2003 06 24 PCI
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
JUNE 24, 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 2003-041
Beginning Minute Motion 2003-010
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled
for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
I11. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of June 10, 2003.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA
VI. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Item .................
CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2002-462, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-062, AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754
Applicant ..........
Marinita Development Company
Location ...........
Southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred
Waring Drive
Request ............
Consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration; 2) review of development
principles and design guidelines for a 50,000
square foot market, 23,000 sq. ft. drug and retail
store, and 20,970 sq. ft. of retail shops.
Action ..............
Continue to September 9, 2003
B. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-773
Applicant .......... California Cove Communities
Location ........... Northeast corner of Madison Street and Airport
Boulevard
Request ............ Consideration of architectural plans for three new
single family prototype residential units with two
different elevations for each unit within the Greg
Norman golf course development
Action .............. Request to continue to July 8, 2003
C. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-725,
AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ......... Vons, a Safeway Co.
Location ........... Southwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington
Street, in Plaza La Quinta
Request ........... Consideration of a waiver of the requirement to
install a bus shelter on the south side of Highway
111 for the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center as
required by Condition #12 of Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-022
Action ............. Resolution 2003-
D. Item ................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-771
Applicant .......... Larry Andrews
Location ........... East side of Washington Street, southeast of
Avenue 47
Request ............ Consideration of development plans for
construction of a 11,200 square foot commercial
office building in an approved commercial office
complex.
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
PC/AGENDA
E. Item ................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-076 AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31253
Applicant .......... Winchester Development
Location ........... West of Jefferson Street, south of Quarry Lane
Request ............ Consideration of a request to allow development
within the Hillside Conservation District and
approval of a division of 20 acres into two
residential lots.
Action .............. Resolution 2003- , Resolution 2003-
F. Item ................. CONTINUED - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
2003-076
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code
relating to Front and Side Yard Setbacks and Lot
Sizes:
Sections 9.30.020, .030, .040, .050, .060,.070 - Residential
Districts
Section 9.50.070.13 - Residential Development Standards
Section 9.60.060.13 - Supplemental Residential Regulations
Section 9.60.320.0 - Resort Residential
Table 9.2 - Residential Development Standards
Figure 9.1 - Development Standards: RVL and RL Districts
Figure 9.2 - Development Standards: RC Districts
Figure 9.3 - Development Standards: RM and RMH Districts
Figure 9.4 - Development Standards: RH and RSP Districts
Action .............. Resolution 2003-
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................ REVIEW AND CLARIFY USE OF BANNERS AND
FLAGS, INCLUDING THE AMERICAN FLAG, FOR
TEMPORARY ADVERTISING CONSIDERATIONS
Applicant ......... Bart Rinker/Rinker Enterprises
Location .......... 47-120 Dune Palms Road
Action ............. Provide staff with direction
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of June 17, 2003, by
Commissioner Abels
PC/AGENDA
X. ADJOURNMENT:
This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular
Meeting to be held on June 24, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 10, 2003 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Tyler 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, Assistant
City Attorney Michael Houston, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Assistant
City Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate
Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA:
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
1 . Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
May 27, 2003. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded
by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to approve the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
2. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
A. Site Development 2003-770; a request of Michael Shovlin for
consideration of development plans for a 10,558 square foot commercial
building located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, 375 feet west of
Adams Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked about the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee's (ALRC) comments regarding the
parking lot islands. Staff indicated the ALRC wanted the islands
to be shorter at the entrance and staff had added a condition
requiring the reduction.
3. Commissioner Tyler stated Condition #35 should be more specific
as to what and where it is to be shortened and by how much.
Staff stated the condition would be modified to make that
clarification. Commissioner Tyler asked that Item 7 of the
Resolution be amended to state the "approved" sign program.
Condition #49 corrected to state "...which is allowed to be...".
He asked that the site plan be corrected to read water and sewer
would be provided by Coachella Valley Water District.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had responded to the
ALRC's request for "people places" on the site plan. Staff stated
they had not. Commissioner Kirk asked that Condition #29 be
cleaned up to eliminate any reference to "homes". Staff stated it
would be deleted.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave
Smalley, representing the project, stated they had no objections to
any of the conditions and were available to answer questions.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked if they had any design ideas on the
"people places" area. Mr. Smalley stated they intended to
possibly install a fountain, some benches, and maybe a depressed
area using landscaping to define separate areas.
7. Commissioner Tyler asked if they had any objection to shortening
the parking islands. Mr. Smalley stated they had no objection to
reducing the length. He did ask that Condition #34 be modified to
require a pocket for a tree at the end of the compact car space, or
a diamond planter. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern
about how the condition was written. Following discussion, it
was determined to delete the condition.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-10-27-03WD.doc
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
8. There being no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the
matter up for Commission discussion.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-031 approving Site Development Permit 2003-
770, as amended:
a. Conditions #29 & #34: deleted
b. Condition #35: modified to read, "Two parking islands, as
shown on Exhibit "A" shall be shortened by two feet.
C. Condition #49: correct the spelling of the word "allowed".
d. Item 7 of the Resolution would be corrected to read,
"approved sign program."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
B. Site Development Permit 2002-751; a request of Washington 1 1 1, Ltd.
For consideration of an amendment to Condition of Approval No. 40
regarding the Target elevations for the property bounded by Highway
1 1 1, Avenue 47, Washington Street and Adams 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 that Condition #40 be amended to state
the developer will work with staff.
3. There being no further questions of staff, the applicant having no
questions, and no other public participation, Chairman Butler
closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened
the matter up for Commission discussion.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-032, approving Site Development Permit 2003-
751, as recommended.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Environmental Assessment 2003-473, General Plan Amendment 2003-
092, Zone Change 2003-114, Tentative Tract Map 31289, and Site
Development Permit 2003-769; a request of Jim Hayhoe for
consideration of: 1) Certification of a Mitigated a Mitigated Negative
Declaration; 2) Change of the General Plan Land Use Category from
Community Commercial to Low Density Residential; 3) Change to the
Zoning District from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential;
4) Subdivision of three parcels into seven single family lots; and 5)
Review of architectural, landscape, and site plans for two single story
house plans ranging in size from 3,080 square feet to 3,362 square feet.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked staff who determines what the fair
share cost of the two-way left turn lane should be as referenced in
Condition 34.A.1. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the
City will have to take the lead and ask the developers to pay their
fair share. It is a two-way left turn lane in the center of the street
and it is yet to be determined what the fair share will be to each of
the developers. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify
Condition 34.A.2. Staff stated the intent is that the applicant will
have to across the street to hook up to the utilities (7 utility
trenches). The intent is for the developer to grind off 1 /10 of the
depth of the pavement for the entire width and length of the street
they are cutting, then overlay it back with smooth, new asphalt.
Commissioner Tyler asked if a condition could be added to require
the developer to provide a disclosure that a commercial
designation exists across the street. Staff stated a condition
would be added.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if all commercial properties to the west
had been approved. Staff stated Lots 1, 2, part of 3, and 4 have
not yet been built out. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was
that by only placing a requirement in the CC&R's, the people
purchasing will not have knowledge of it. Staff suggested it be
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
included in the sales agreement for each house as well.
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim
Hayhoe, developer, stated he has no objection to the conditions
and is available to answer any questions.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked about Plan 2A in regard to the location
of the air conditioning condenser being next to the guest bedroom.
He would suggest a different location.
6. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler
asked if there was any other public comment on 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 2003-033, recommending Certification of a Mitigated
a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
2003-473, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-034, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2003-092, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
10. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-035, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2003-1 14, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 5
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-036, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31289, as amended:
a. Condition #34.A.2: clarify wording
b. Condition #44: amend to state front and rear yards
C. Condition #63: require a disclosure in the sales contract
regarding the commercial property to the west of the site.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-037, recommending
approval of Site Development Permit 2002-769, as
recommended/amended:
a. Condition #3: add "final front and rear yards.
D. Environmental Assessment 2002-462, Specific Plan 2003-062, and Site
Development Permit 2002-754; a request of Marinita Development
Company for 1) ) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2)
review of development principles and design guidelines for a 50,000
square foot market, 23,000 square foot drug and retail store, and 20,970
square feet of retail shops.
1. Planning Manager Oscar Orci informed the Commission the
applicant had requested a continuance to the meeting of June 24,
2003.
2. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue project to June 24, 2003.
Unanimously approved.
E. Environmental Assessment 2003-472, Specific Plan 2003-064, and
Tentative Tract Map 31202; a request of Desert Elite for : 1) Certification
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; 2) development principals and design
guidelines for a residential development; and 3) the subdivision of 79.21
acres into 202 single family homes, for the property located at the
southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 6
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
Commissioner Tyler stated there was a difference in the staff
report and Specific Plan as to whether the houses will be one story
or two. Staff noted they are all single story and will be corrected
to reflect this. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #52.A.2.
be rewritten for more clarity. Also, Condition #56, two car
stacking does not seem like enough. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated the two car stack would be sufficient as they
would only be stacking guests and not residents. Commissioner
Tyler asked about the secondary access as it is not mentioned in
the Specific Plan. Staff stated this is an emergency access only
and they would be required to note this on the tract map and
Specific Plan. He suggested the last sentence of Condition #85
be deleted. Commissioner Tyler asked about the height of the
canopy trees and how much clearance would be needed for the
horse riders. Staff stated this would be reviewed when the
landscape plan was submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked
whether or not any consideration had been given to having a horse
crossing at the entrance on Avenue 52. Assistant City Engineer
Steve Speer stated that due to the existing driveways on the north
side of the street, there is no full turning movement at their main
entrance. The full turn is further to the west. Commissioner Tyler
noted changes that were to be made in the Specific Plan.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was anything in the Specific Plan
that relaxed or significantly modified the existing Zoning Code
requirements. Staff noted the deviations were in the range of lot
sizes, the height of the houses, as well as setbacks. Staff also
asked that a condition be added to the Specific Plan on Pages 19-
46 to include the ranges of the proposed floor plans versus the
minimum Code requirement of 1,400 square feet. This gives a
range of 2,200 to 2,800 square feet as proposed by the
applicant's floor plans.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked that a condition be added to the Specific
Plan requiring 50 percent of the landscaping can be in turf.
5. Commissioner Robbins stated a well site will be required and
should be shown on the plan. Staff noted it will be located
somewhere on Lot 9 or 10. Commissioner Robbins asked that the
adjoining properties be given notification of its location.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a condition that the front
yard setbacks be staggered. Staff stated there was.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John
Pedalino, representing Desert Elite, stated that when the project
was designed, the General Plan and surrounding uses were taken
into consideration. The General Plan did call out 2-4 units per acre
with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. However, with the
existing setbacks and the way the General Plan was written, you
could put a 1,500 square foot home with a three car garage on the
lot. This was the reason for the deviation. If you take out the half
acre equestrian lots, you are averaging 10,600 square feet per lot.
