4 Arco Shell 2 3. La Quinta Corporate Centre 0 Allowed use USA 1 4. Dune Palm Center 0 0 Chevron 1 5. The Center at La Quinta 0 Allowed use 0 Allowed use 6. Jefferson Plaza Jack -in -the- Box 1 allowed use 0 1 7. La Quinta Court 0 0 0 0 8. Washington Park 0 2 0 0 9. Old Town 0 0 0 0 10. Quail Run 0 5 0 1 11. Fairway Plaza 0 3 0 1 Discussion Points The following list provides discussion points for the Commission consideration: • Concentration of too many and too close together along Highway 111 (separation requirements); • Relationship of Image Corridors to gas stations and drive -through businesses; • Setbacks, screening, and landscape requirements; • Pump locations (site design); • Drive aisle widths. P:\Oscar\StfRpt\ZlDrivethrusgasstat.wpd RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the issues listed in the report and provide the appropriate direction to staff. Attachments: 1. Summary of front yard setbacks 2. Map showing Gas Stations and Drive Throughs P:\Oscar\StfRpt\ZIDrivethrusgasstat.wpd Attachment 1 Summary of Front Yard Setback Discussion 1. A 15 foot front yard setback for casitas is acceptable as long as driveways are not located in front of the casitas. 2. Uniform front yard setback measurement from the back of curb regardless of property line location. 3. Require a minimum 25 foot front yard setback. 4. Generated additional code provisions to provide an alternative front yard setback requirement for smaller sized lots. 5. Certain "special" projects, such as affordable housing projects, would require a specific plan application to deviate from the front yard setback provision(s). P:/Oscar/StfRpt/side setback summary n o A •Qe N� x� � DESEFF m x z z AS)- WOODSERRY LN !e C'/,P S1NGfNG PALMS DR O� v CORPORAT O > _ CA CA 0 Z HIGHLAND PALMS DR 4TTH AVE � a w o � A 2 Q > z LC�OEL UAR O w A U Om rpmO A IS NOIJNIHSVM 9 v VIA C)RWeM ENNA A a VIA ANTj$ES m Rwys '' 0 z LA QUNTA CENTRE DR IS SWdOV 8 X r� cs CW SV"Vd 3Nna >> ��Qys 040 0 N1 X0OM3N N'13Iaa' 0 VISTA ONW OO U rr c rT Q m m _D D