If you include the half acre lots, it is 11.5. As to the minimum
livable area, they would like to have 2,000 square feet. The
houses will be staggered 4-6 feet, should the depth of the lots
allows this with the setbacks. The main access will be on Avenue
52. The gate will be set back to allow stacking for 4-5 cars. The
map shows the well site will be in the northeast corner of the site.
He asked that a condition be added, that during the first phase of
development, the perimeter block wall will be required to be
installed on Monroe Street and Avenue 52 during the first phase of
development and not the landscaping.
8. Commissioner Tyler asked when the landscaping would be
installed. Staff stated a condition could be added that it be before
the final of the first house.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked if the retention areas that back up to the
homes, would be an amenity or will there be a block wall. Mr.
Pedalino stated there will be a block wall, but the south and west
facing homes will have an opening to the retention area. They are
considering various uses for the retention area, but will make a
decision at a later date.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked the purpose of the easement on Lot
"M". Mr. Pedalino stated it is an easement for the irrigation lines.
Commissioner Robbins stated that if this is only a ten foot
easement to match what the existing easement is, it becomes
unworkable when you put block walls on either side. It turns into
a very narrow space that is unworkable to perform any
maintenance on and becomes an unmaintained area. The width
needs to be enlarged.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
11. There being no further questions of the applicant, and no other
public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation
portion of the hearing and opened the issue for Commission
discussion.
12. Commissioner Robbins stated he liked the project overall, but the
Specific Plan needs to be clarified that if the developer is providing
front yard landscaping, then it should be reviewed in accordance
with the current landscaping standards.
13. Commissioner Kirk commended the applicant on the project. He
would like to have a condition added requiring the landscaping for
both the front yards and common areas be more drought resistant.
14. Commissioner Tyler stated he concurred with Commissioner
Robbin's statement about the easement and block wall on Lot
"M". Other than that it is a good project that he would support.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2003-038 recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2003-472, as amended:
a. Environmental Assessment Addendem I.a.b.c.: amended to
state, "Homes will be no more than 22 feet high within the
150 image corridor setback..."
b. Addendum III.C.7 amended to state , "The perimeter block
wall shall be installed with the first phase of development
along Avenue 52 and Monroe Street.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-039 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2003-064, as amended:
a. Pages 19-46 of the Specific Plan shall be amended to state
the size of the floor plans for the homes will be 2000 to
2800 square feet and all units shall be one story.
b. Condition added: Front yard landscaping shall consist of
two trees (minimum 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
from grade level after planting), ten five gallon shrubs and
groundcover. Palm trees may count as a shade tree if the
trunk is six feet tall. Double lodge poles (2 inch diameter)
shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be
irrigated by bubbler or emitters. To encourage water
conservation no more than 50% of the front yard
landscaping shall be devoted to turf. Future home buyers
shall be offered an option to have no turf areas in their front
yard through the use of desertscape materials.
C. Condition added: Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with
no lawn or spray irrigation being placed within 18 inches of
street curbs.
d. Condition added: Once the trees have been delivered to the
site for installation, a field inspection by the Community
Development Department is required before planting to
insure they meet minimum size and caliper requirements.
e. Condition added: Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy, the applicant shall complete the perimeter
walls, landscaping and gates.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-040, recommending
approval of Tentative Tract Map 31202, as amended:
a. Condition D7.A.1.: amended to read, "Avenue 52 (primary
Arterial — A) - The standard 55 feet from the centerline of
Avenue 52 for a total 110 foot ultimate developed right of
way except for an additional right of way dedication at the
Monroe Street intersection of 64 feet from the centerline
and 100 feet long plus a variable dedication of an additional
50 feet to accommodate improvements conditioned under
'STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS'."
b. Condition #9.A.1. and #55.B.1.: Add the following:
"Alternatively, the applicant may construct the narrower
street that is detailed on the tentative map if the applicant
records a no on -street parking requirement in the property
CC&R's. The no on -street parking requirement shall be
enforced by the HOA which may accommodate occasional
short interval parking via HOA issued permits and other
specific short term parking needs the HOA deems
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
appropriate to accommodate without a permit."
C. Condition #55.A.1.: Amend the third paragraph to read:
"Construct 66 foot roadway intersection improvements (4
foot median nose and travel lane widths to include two 10
foot left turn lanes, two 12 foot eastbound through lanes, 8
foot bike/golf cart lane and 10 foot deceleration/right turn
only lane, excluding curbs)."
d. Condition #55.A.2.: Add the following to the end of the
paragraph, "This condition will be waived by the City if the
developer submits a traffic signal warrant study that
demonstrates the subject intersection will not meet
warrants for a signal, under future community building -out
conditions, as a result of traffic generated by this
development."
e. Condition #59.A." Add to the end of the condition, "The
left turn out prohibition will be waived if the property owner
on the north side of Avenue 52 revises the onsite traffic
circulation system on the north side to eliminate the full turn
access located 1,950 feet west of Monroe Street, provided
the City of Indio consents to the revised circulation
system."
f. Condition #59.D.: Add, "In addition to the allowable
turning movements and restrictions noted in paragraphs A,
B, & D the Avenue 52 median shall accommodate the
following turning movements serving properties o the north
side of the street located in the City of Indio:
1.) Full turn access serving the equestrian property
where it connects to Avenue 52, one thousand nine -
hundred fifty (1,950) feet west of Monroe Street;
and
2.) Left turn only in to the property (no left turn out)
where it connects to Avenue 52, seven hundred
twenty (720) feet west of Monroe Street.
g. Condition #85: Delete the last sentence.
h. Condition added: Lot L shall be switched with Lot 98 for
the retention basin.
i. Condition added: A disclosure shall be added to the sales
agreement regarding the location of the well site.
j. Condition added: Applicant shall work with staff to obtain
an equestrian crossing for Avenue 52.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2003-076; a request of the City for
consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code relating to Front and
Side Yard Setbacks and Lot Sizes: for Sections 9.30.020, .030, .040,
.050, .060,.070 — Residential Districts; Section 9.50.070.B - Residential
Development Standards; Section 9.60.060.13 - Supplemental Residential
Regulations; Section 9.60.320.0 — Resort Residential; Table 9.2 —
Residential Development Standards; Figure 9.1 — Development
Standards: RVL and RL Districts; Figure 9.2 — Development Standards:
RC Districts; Figure 9.3 — Development Standards: RM and RMH
Districts; Figure 9.4 — Development Standards: RH and RSP Districts
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff asked the Assistant
City Attorney to explain vesting rights and what the zoning
changes may cause to happen in regard to tract maps, vesting
tract maps, site development permits, and specific plans.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated Section
9.200.080.D. of the Zoning Code permits vesting rights when
permit applications are approved by the City. This is different than
some of the legal requirements the current California Law would
allow. So in some ways, the City does have some broader vesting
right provisions than other municipalities. However, the general
rule is that rights to do vest until building permits are issued and
substantial completion of the project is accrued, unless certain
limited agreements are entered into. One such agreement would
be a development agreement, under the California Statues in the
California Zoning Code. In addition, there are some provisions
with respect to vesting tentative maps which are not frequently
used.
2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins asked if the City had the right to
grandfather existing projects if the proposed changes were made.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated this could pose
some problems, but from a legal perspective, it could be done.
Commissioner Robbins stated it is unfair to change requirements
on a tract that is in process. Either they are all under the current
codes, or fall under the new codes. There should also be some
reasonable time limit placed on the project that if no work, or
G:IWPDOCSIPC MINUTESI6-10-27-03WD.DOC 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
permits issued, has occurred on a project within a certain period of
time, the project will revert to the new codes.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked how you could vest for part of a Zoning
Code change. Can we vest in some area and not in others?
Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated you can, but from
a practical perspective it would be difficult to enforce. We already
have, with respect to permit approvals, vesting rights.
Front Yard Setbacks:
4. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Commissioner Kirk
expressed his concern about a 15 foot front yard setback in
relation to a casitas. What would stop a developer from designing
all the homes with a casitas in the front yard with a 15 foot
setback. Staff stated this was an issue staff was discussing
currently in regard to what was currently being submitted by
property owners. They were considering requiring all casitas units
to go through the minor use permit process. We need to look into
is the definition of what a casitas is and what the requirements
should be including the deed restriction.
5. Mr. Allan Levin, 76-768 Bishop Place, Palm Desert, asked about
the setbacks for a side entry garage. Staff stated it is a uniform
setback. Mr. Levin asked that the Commission consider a variation
in the setbacks for a side entry. He also asked for an exception,
for those projects that already have an approval, with a
termination clause. He would prefer a 20 foot front yard setback.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated if you are
measuring from back of curb and there is a sidewalk, and you have
20 feet from the back of the curb and you park a vehicle there,
you may not be able to get onto the sidewalk. Mr. Levin stated he
would request that language be added that if a sidewalk is
proposed it be 25 feet; if no sidewalk is proposed 20 feet.
6. Mr.Mike Marix, 128 Vista Monte, Palm Desert, stated people are
buying homes for the rear yard privacy and this setback is taking
away from that privacy and this is not the right use of the land.
Commissioner Robbins stated on private streets this is correct, but
on public streets it gives more backyard. On a public street you
have a minimum of seven feet behind the curb, by moving it to 25
feet from the curb, rather than 20 feet from the property line, you
gain at least two feet. Mr. Marix questioned the definition of a
casitas or bedroom conversion and setbacks. He prefers the
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 13
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
setbacks remain as they are currently written. They have plans
that have three car garages, two cars are straight in and one is a
turn in. They have an option on the turn in to make it another
bedroom. Legally that can be 15 feet. He questioned why it
should be any different if they convert it to another bedroom and
bath as part of the house. These proposed changes are huge
issues in regard to land uses and it will vastly alter the square
footage of the houses that are permissible on lots. He would
request this be discussed in detail and great length before making
the changes. He argued that the landscaping, as it matures, will
obscure the setbacks anyway.
7. Mr. Art Gardner, Coachella Valley Engineers, stated he has a
problem with the 25 foot setback from back of curb on a public
street. One of the issues has been that handicap access is
becoming an issue with cross driveway approaches. Typically on
a public street you will have a 10 foot right of way parkway from
the face of curb to the right of way, five foot sidewalk, and in
some instances a wrap around the driveway approach.
Commissioner Robbins suggested it go to 30 feet in this case.
Discussion followed regarding the different scenarios.
8. Mr. Marix stated the solution to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) is to have wedge or rolled curbs which would mitigate
the problem. You are the top level of the curb which does away
with the off -set problem.
9. Mr. Craig Knight, 60-995 Monroe Street, Indio, stated he would
prefer to have the 20 foot setback remain and vary the distance
lot to lot.
10. Mr. John Gamlin, 81-100 Avenue 53, stated he has a concern
regarding the side -loaded garages. If the intent is to create a
variable edge on the streetscape he would recommend having a
requirement that a certain percentage of the setback exceed 20
feet of the homes.
11. Commissioners discussed the various options and issues created
by the different setbacks.
Side Yard Setbacks:
12. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Commissioner Robbins
clarified that the proposed change was to have a 15 foot clear
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
setback and the house can slide anywhere within that envelope
with a minimum of five feet clear on one side yard.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked that the word "clear" be added between
"minimum" and "distance" to make sure there is at least five feet
clear. He stated it should say, "a minimum clear distance of at
least five shall be provided on one side."
14. Chairman Butler asked what the Fire Department and Building
Department thought about having the pool and/or air conditioning
equipment in the five foot side yard setback. Staff stated they
expressed no concern as long as there is at least one side yard
that is capable of providing access.
Lot Size Minimums:
15. Staff reviewed the proposed changes. Chairman Butler opened the
public participation of the hearing.
16. Commissioner Tyler asked how the ADA requirements compared
on public or private streets. Assistant City Attorney Michael
Houston stated there is no difference.
17. Mr. Allan Levin, asked for clarification on what is the required
sideyard; is the five foot clear accessible. To him a gate should be
installed somewhere on the clear side and there is a need to define
what is a "side yard".
18. Mr. Mike Marix, asked if a window trim is an encroachment. Staff
clarified those items that are projections.
19. Mr. Ed Kibbey, 77-570 Springfield, Palm Desert, BIA
representative, asks that the staff and BIA work through these
items before any action is taken by the Commission/Council.
20. Mr. Art Gardner, asked where the side yard is measured from.
Staff stated it is currently measured from the outside wall to the
property line.
21. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if
there was any other public comment on this project. There being
no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public
hearing and asked staff to summarize the discussion on each of
the following items:
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 15
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
Front yard setbacks:
Side -loaded garages and casitas units shall have a 15 foot
setback from the back of curb in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and
RH Zoning Districts. Casitas units shall be designed so the
driveway is not part of casitas unit. On all front entering
garages, the setback shall be 25 feet.
Side yard setbacks:
Staff was directed to define the side yard and determine
where you measure from.
A minimum 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback shall
be provided in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH Zoning
Districts. A minimum clear distance of at least five feet
shall be provided on at least one side yard with a gate. In
no case shall the side yard be less than five feet.
Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be
located adjacent to a side yard property line with a block
wall in the side and/or rear yard property line, in accordance
with all applicable building regulations.
Eaves shall not be considered as being a part of the side
yard.
Architectural projections, accessory structures, and
accessory buildings are permitted within the required side
yard as Bong as five feet is clearly maintained.
23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to continue Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 2003-076 to June 24, 2003. Unanimously approved.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commission that the regular meetings of the Planning Commission for the
month of July would be July 81h and 291h
G:\WPDOCS\PC MINUTES\6-10-27-03WD.DOC 16
Planning Commission Minutes
June 10, 2003
2. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of June 3,
2003.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Robbins/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 24, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This
meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. on June 10, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:IWPDOCSIPC MINUTESI6-10-27-03WD.DOC 17
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 24, 2003
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462
SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: MARINITA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND
2) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES FOR A:
A) 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MARKET
B) 23,000 SQUARE FOOT DRUG AND RETAIL STORE
C) 20,970 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SHOPS
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED
WARING DRIVE (APN: 604 070-003).
ENGINEER: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-462;
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, WHILE THE PROJECT MAY
HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT, MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
IMPOSED ON THE PROJECT TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)/ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (NC)
SURROUNDING
PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd
LAND USES:
NORTH: ESPLANANDE SUBDIVISION UNDER CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH: MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION
EAST: VACANT LAND (CITY OF INDIO)
WEST: MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant requests that this project be continued to the September 9, 2003,
Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with
staff to revise the project.
Prepared by:
artin agana
Associate Planner
PC Stfrpt CUP 02-073/SDP 02-755.wpd
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 24, 2003
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-773
APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA COVE COMMUNITIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: SWC NORMAN 39, LLC
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THREE NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO DIFFERENT
FACADES FOR EACH PLAN WITHIN THE GREG NORMAN GOLF
COURSE DEVELOPMENT.
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD
WITHIN THE NORMAN COURSE
REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE:
The applicant has requested a continuance of this request to the meeting of July 8,
2003. Attached is the letter for your review.
Attachment:
1. Letter from California Cove Communities dated June 18, 2003
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa
Principal Planner
TUI I. 19. C-100Al 8: 5 r AM
aUfo ni dove
June 18, 2003
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: PLANNING CO10' MSSION MEETING
AGENDA FOR JUNE 24, 2003
Site Development Permit 2003-733
Applicant: California Cove Communities, Inc.
Location: N/W Comer of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard
Request: Approval of Architectural Plans
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept this letter as our request to remove Site Development Permit 2003-733.
Approval of Architectural Plans for three prototype units within the Greg Norman
Course, from the Planning Commission's Agenda for the June 24, 2003 Meeting and
continue this item to the following Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for July
2003.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 453-1775, Ext.
162, Thank you, in advance, for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Carol S. Long
Vice President
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 24, 2003
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: VONS, A SAFEWAY CO. (THOMAS B. ACEVEDO,
DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE)
PROPERTY OWNER: M&H PROPERTIES
REQUEST: WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL A BUS
SHELTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 FOR
THE PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER AS REQUIRED
BY CONDITION #12 OF PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 2002-022
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND
WASHINGTON STREET
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
BACKGROUND:
Vons is located in Plaza La Quinta, a commercial shopping center located at the
southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The eleven -acre shopping
center was approved by the County of Riverside in 1980.
Site Development Permit History
On January 22, 2002, the Planning Commission approved expansion plans for Vons
by adoption of Resolution 2002-022 for Site Development Permit 2001-725.
Improvements approved include facade and parking lot changes, landscaping and
lighting modifications, and the installation of new building signs (Attachments 1 and
2). Condition #12 requires: The existing bus shelter on Highway 111 shall be
replaced with a City approved bus shelter structure. A Caltrans Encroachment Permit
shall be obtained by the applicant before any on -site work begins. The applicant shall
g: SDP725 Folder/SDP725#1 Flnal Report.wpd
contact the City's Public Works Department to obtain a copy of the bus shelter
construction plans."
A building permit was issued to remodel the supermarket and adjoining businesses on
March 6, 2003, and construction work is ongoing.
Plan Check Review History
In December 2002, Vons representatives informed the Community Development
Department that Caltrans requires a bus turnout lane in order to obtain Encroachment
Permit #08-02-6-BR-1156 to build the new bus shelter. Vons stated they were
prepared to complete the improvement requirements of the Planning Commission, but
were unaware of the bus turnout obligation. Their construction budget did not include
this additional expenditure. Caltrans informed the applicant's project engineer of the
turnout requirement in October 2002.
On December 26, 2002, City staff met with Caltrans personnel to inquire if the bus
turnout lane was necessary for this in -fill development request. Caltrans personnel
stated the Highway 1 1 1 turnout lane was required.
During plan check processing, the Community Development Department contacted the
SunLine Transit Agency to inquire if removal of the Plaza La Quinta bus shelter was
possible as a new shelter was constructed to the east of Washington Street for the La
Quinta Court development. SunLine Transit Agency indicated that the shelter was
necessary.
Redevelopment Agency Review
On March 4, 2003, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (RDA) considered potential
terms and conditions of acquisition and/or disposition of real property located at the
southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street by and between the Agency
and M/H Realty Partners II, LP (Attachments 3 and 4). The RDA decided that no
funding opportunities would be forthcoming to assist the remodel project. As this was
a "Closed Session" agenda item, no minutes from the meeting are available. As also
requested by the applicant's letter, the RDA directed the applicant to file a request to
eliminate the bus shelter requirement before the Planning Commission.
PROJECT REQUEST:
On May 1, 2003, the applicant filed a request to waive Condition #12 of Planning
Commission Resolution 2002-022 which requires replacement of the existing bus
g: SDP725 Folder/SDP725#1 Flnal Report.wpd
shelter on Highway 1 1 1, to the north of Pad #5 (Site Development Permit 2000-667;
78-447 Highway 111), with a City approved bus shelter structure. By eliminating the
condition, Vons would not be required to install the bus shelter, nor the turnout
facilities required by Caltrans.
Public Notice
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 12, 2003, and
mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date,
no written correspondence has been received. Any correspondence received will be
delivered to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Public Hearing notices
were also sent to Caltrans and the SunLine Transit Agency offices.
Public Agency Review
On May 6, 2003, the Community Development Department requested comments on
the project from other City Departments, Caltrans and the SunLine Transit Agency.
A letter from SunLine Transit Agency is attached (Attachment 5). No new information
has been received from Caltrans on this request.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The existing Highway 1 1 1 bus shelter is adequate to serve SunLine Transit Agency's
operational needs until the roadway is widened to its ultimate width of eight lanes per
the City's General Plan Circulation Element. Changes to the existing Conditions of
Approval are highlighted in the attached material. The findings as required by Section
9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made as noted in
the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving Site Development Permit
2001-725 Amendment #1, subject to findings and the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. SDP 01-725 Site Plan
2. January 22, 2002 Planning Commission minutes (Excerpt)
3. January 24, 2003 Vons Letter
4. Bus Turnout Exhibit
5. May 13, 2003 SunLine Transit Agency letter
6. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission only)
g: SDP725 Folder/SDP725#1 Flnal Report.wpd
Prppikred by,.
F
Greg TrouSdeN, Associate Planner
g: SDP725 Folder/SDP725#1 Final Report.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-022 TO REMOVE
CONDITION #12 REQUIRING A NEW BUS SHELTER TO BE
BUILT ON HIGHWAY 111 DURING THE EXPANSION OF
VONS SUPERMARKET LOCATED AT 78-271 HIGHWAY
111 WITHIN THE PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: VONS, A SAFEWAY CO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 241h day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of Vons to waive the requirement to install a new bus shelter on Highway
1 1 1, per Condition #12 of Planning Commission Resolution 2002-022, located at 78-
271 Highway 111 within Plaza La Quinta, more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Number: 604-050-008
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22"d day of January, 2002, approve construction and remodel plans for the
Vons Supermarket and Fred Sands Desert Realty located at 78-271 through 78-297
Highway 111 within Plaza La Quinta, by adoption of Resolution 2002-022 on a 5-0
vote. At the meeting, the Planning Commission also determined the expansion request
was Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 (Class 3C) and 15311 (Class
11 A) of the Guidelines for Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public
hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 12, 2003, for the June 24, 2003
Planning Commission meeting as prescribed by Section 9.200.1 10 (Public Hearings)
of the Zoning Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to property owners within
500 feet of the project site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent
property owners; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit Amendment:
G:SDP725 folder/ResoPC No BusS-Final.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1
Vons, a Safeway Co.
June 24, 2003
Page 2
1. Consistency with the General Plan - Pursuant to the City's General Plan
Circulation Element, off -site improvements such as transit facilities are
encouraged to enhance the City's circulation system, increase high occupancy
vehicle ridership and assist other public agencies in their transportation goals.
The existing Highway 1 1 1 bus shelter is adequate to serve SunLine Transit
Agency's operational needs until the roadway is widened to its ultimate width
of eight lanes.
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code - The ongoing expansion plans of the Plaza
La Quinta Shopping Center are in compliance with the City's Zoning Code
requirements, including but not limited to height limits, number of parking
spaces, and lot coverage.
3. Compliance with CEQA - Bus shelter improvements are exempt per Section
15305 (Class 5B) of the Guidelines for Implementation of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as long as the improvements are within an
existing right-of-way for which an encroachment permit can be issued.
4. Architectural/Site Design - The existing, and proposed, Conditions of Approval
for Site Development Permit 2001-725 require the expansion plans of the
shopping center to be architecturally compatible through the use of stucco
facades, the roofing, wood trellises, and other embellishments.
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; and
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-725 Amendment
#1 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A") .
G:SDP725 folder/ResoPC No BusS-Final.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1
Vons, a Safeway Co.
June 24, 2003
Page 3
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:SDP725 folder/ResoPC No BusS-Final.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-725, AMENDMENT #1
VONS, A SAFEWAY CO.
JUNE 24, 2003
GENERAL
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Site Development Permit 2001-725 Amendment #1, unless
otherwise amended by the following conditions.
2. The applicant and/or property owner 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 Amendment. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public 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)
• SunLine Transit Agency
• Caltrans (Encroachment Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
G:SDP725 Folder/CondSDP 725 #1 Final Bus Shelter .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1
Vons, a Safeway Co.
June 24, 2003
Page 2
FIRE MARSHAL
4. Final conditions will be addressed when the architectural building plans are
reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Riverside County Fire
Department (Indio Office) at the time building plans are submitted.
FEES
5. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the Development
Impact Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit.
7. Sign permit fees shall be paid to install any new on -site signs.
MISCELLANEOUS
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following revisions or notes on the
plans shall be made to the building plans, subject to the approval of the
Community Development Director:
A. The easternmost parapet wall, inclusive of the Fred Sands Desert Realty
building, shall be redesigned so as to be in scale and design with the in -
line tenants to the east.
B. Four foot wide raised landscape planters shall be installed under the north
building elevation wood trellis. These planters shall be a minimum length
of 8'-0" and capped using brick. The final number and location of these
planters shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
C. Parking lot trees shall be a minimum height of 10'-0" high (minimum 1.5"
caliper) when installed. Eliminate the Yellow Oleander tree from the plant
list and replace with Australian Willow (Giejara parbiflora).
G:SDP725 Folder/CondSDP 725 #1 Final Bus Shelter .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1
Vons, a Safeway Co.
June 24, 2003
Page 3
D. The Plaza La Quinta Employee Parking Plan shall be modified to include
an enforcement program for the employee parking area south of the Vons
building. The enforcement plan shall include a provision that the spaces
shall be used, in the daylight hours, from October 1 through May 31.
The enforcement plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance
of a building permit. Any amendments to the Employee Parking Plan shall
be approved by the Community Development Department.
E. Roof parapets shall screen any roof mounted mechanical equipment from
view of neighboring properties.
F. Diffuser lenses shall be added to all parking Dot light fixtures to eliminate
glare.
G. Bike racks shall be installed in close proximity to the Vons entrance
pursuant to Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Ordinance.
9. Preliminary landscaping and final landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation plans,
substantially conforming to this approval shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit by
the Building and Safety Department.
Application10. Prior to buo'ding permit issuanee, a- Lot Line Acqustment ••�
d approved by the Gity I . 'operty ia nee that conflict with
development of the project. The legall doeurn nts shall be recorded with the
Gounty of Riverside. (Completed)
11. All letters from affected public utility or service agencies on file in the
Community Development Department shall be complied with.
IrM
I . NO
e
G:SDP725 Folder/CondSDP 725 #1 Final Bus Shelter .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1
Vons, a Safeway Co.
June 24, 2003
Page 4
13. The property owner shall ensure that customers and employees of the shopping
center have access to building and parking facilities in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Any change to the number
of parking spaces within the shopping center shall comply with Chapter 9.150
(Parking) of the Zoning Code.
G:SDP725 Folder/CondSDP 725 #1 Final Bus Shelter .wpd
ATTACHMENTS
F
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
2. Chairman Abels asked if there Offy questions of staff.
Commissioner asked if the tree be replanted. Staff stated
the architect could answe uestion.
3. There being no f uestions of staff, Chairman Abels asked
if the applica d like to address the Commission. Mr. John
Walling, r nting the applicant, gave a presentation on the
projec stated that in regard to the trees, it depends on
w or not they could be moved and saved.
4 airman Abels asked if there was any other public co
PV There being no further public comment, the public pa ion
portion of the hearing was closed and open for ission
discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to ad anning Commission
Resolution 2002-021, approving velopment Permit 2001-
727, subject to the findings a ditions as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Comm
Chairman A
None. 4W
P% Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
ES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
il
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m.
D. Site Development Permit 2001-725; a request of Carlos Gomez for Von's
Shopping Center for review of development plans to increase the size of
the Von's Supermarket from 36,827 square feet to 47,198 square feet
for the property located at 78-271 through 78-297 Highway 111, within
Plaza La Quinta.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the old plan shows a wooden trellis
shade structure and it now appears to be a solid archway that is
shorter. Staff stated it is a reduced arcade structure.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 12
0
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
3. Commissioner Tyler asked the purpose of the flat arcade. Staff
stated there is no purpose, it was a design element.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Carlos Gomez, representing the applicant, stated
he was available to answer any questions.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if the roofline was extended. Mr.
Gomez stated that as a result of the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee's recommendation they balanced the structure
to be more symetrical with the in -line units.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the entrances would be the same.
Mr. Gomez stated they would be moved only five or ten feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the building would move any further
out into the parking lot area. Mr. Gomez stated no.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the blowers over the entrance
doors would be made more attractive to not appear to be add-ons.
Mr. Gomez stated they are designed according to health
standards. Commissioner Robbins stated his objection is to the
aesthetics and whether or not they could not be treated
aesthetically. Mr. Gomez stated they would see if there were any
other designs available.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked about the parking analysis. Mr. Gomez
stated they based their parking plan on the aerial photograph that
had been taken. Commissioner Kirk stated if they are showing
147,000 square feet of tenant space and if the parking
requirement is one parking space for every 250 feet, he comes up
with 588 parking spaces. Mr. Gomez stated each particular tenant
is allocated a number of parking spaces, and they are within at
least one stall of meeting the requirements. Discussion followed
as to how they were calculated.
9. Commissioner Butler asked staff what they were asking of the
applicant in regard to employees parking in the rear. Staff
explained they were trying to make sure all parking was utilized.
Additional lighting and patrol was needed to ensure the employees
would use this area for parking. However, Vons does not have a
rear entrance for accessibility and staff has made this a condition
of approval (#8.D).
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-O2.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
10. Commissioner Tyler asked if they are going to enclose the arcade
and will the carts be moved inside. Mr. Gomez stated yes.
Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the pavilion. Mr.
Gomez stated this area was the Manager's office. Commissioner
Tyler asked if a bank was proposed to be located inside. Mr.
Gomez stated none at this time.
11. Chairman Abels asked if the entrance could be a double vestibule
for energy conservation. Mr. Gomez stated two vestibules are
proposed. Also in regard to proposed Condition #8.D., they are
willing to provide employee accessibility, but believe a rear door
access is a security problem. Could this be done through the side
driveway aisle? They will provide extensive lighting and security
to encourage employee parking. Mr. Thomas Acevedo, Director
of Real Estate for Vons, stated there are security issues to be
considered in regard to internal theft and nighttime security, such
as packages leaving, bodily injury, etc. They can accommodate
striped access and lighting to direct employees to the parking in
the rear. The nighttime employees would be given the ability to
park out front due to the decreased amount of usage of the store.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked about the bus stop on Washington
Street. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
bus stop on Washington Street will be moved across the street in
front of the Point Happy development. The bus stop on Highway
1 1 1 will be upgraded to meet the City's new standards.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the mezzanine as shown on the plans,
will be kept? Mr. Gomez stated yes.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked why Von's security is any different that
the other in -line stores. Mr. Acevedo stated the issues of the
products being removed is primary as there is no one in the rear of
the store on a constant basis and second the bodily harm as there
is no way to secure the area.
15. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff did a parking analysis. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio stated yes and they came up with-614
spaces which meets the requirement. Commissioner Kirk asked if
staff was concerned if they did not use the parking in the rear.
Staff stated yes, as they would not meet the requirements. To
limit them to day use in the rear and nighttime in front would be
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
sufficient. Mr. Keith Charles, Architect for the project, stated
there is 147,618 square feet of building area and 575 parking
stalls are required. With the proposed building area they are
showing it at 3.8 per thousand; 4 per thousand would be 590
stalls. They are providing 589, so they are within one stall.
Discussion followed regarding parking and security issues with a
rear entrance.
16. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further discussion, the public participation of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any way for the City to
enforce the employee parking plan. Assistant City Attorney John
Ramirez stated he was not sure. This is different from the
prototypical situation where you would involve Code Compliance,
and he would be skeptical of it being a viable .tool. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio there could be a stipulation put on Vons
to meet the requirement and require them to submit the plan to
staff prior to issuance of building permit. Discussion followed as
to possible alternatives regarding the parking plan.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to . adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-022, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
725, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
A. Condition ##8.D: Amend to read, "The Plaza La Quinta
Employee Parking Plan shall be modified to include an
enforcement program for the employee parking area south
of the Vons building. This enforcement plan shall include a
provision that the spaces shall be used, in the daylight
hours, from October 1 through May 31. The enforcement
plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of a building
permit."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 15
0
VONS. ATTACHMENT 3
A SA/AWAY COMPANY
January 24, 2003
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of La Quinta
P. O. Box 1504
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253-1504
Re: Vons #2175 (Site Development Permit 2001-725)
78-271 State Hwy. 111
La Qukta, CA
a
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
L�9 n _
COMMi N JTY' L �V qOPh°
Ai
Vons is excited with the prospect of remodeling and expanding its market located at the
southwest comer of Highway 111 and Washington. This is a project that would allow
Vons to greatly improve its customer offering and community servi in the City of La
Quinta. However, as I have discussed with the Community Development Department
personnel, the projected costs associated with this project are extremely high and
potentially prohibitive. As you may aware, Vons has previously accepted the Planning
Commission approval conditions requiring that Vons update and improve parking lot
lighting, landscaping signage and various other non -store related elements which have
been projected to cost approximately $200,000. This includes the replacement of the
current bus shelter located on Highway 111 (Condition #12 of Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-022) which is expected to exceed $23,000. This last condition was
accepted even while considering that this shelter is approximately 600 linear feet away
from Vons' front door and that a condition of this type is not customary given the scope
of the proposed project. The position taken by CALTRANS is that the installation of a
new bus turn lane will be required in conjunction witn the shelter construction. In my
letter to Mr. Oscar Orci dated December 11, 2002, it was noted that the cost of the turn
lane has been projected to be approximately $97,256 (this assumes there will be no
impact to existing underground utilities). As the Community Development Department
has verified, CALTRANS will not waive its position concerning this matter. Vons
requests that the City of La Quinta consider either of the following actions to help
alleviate the project hardship as described:
• Omit the bus shelter requirement as a condition of approval, or
Assist by contributing funds toward all or part of the construction costs associated
with the proposed bus shelter and turn lane construction.
P.O. Box 513338, Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338
618 Michillinda Avenue, Arcadia, CA 91007-6300 * Telephone (626) 821-7000
Mayor and City Coun*
#2175 La Quinta
January 24, 2003
• Page 2
Your assistance in this matter is very much appreciated. I will call you this Thursday,
January 30, 2003 to discuss this matter further. In the meantime, if you have immediate
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (626) 821-7051.
Sincerely,
THE NS COMPANIES C.
Thomas B. Acevedo
Director of Real Estate
cc: Richard Chavez, Vons Store Design
JOscar Orci, Planning Manager, City of La Quinta
gy° A
pATTACHMENT 4
o .,
c o
O
M
aosi01s F.
4
v
S�
P2 WS
OVY
9
MEMBERS
Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio
15VI 91711fle Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella
T fl A N S I T A RVENE Y Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County
® La Quinta
A Pub / i c Agency
May 13, 2003
ATTACHMENT 5
o MAY 15 W �
Mr. Greg Trousdell r D EV
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA. 92253
RE: Site Development Permit 2001-725, Amendment #1 — Vons Supermarket
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
SunLine Transit has reviewed the above referenced document and wishes to make the
following comments for consideration by the Community Development Department.
We understand that the applicant has requested that the bus stop turnout and shelter
improvements be waived as part of the Vons Supermarket project. Although SunLine
Transit would prefer that a bus turnout be constructed as part of the project, we
understand the financial constraints that the developer may be experiencing. We would
recommend that if no improvements are required of the developer that the existing bus
stop and shelter would remain as is.
We appreciate your consideration of this request as this particular bus stop is used heavily
by residents of the City of La Quinta. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
1
Leslie Grosjean
Senior Transporta ion Analyst
`05 h'arijl Oli 1e)rail, Thousarc' Fa/ms, C.� G2.%7L P'
PH ##D
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 24, 2003
CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-771
APPLICANT: LARRY ANDREWS
(PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS)
PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA DEVELOPERS
REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR AN 11,200
S.F. TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING IN THE LA QUINTA
PROFESSIONAL PLAZA (PALM DESERT NATIONAL
BANK COMPLEX)
LOCATION: PARCELS 6 & 7 OF PM 29889 - EAST SIDE OF
WASHINGTON STREET, ±300 FEET SOUTHEAST OF
AVENUE 47 AND WASHINGTON STREET
(ATTACHMENTS 1 & 2)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS
EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW UNDER GUIDELINES
SECTION 15332 (INFILL DEVELOPMENT)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The 4.9-acre La Quinta Professional Plaza was approved as a 53,500 square -foot
commercial office complex in April 2001. That approval included a Specific Plan for
the entire site, along with a Site Development Permit for the existing Palm Desert
National Bank. All additional structures for the site must be in compliance with the
approved Specific Plan (SP 2000-049), and must be reviewed via the Site
Development Permit process.
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\0LK6284\perptsdp771.doc
Project Background
The applicant proposes a ± 1 1,200 gross square foot commercial/office building on
Parcels 6 and 7 of PM 29889, south of Avenue 47 and west of Caleo Bay Drive
(Attachment #2). This office space is designed as two separate office
improvements. Although each will be separately held properties, the structural
appearance will be that of one building.
ALRC Action - On June 4, 2003, the ALRC reviewed the project landscaping and
building architecture (Attachment #3, ALRC minutes). No significant issues were
raised by the Committee, which unanimously recommended approval of the Site
Development Permit as recommended by staff.
Building Height - The Specific Plan allows for building heights up to 35 feet (tower
features may extend up to 40 feet). The proposed office building shows a peak
roof height at the ridgelines of 33 feet. There are two tower features, one over the
elevator riser on the east elevation, and a rotunda on the west elevation; both
features peak at 35 feet.
Building Arrangement - The Specific Plan indicates separate building footprints for
each parcel; however the developer will be arranging these buildings to attach to
one another, creating an appearance of one building. Previous buildings in this
Specific Plan area have been approved under this arrangement consistent with the
Specific Plan siting, as the separation of interior building spaces does not
compromise the architectural style. An easement agreement will be prepared and
recorded to address parcel boundary issues, as was done for previous buildings in
this complex.
Landscaping and Parking — The building landscaping consists of materials listed in
the approved palette for the specific plan. It is mostly infill for existing tree wells
and parking islands, and building area planters. The landscaped area on the
building's west elevation borders future building pads for lots 8 and 9.
Lighting - The developer has installed all parking area fixtures at a height of 18 feet
for all poles. This is in compliance with the applicable Zoning Code sections on
lighting of parking lots. The lighting has been accepted by the City. No other
lighting is proposed beyond exterior fixtures, which will be addressed during plan
checking.
Public Notice
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 14, 2003. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public
hearing notice as required. No negative comments have been received. Any
correspondence received before the meeting will be transmitted to the Planning
Commission.
Public Agency Review
Staff transmitted the applicant's request to all responsible and concerned public
agencies. All comments received are on file at the Community Development
Department, and have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval,
as appropriate.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this proposal can be found in the attached
Resolution to be adopted for this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003 - confirming the
environmental determination of the Community Development Director, and
granting approval of Site Development Permit 2003-771, subject to
conditions as recommended by staff.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. On -site building location
3. ALRC minutes of 06/04/03 (2 pg.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN t11,200 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL OFFICE STRUCTURE
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-771
LARRY ANDREWS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 241h day of June, 2003, consider a Site Development Permit
application by Larry Andrews, for a ± 1 1,200 square -foot commercial/office
structure, located south and west of Avenue 47 and Caleo Bay Drive, and more
particularly described as:
PARCELS 6 & 7 OF PARCEL MAP 29889
WHEREAS, said Site Development
Permit application
has complied
with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental
Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution
83-63), in that the Community
Development Department
has determined that
the proposed Site
Development
Permit is exempt from
CEQA review under
Guidelines Section
15332 (Infill
Development); and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning
Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said
Site Development Permit:
1. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan, as it will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the
General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial and other
current City standards when considering the conditions to be imposed.
2. The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta
Zoning Code, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially
equivalent to those permitted under existing Community Commercial zoning,
and which were previously addressed in the EIR certified for the General Plan
and approved under Specific Plan 2000-049. Specifically, development of
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\0LK6284\peresosdp771.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-771
June 24, 2003
existing CC -zoned land is considered to implement zoning consistency with
the General Plan.
3. The proposed Site Development Permit complies with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"
as amended (City Council Resolution 83-63), as it has been determined that
the Site Development Permit is exempt from CEQA review under Guidelines
Section 15332 (Infill Development), and that a Notice of Exemption should be
filed.
4. The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will
be compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the
Lake La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2000-049, and with the
overall design quality prevalent in the City.
5. The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit will be
compatible with and not detrimental to surrounding development in the Lake
La Quinta tract, the approved Specific Plan 2000-049 and with the overall
design quality prevalent in the City.
6. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit has been
designed to unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed project with
the surrounding development, and is consistent with the landscape concept
approved for Specific Plan 2000-049.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2003-771 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 24th day of June, 2003, by the
following vote, to wit:
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6284\peresosdp771.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Site Development Permit 2003-771
June 24, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6284\peresosdp771.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- EXHIBIT „A1„
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-771
LARRY ANDREWS
JUNE 24, 2003
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Site Development Permit (SDP) 2003-771 shall be developed in compliance
with these conditions and all approved site plan, elevation, color, materials
and other approved exhibits submitted for this application, and any
subsequent amendment(s). In the event of any conflicts between these
conditions and the provisions of SDP 2003-771, these conditions shall take
precedence.
2. SDP 2003-771 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation
measures for the following related approvals:
• Environmental Assessment 2000-405
• Specific Plan 2000-049
• Tentative Parcel Map 29889
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions
of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine
precedence.
3. This approval shall expire two years after it's effective date, as determined
pursuant to Section 9.200.060.0 of the Zoning Code, unless extended
pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.200.080.
4. 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
development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have
sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the
applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public
agencies:
• Riverside County Fire Marshal
• La Quinta Building and Safety Department
• La Quinta Public Works Department
(Grading/Improvement/Encroachment Permits)
• La Quinta Community Development Department
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED
June 24, 2003
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Southern California Gas Company
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• Waste Management of the Desert
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
6. 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.
7. All aspects of this project (plan preparation, all construction phases,
operations, etc.) shall be subject to and comply with the adopted Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Negative Declaration (EA 2000-405), as certified by
the La Quinta City Council.
8. The applicant may be required to configure existing parking facilities to
conform with requirements of the LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking) and ADA
requirements as set forth under GRADING.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features
shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths
and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
General access points and turning movements of traffic to off site public streets
are limited to the access locations approved in SP 2000-049.
A. Washington Street — Right turn in, Right turn out, only.
B. Avenue 47 — No turning restrictions.
C. Caleo Bay — No turning restrictions.
S:\Com Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed .doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval — RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
PROPERTY RIGHTS
9. 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.
10. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of
way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties
owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way
or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from
the property owners.
11. 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 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.
12. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and
utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal
Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands,
and common areas.
14. Direct vehicular access to and from lots with frontages along Caleo Bay is
restricted, except for those existing access points identified on the approved
Tentative Parcel Map. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or
written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on
which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other
encroachments are to occur.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
15. 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.
SACom Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval — RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
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.
"Site Development Plans" shall normally include all surface improvements,
including but not limited to: parking lot improvements, finish grades, curbs &
gutters, ADA requirements, retaining and perimeter walls, etc.
Site Development Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface
improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs &
gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA
requirements; and show the existing street/parking area improvements out to
at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets.
17. 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.
18. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of the development or
building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
FIRE PROTECTION
19. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Marshal:
A. Approved super fire hydrants shall be located not less than 25 feet, nor more
than 165 feet, away from any portion of the buildings, as measured along
vehicular travel ways.
B. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street, 8 inches from centerline to
the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
C. Water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2250
gpm, and the actual fire flow from any hydrant shall be 1500 gpm for a 2-
hour duration at 20 PSI, residual operating pressure.
S:\Com Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval - RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
D. Building plans shall be submitted for to the Fire Department for plan review,
to run concurrent with City plan checking.
E. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, etc.) shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
F. City of La Quinta Ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 s.f. or
larger to be fully sprinkled (NFPA 13 Standard). Sprinkler plans will need to
be submitted to the Fire Department.
G. The required water system, including hydrants, shall be installed and
inspected by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible
building materials being placed on site.
H. Install a KNOX key box on each commercial suite (Contact the Fire
Department for an application).
I. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
GRADING
20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
21. 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.
22. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect, and
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer,
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.
S:\Com Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval — RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
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.
23. 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.
24. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a lot pad
certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor. Such pad
certification shall list the relative compaction of the pad soil.
r1RAINOr;F
26. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved Lake La Quinta Master
Drainage Plan and the Palm Desert National Bank Drainage Plan. Nuisance
water shall be retained on site and disposed of in the existing combination
catch basin/dry well located in the landscaping adjacent to the Caleo Bay
access.
UTILITIES
27. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities),
LQMC.
28. 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.
29. 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.
S:\Com Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval — RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
LANDSCAPING
30. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development
Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
31. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When
plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD
and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for
signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until
signed by the City Engineer.
32. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized.
CONSTRUCTION
33. 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 final asphalt lift and parking lot signing and striping
shall be completed prior to final inspections of habitable buildings.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
34. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet
with the approval of the City Engineer.
35. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record
drawings.
36. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required
by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, specifications and applicable regulations.
37. 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
S:\Com Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
Site Development Permit 2003-771
Conditions of Approval — RE COMMENDED
June 24, 2003
applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image files previously submitted to
the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
38. 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
39. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
40. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the
City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
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).
41. Prior to completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of
the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a
reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay
the cost of the reapportionment.
MISCELLANEOUS
42. The applicant shall submit a detailed building lighting plan to include exterior
fixture details. The lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the
building permit.
43. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened and installed using
compatible architectural materials and treatments, in a manner so as not to be
visible from surrounding properties and streets. Working drawings showing all
such equipment and locations shall be submitted to the Building and Safety
Department along with construction plan submittal for building permits.
Method and design of screening must be approved by the Community
Development Department prior to any issuance of building permits related to
structures requiring such screening.
SACom Dev\Betty\coapcsdp771-fixed.doc
7
w
va
z
Z
Z
cn
C_
CHMENT
CV aW :zs
= az
LLI
LL tl� Z6
oz N
(D g66
ac,
< 0
co
in
z
4 1 w IL
- — - — - — - - — - — - — - — --
AVS 031V5-
T.7-71-TR -77
i �� o
ifa CL
<
aQ Q < CL
LLJ
i ��
z LJJ cl
04
LrnT 7'J
133HIS NOI!E)NIHSVM
--- ------------------------- ------------------------
�wm
:D
70
ATTACHMENT #3
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee
June 4, 2003
a. Condition # landscape architecture changed.
Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2003-771; a request of the Prest/Vuksic
Architects for review of architectural plans for a 11,200 square foot
office building to be located on Parcels 6 and 7 of the La Quinta
Professional Plaza at 47-000 Washington Street.
1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Mr.
Dave Prest representing the applicant who gave a presentation
on the project.
2. Committee Member Thorns noted he lives within the Lake La
Quinta development and he has no interest in this project and
lives further than 500 feet away from the project.
3. Committee Member Cunningham noted this is a project in
evolution. The project is different than most complexes in that
it is not a complex of theme buildings. There is a lot of good
design. This building will add to the complex. The colors will
be an interesting aspect over time.
4. Committee Member Thorns stated it will be a nice addition to
the site. He asked where the Tenant building will be located.
Staff noted there is a parking area between the two and the
building will be to the south of that.
5. There being no further questions of the applicant, it was moved
and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Cunningham to
adopt Minute Motion 2003-024 approving Site Development
Permit 2003-771, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
E. Site Development Permit 2003-773; a request of California Cove
Communities for review of architectural plans for three prototype
units within the Greg Norman Course located at the northwest corner
of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard.
1. Associate Planner Martin Magana presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department. Staff introduced Ms.
Carol Long, and Matt Mosie representing the applicant who
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\6-4-03 WD.doc
PH #E
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 27, 2003
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31253
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-076
REQUEST: 1) APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS
REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND;
2) SUBDIVIDE 20 ACRES INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND
OTHER REMAINDER AND AMENITY LOTS
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY
OWNERS: QUARRY RANCH L.L.C.
LOCATION: WEST OF JEFFERSON, SOUTH OF QUARRY LANE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSESSED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-
452 WAS PREPARED FOR TENTATIVE TACT 30651, WHICH
WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2002. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED, AND NEW
INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER
THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR), UP TO 4 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE
ZONING: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SURROUNDING
LAND USES: NORTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
SOUTH:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
EAST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
WEST:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL)
BACKGROUND:
The subject property consists of 20 acres located west of Jefferson Street, south of
Quarry Lane within Tentative Tract 30651 (Attachment 1, Quarry Ranch). The
General Plan and Zoning Code designates for the property are Low Density Residential.
Also, portions of the property are above the "toe of slope" and in the Hillside
Conservation Overlay District.
Applicant Request
Conditional Use Permit 2002-071
All development within the Hillside Conservation District requires approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Tentative Parcel Map 31253
Proposed is the subdivision of remainder Lot "I" to create two lots within the recently
approved Tentative Tract 30651, The Quarry Ranch. Both lots will take access from
Tom Fazio Lane South, an existing private street within The Quarry. Parcel 1 is 57,296
square feet and Parcel 2 is 20,128 square feet. Pad elevations are proposed to be 76
feet for Parcel "1 " and 77 feet for Parcel "2". Tom Fazio Lane South, the portion
directly in front of Parcels 1 and 2, varies in elevation from 56 feet to 73 feet. The
preliminary grading plan shows a total of 9,160 cubic yards of hillside are proposed to
be cut with 5,392 cubic yards of fill, netting 3,768 cubic yards of cut to be balanced
on site.
Single family homes are allowed on slopes of less that 20% when the density is one
unit per ten acres, the development contains 20 acres, each lot has 20,000 square
feet, and the access road to each lot is under the 15 % slope. The areas to be
developed meet the under 20% slope requirement.
A site development permit is required prior to the construction of any homes on the two
lots. The Hillside Conservation District requites a public Hearing before the Planning
Commission for the site development permit. These plans must show the delineation of
the footprints, the architectural elevations, and a viewshed study.
A homeowners' association will be formed for Tentative Tract 30651, The Quarry
Ranch and these parcels will be included in that association to maintain retention
basins, common landscaped areas, private roads, and perimeter landscaping.
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 13,2002. All property
owners within 500 feet of the entire development were mailed a copy of the public
notice.
Public Agency Review
The project was sent out for comments to City Departments and affected public
agencies on May 21, 2003. Agency comments received have been made a part of the
Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The applicant's request to create two new residential lots and allow development on
hillside property is consistent with the General Plan, Hillside Conservation District, and
the Subdivision Ordinance provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are met.
A report from Sladden Engineering (Attachment 1) is attached to substantiate this
approval. Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in
the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ approving Conditional Use Permit
2003-076 subject to the attached conditions; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Tentative Parcel Map
31253, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Report from Sladden Engineering dated May 12, 2003
2. Tentative Parcel Map 31253
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP IN HILLSIDE
PROPERTY
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-076
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
24th day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request of
Winchester Development to allow two residential lots to development on 20 acres
located within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District, collectively "the Project",
generally located west of the Jefferson Street alignment, south of Quarry Lane, more
particularly described as:
A.P.Ns: 755-050-008 and 766-060-001
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify
recommendation for approval of the Conditional Use Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the project proposed for
development is residential and the property is designated Low Density
Residential.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code, and Hillside Conservation District.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined that the request has been assessed in
conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2002-452 that was prepared for
Tentative Tact 30651, which was certified on September 17, 2002. No
changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which
would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Assessment
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
4. The design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been designed
with the appropriate parking and vehicular access.
NOW, THEREFORE, 6E IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
G:\WPDOCS\PC Stf Rpt\PC RESO CUP 2003-076.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditional Use Permit 2003-076 — Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby accept the determination of the Community Development
Department that no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, and no
new information has been submitted which would not trigger the preparation of
subsequent environmental review.
3. That it does hereby approve the above -described Conditional Use Permit request
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 24th day of June 2003, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC STF RPT\PC RESO CUP 2003-076.DOC
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2003-076
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
ADOPTED: JUNE 24, 2003
R12INXttlL
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 in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. The use of the subject property for residential uses shall be in conformance with
the approved exhibits and Conditions of Approval contained in Conditional Use
Permit 2003-076 and tentative Parcel Map 31253, and Environmental
Assessment 2002-548, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
3. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the
effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
"Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time
extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in
Municipal Code Section 9.200.080
D.
4. A site development permit is required prior to the construction of any homes on
the two lots. The application shall include the delineation of the footprints, the
architectural elevations, and a viewshed study.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA CUP 2003-076.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND ONE REMAINDER PARCEL
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31253
APPLICANT: WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 24th day of June, 2003, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a
request of Winchester Development to allow two residential lots and one remainder lot
to be developed on 20 acres located within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District,
Parcel Map 31253, generally located west of Jefferson Street alignment, south of
Quarry Lane, more particularly described as:
A.P.Ns: 755-050-008 and 766-060-001
WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was completed for
this area. The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2002-452 for
Tentative Tract 30651. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new
information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent
environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
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 to justify said
Tentative Parcel Map 31253:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan.
The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the 2002
General Plan Update. Tentative Parcel Map 31253 is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein
are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, and mitigation measures pursuant
to Environmental Assessment 2002-452. The density and design standards for the
tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance.
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Parcel Map 31253 — Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards contained
in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. Access for the
single family lots will be provided from an existing private road adjacent to the
development.
C. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially injure fish or
wildlife, or their habitat.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division under the
provisions of the Hillside Conservation District. Therefore, this project will not
cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their
habitat because mitigation measures will be implemented.
D. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map or type of improvements, are not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, as conditionally approved, will not
cause serious public health problems because they will install urban
improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
E. The design of the Tentative Parcel Map, or type of improvements, will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The proposed access to each single family lot is from an existing street. All
required public easements will be provided to the site to support the necessary
infrastructure improvements.
F. The design of the lots, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious
public health problems in that the Fire Marshal, Sheriff's Department, and the
City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public
health conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate.
G. The design of the lots, or type of improvements, will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal access will be
privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly -owned
improvements within the Tentative Parcel Map.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Quarry TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Tentative Parcel Map 31253 — Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
H. The design of the lots and grading improvements, including the pad elevation
differentials within the tract are an acceptable minimum in that the tract design
preserves community acceptance and buyer satisfaction.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning
Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of
the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of
the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby accept the determination of the Community Development
Department that no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed, and no
new information has been submitted which would not trigger the preparation of
subsequent environmental review.
3. That it does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map 31253 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 City Planning Commission, held on this the 241h day of June, 2003 by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Quarry TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Tentative Parcel Map 31253 — Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\Quarry TPM 31253.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 31253
WINCHESTER DEVELOPMENT
JUNE 24, 2003
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final
Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense
counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or
proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense
This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code ("LQMC.
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www.la-guinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits 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)
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storm
water 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:
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
a. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs less than five (5) acres of land, but which is 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").
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 project.
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 Practices ("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 erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant
to this project
f. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of
project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the
City.
5. 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 permits
PROPERTY RIGHTS
6. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction 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 maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
7. The applicant shall acquire an easement across Lot G of Tract No. 27728 and across
the remainder parcel shown on this tentative parcel map for access to Parcels 1 and
2 in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific
G:\WPDOCWC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall make provisions for
continuous maintenance of the driveway from each parcel to the roadway and all
related landscaping by creation of a Homeowner's Association (HOA), or annexation
into an existing HOA
8. 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 on the Parcel Map.
9 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, driveways or other encroachments will occur.
10 The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and
the date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the
City Engineer.
PARCEL MAPS
11. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program
Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Final Map.
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
12. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separated 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.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
B. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
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
The applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans required by other
agencies and utility purveyors
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally 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.
13. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and 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.
14. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved 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 that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
15. Prior to the approval of any Parcel Map, the applicant shall install survey monuments
and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed
Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing installation of the survey
monuments or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the
City.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
16. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion
of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
17. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the 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 monumentation.
18. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: (1)
construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site
improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3) reimburse
others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an
obligation of this tentative tract map, (4) secure the costs for future improvements
that are to be made by others, or (5) to agree to any combination of these means, as
the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Parcel Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such
improvements.
19. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall
submit detailed cost estimates for the final survey monumentation, for checking and
approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost
schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed cost estimates for conditional approval
of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each
of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a 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.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
20. Should the applicant fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely
manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final
building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the
project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
22. 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.
23. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
a. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
b. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer.
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16,
(Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC.
d. BMPs for Storm Water Pollution Prevention, erosion Control, and dust control.
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.
A statement shall appear on the Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
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 as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
24. 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.
25. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations and grading shown in the approved
Tentative Parcel Map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed
elsewhere in these conditions of approval.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
26. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown in this
Tentative Parcel Map, if approved, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
27. 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.
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.
28. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries,
levels or frequencies in any area outside the development.
29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
30. Storm water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report
prepared for The Quarry subdivision. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in the
existing drainage system.
UTILITIES
31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities),
LQMC.
32. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utilities 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.
33. 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.
34. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
35. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC.
36. General access to and from the Tentative Parcel Map area shall be Tom Fazio Lane
South and other existing road connected to it.
37. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries as
needed to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements.
LANDSCAPING
38. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
39. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
40. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with
the approval of the City Engineer.
41. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such 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.
42. 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.
MAINTENANCE
43. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
44. 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
45. 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
46. Driveways less than 150 feet in length may be 12 feet wide, no turn -around or
turnout is required.
47. Driveways exceeding 150 feet, but less than 300 feet must be no less than 16 feet
wide. Turnouts will be required at mid -point on driveways exceeding 150 feet, but
less than 300 feet and a turn -around will be required at the building end. (Upon
review, if there are no line of sight problems between the Street and the building the
Fire Department may waive the turn -out requirement)
48. Roadways exceeding 300 feet in length must be no less than 20 feet wide. No
turnouts will be required, however a turn -around at the building end is required.
49. If a required turn -out cannot be provided at mid -point, the road width will be 20 feet
the full length, and a turn -around is still required at the building end.
50. Multiple Parcels served by the same driveway require a 20-foot wide roadway.
51. Turn -around must be within 50 feet of the building.
52. Access must not exceed a grade of 15%.
53. There shall be a standard fire hydrant with in 250 feet of the driveway.
54. The fire hydrants shall be available and capable of providing 1000 GPM fire flow prior
to any combustible materials be placed on site.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_
Conditions of Approval — Recommended
Tentative Parcel map 31253- Winchester Development
Adopted: June 24, 2003
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
55. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the District for review.
56. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for
the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges
are subject to change.
57. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the District for
sanitation service.
58. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the
District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management.
MISCELLANEOUS
59. The easement shown on the Parcel Map for Parcel No. 1 shall be changed to become
part of the lot, and have a minimum of 20 feet in width.
60. The remainder parcel shall be designated as a lettered lot and restricted to Golf
Course/Open Space
61. The proposed homes shall be limited to a height of 22 feet and one story.
62. The developer shall comply with the mitigations found in Environmental Assessment
2002-458, as they pertain to this development.
63. Comply with the conditions as stated in the June 9, 2003 letter from the CVWD.
64. A site development permit is required prior to the construction of any homes on the
two lots. The application shall include the delineation of the footprints, the
architectural elevations, and a viewshed study.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Resolutions\PC COA TPM 31253.doc
a
Sladden
Engineering
ATTACHMENT #1
6782 Stanton Ave., Suite A, Buena Park, CA 90621 (714) 523-0952 Fax (714) 523-1369
39-725 Garand Ln., Suite G, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 772-3893 Fax (760) 772-3895
May 12, 2003
Quarry Ranch, LLC
1 Quarry Lane
La Quinta, California 92253
Attention: Mr. John Shaw
Project: Parcels 1 & 2 — Parcel Map 31253
The Quarry at La Quinta
La Quinta, California
Subject: Geotechnical Addendum
Project No. 544-2098
03-05-284
Ref: Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Sladden Engineering dated
July 31, 2002, Project No. 544-2098, Report No. 02-07-445.
Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Buena Engineers, Inc. dated
November 2, 1989, Job No. B7-1405-P1, Report No. 89-10-831.
As requested, the following Geotechnical Addendum has been prepared to provide specific
recommendations the design and construction of the proposed residence lots within the
southern portion of The Quarry at La Quinta development. The referenced Geotechnical
Engineering Reports were prepared for the initial Quarry project site prior to development
and for the new 9-hole short course presently under construction. The subject lots are
located just south of the initial Quarry at La Quints project site and west of the new short
course development.
The preliminary grading plans prepared by The Keith Companies indicate that the proposed
site grading will include substantial cuts into the existing native hillside along with minor
fills to construct level building pads. The proposed building sites are located on an elevated
alluvial terrace deposit extending from the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south.
The rugged terrain prevented previous site exploration but geologic mapping of the soils
observed within the adjacent exposed natural slopes provided useful information regarding
the site soils conditions. The soils underlying the site are expected to consist of high energy
alluvium comprised of silty fine to coarse -grained sands with abundant gravel, cobbles and
boulders. The alluvial soils underlying the site are expected to be dense and should provide
adequate support for the proposed residential structures with minor remedial grading. The
natural slope above the lots is covered with cobbles and boulders of varying size, some of
which may be susceptible to downslope movement during a significant seismic event.
Because the natural slope is relatively flat, the potential rockfall or rolling boulder hazard is
minimal. The slopes above the site should be inspected subsequent to grading and any
potentially unstable boulders should be removed.
May 12, 2003 -2- Project No. 544-2098
03-05-281
Remedial Grading: Because the subsoils contain significant amounts of cobbles and boulders
and the proposed grading will result in a cut/fill transition within the northern portion of the
lots, we recommend remedial grading including overexcavation and recompaction throughout
the building areas. Prior to grading, the building pads should be stripped of the existing
vegetation and root systems. The building areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at
least 3 feet below pad grade or 1 foot below the bottom of the footings whichever is deeper.
Once cleaned of oversized material, the previously removed soils and any fill material should
be placed in thin lifts at near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. Compaction should be verified by testing.
Structural Considerations: The structural recommendations included in the above
referenced Geotechnical reports remain valid. Allowable bearing values, lateral pressures
and frictional coefficients as outlined in the referenced report should be applicable for
foundation design. These structural values are summarized below.
Conventional shallow spread footings should be bottomed into properly compacted fill
material at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should be at
least 12 inches wide and isolated pad footings should be at least 2 feet wide. Continuous
footings and isolated pad footings may be designed using allowable bearing pressures of 1800
psf and 2000 psf, respectively. Allowable increases of 250 psf for each additional 1 foot of
width and 300 psf for each additional 6 inches of depth may be utilized if desired. The
maximum allowable bearing pressure should be 3000 psf. The recommended allowable
bearing pressures may be increased by one-third when considering wind and seismic loading.
Lateral forces may be resisted by friction along the base of the foundations and passive
resistance along the sides of the footings. A friction coefficient of 0.50 times the normal dead
load forces is recommended for use in design. Passive resistance may be estimated using an
equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf. If used in combination with the passive resistance, the
frictional resistance should be reduced by one third to 0.33 times the normal dead load
forces.
Cantilever retaining walls may be designed using "active" pressures. Active pressures may
be estimated using an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf. Walls that are restrained should be
designed using "at rest" pressures. At rest pressures may be estimated using an equivalent
fluid weight of 55 pcf. The given design pressures are applicable for free -draining level
backfill conditions using native backfill soils.
General: The project site is located in a seismically active area and the potential for seismic
activity should be considered in structure design. As a minimum, the 1997 Uniform Building
Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4 should be utilized in the design of the proposed
residential structures. The 1997 UBC Seismic Design Criteria are summarized on the
attached data sheet. The site soils are non -expansive and special expansive soils design
considerations are not required.
Care should be taken to minimize infiltration adjacent to the building foundations and
pavement areas. Positive drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the
structures. The ponding of water adjacent to buildings and pavement should not be allowed.
Proper grading and possibly gutters and downspouts should be considered to direct
stormwater runoff away from the structures and paved areas. Landscape irrigation should
be minimized and closely regulated.
Sladden Engineering
May 12, 2003
-3- Project No. 544-2098
03-05-284
If you have any questions regarding this memo or the referenced reports, please contact the
undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SLADDEN ENGINEERING
1
Brett L. Anderson
Principal Engineer
SER/pc
Copies: 4/Quarry Ranch, LLC — John Shaw
Vadden EnQineerini,
May 12, 2003
-4-
Project No. 544-2098
03-05-28.1
1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE INFORMATION
The International Conference of Building Officials 1997 Uniform Building Code contains
substantial revisions and additions to the earthquake engineering section in Chapter 16.
Concepts contained in the updated code that will be relevant to construction of the proposed
structure are summarized below.
Ground shaking is expected to be the primary hazard most likely to affect the site, based
upon proximity to significant faults capable of generating large earthquakes. Major fault
zones considered to be most likely to create strong ground shaking at the site are listed
below.
Fault Zone
Approximate Distance
From Site
Fault Type
(1997 UBC)
San Andreas
15 km
A
San Jacinto
26 km
A
Based on our field observations and understanding of local geologic conditions, the soil profile
type judged applicable to this site is SD, generally described as stiff or dense soil. The site is
located within UBC Seismic Zone 4. The following table presents additional coefficients and
factors relevant to seismic mitigation for new construction upon adoption of the 1997 code.
Near -Source
Near -Source
Seismic
Seismic
Seismic
Acceleration
Velocity
Coefficient
Coefficient
Source
Factor, Na
Factor, N,
C8
C,
San Andreas
1.0
1.0
0.44 Na
0.64 Nv
San Jacinto
1.0
1.0
0.44 Na
0.64 Nv
Sladden EnQineerink
The Quarry Ranch — Parcel I and Parcel 2 Hydrology study
The Quarry Ranch site is composed of a rocky hillside covered with sparse brush. The
hillside slopes downward to the north at between 2% and 20%, the average being in the
10% range. An existing storm drain inlet is located between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2,
another is located west of Parcel 2 and a third is located east of Parcel 1.
The drainage inlets were designed as part of the overall hydrology study for The Quarry
subdivision. The drainage inlet west of Parcel 2 is comprised of a concrete drop structure
with a trash rack leading to a 6'x8' concrete box culvert. All flows west of Parcel 1 are
intercepted by this culvert. No changes to the existing grading are to be made to the
contributing area for this storm drain.
The drainage inlet between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 is a concrete headwall with a 30" RCP
culvert. Because of its location and the surrounding topography, this inlet intercepts only
those flows from the hillside, approximately 6 acres, most of which is in Parcel 2 with
about half of Parcel 1 contributing to this area. The other half of Parcel 1 continues to
drain in its historical pattern to the east. This inlet receives flows from a channel to the
south as well as from the adjacent hillside. This has not changed from the original
hydrology study. The basic flow patterns have not been altered. No new areas have been
graded to drain into either storm drain system.
The upstream contributing area for Parcel 1 is 0.139 Acres, approximately 0.21 CFS. The
graded area for Parcel 1 is 0.381 Acres. The change in flow from the existing conditions
to the proposed is an increase of 0.57 CFS (3 Hour 100 Year storm).
The upstream contributing area for Parcel 2 is 1.160 Acres, approximately 1.75 CFS. The
graded area for Parcel 2 is 0.911 Acres. The change in flow from the existing conditions
to the proposed is an increase of 1.30 CFS (3 Hour 100 Year storm).
Each parcel will direct the flow around the tops of slopes via brow drains per the city's
standards. These drains will flow at 1 % min and have a capacity of in excess of the
anticipated flows. See attachment for brow ditch capacities.
The additional flows are well within the existing systems capacity. Any flows reaching
Tom Fazio Lane will be intercepted by existing storm drain catch basins located within
the street and within 300 feet of the Parcel 2 driveway and within 180 feet of the Parcel 1
driveway. Tom Fazio Lane is a private street within the Quarry site.
On site runoff will be handled by swales and yard drain systems designed in accordance
With the City of La Quinta's standards.
Worksheet - Parcel 1 and 2 The Quarry
Worksheet for Triangular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitled.fm2
Worksheet
Parcel 1 and 2 at the Quarry Ranch
Flow Element
Triangular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Input Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.022
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Depth
1.00 ft
Left Side Slope
2.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Results
Discharge
12.28
cfs
Flow Area
3.00
ftz
Wetted Perimeter
6.36
ft
Top Width
6.00
ft
Critical Depth
1.01
ft
Critical Slope
0.009576
ft/ft
Velocity
4.09
ft/s
Velocity Head
0.26
ft
Specific Energy
1.26
ft
Froude Number
1.02
Flow is supercritical.
/13/03 KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. FlowMaster v5.10
:12:14 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
Flow in brow ditches
Plotted Curves for Triangular Channel
Project Description
Project File
untitleVITI2
Worksheet
Parcel 1 and 2 at the Quarry Ranch
Flow Element
Triangular Channel
Method
Manning's Formula
Solve For
Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient
0.022
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Left Side Slope
2.000000 H : V
Right Side Slope
4.000000 H : V
Kel
go
Re]
Jue
i.0
-.0
:.0
I.0L-
0.0
Input Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
Depth 0.00 1.00 0.20 ft
Discharge vs Depth
13!03
11:38 PM
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Depth (ft)
KEITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666
0.9 1.0
FlowMaster v5.10
Page 1 of 1
a
:°�
PH #F
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 24, 2003
CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2003-076
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND
CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE LA QUINTA ZONING CODE,
PERTAINING TO FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AS WELL
AS HOME SIZES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
BACKGROUND:
CITY-WIDE
CITY OF LA QUINTA
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL
CODE ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION
21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) STATUTES, AND
SECTION 15268, MINISTERIAL PROJECTS, OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
At the previous meeting the Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments
to the side and front yard setbacks requirements. No discussion took place regarding
minimum lot size requirements. The Planning Commission directed staff to synthesize
the comments and bring back the item for further discussion.
Proposed Regulations - Front Yard Setbacks
Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following Code Amendments are
proposed:
1. A minimum 25 foot front yard setback shall be provided for all front -entry
garages, or carports, for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH
zoning districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of
curb regardless of property line location, or type of garage door.
PAOscar\Zoning Issues\Stf Rpt2-ZCA-076.wpd 1
2. A minimum 15 foot front yard setback shall be provided for all side -entry
garages, or carports, for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH
zoning districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of
curb regardless of property line location, or type of garage door.
3. Casitas units (guest homes) shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from the
front yard for properties located in the RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning
districts. The front yard setback shall be measured from the back of curb.
Proposed regulations - Side Yard Setbacks
Based upon the Commission's discussion, the following Code Amendments are
proposed:
1 . A minimum 15 foot total aggregate side yard setback shall be provided in the
RL, RC, RM, RMH and RH zoning districts. A minimum distance of five feet
shall be provided on at least one side yard. A minimum five foot clearance is
required on at least one side yard with direct access from the front to the rear
yard.
2. Mechanical equipment, including pool equipment, may be located adjacent to
a property line with a block wall in the side and/or rear yard property line, in
accordance with all applicable building regulations.
Code Requirements - Lot Sizes
The Commission indicated a willingness to expand the minimum lot size requirements
to minimize the appearance of an overbuilt environment. After discussion, staff was
directed to bring back options for amendments to the RL zoning district. The majority
of the City's residential land use is designated Low Density (RL) Residential capable
of accommodating up to four dwelling units per acre. As indicated below, the
minimum lot size in the RL zoning district is 7,200 square feet. The following table
provides the minimum lot sizes in the various residential zones:
Zoning District
Min. Lot Size (square
feet)
RVL
20,000
RL
7,200
RC
7,200
RM
5,000
RMH
3,600
P:/oscar/zoning issues/stfrpt2-ZCA-076 2
RH
2,000
RSP
N/A
RR
N/A
* Minimum lot size for single-family attached
units.
In attempting to develop options for the expansion of minimum lot sizes in the RL
zoning district, staff considered the following:
• Exclusionary Zoning Implications - A larger lot requirement may result in less
variety of housing opportunities.
• Market driven development versus Code mandated requirements - A larger lot
requirement may produce undesirable development and or inflated housing
costs.
• Aesthetic Consideration - A larger lot size may not mitigate the concerns
expressed by the Commission regarding an overbuilt appearance.
• The role of other development standards such as setbacks - Modifications of
other Code provisions, including development standards may mitigate the
appearance of overbuilt development without the need for an increase in lot
sizes.
• The Department of Housing Development (HCD) requires cities to develop and
maintain regulations that can accommodate affordable housing - Larger lot size
regulations may reduce the availability of affordable housing opportunities.
0 Development Doctrine - An increase in lot size will be consistent with the
General Plan.
Staff developed the following options:
Option 1. 8.000 square foot lots
This option would result in larger lot developments and in turn may reduce the
appearance of an overbuilt environment. A variety of housing lot size development
opportunities remain because the other zones will not be changed. This option is
consistent with the General Plan policies and programs.
Note, without additional development standards (e.g. side yard setback regulations)
developments may still appear dense. Also, larger lot sizes may limit housing choices
and be a constraint to producing affordable housing, which may not be acceptable to
HCD.
P:/oscar/zoning issues/stfrpt2-ZCA-076 3
Option 2. Modify Development Standards
This option would modify certain development standards in an effort to create the
appearance of more openness. One example, could be to change the minimum width
of the lots coupled with setbacks regulations to achieve the desired open space or
require more cluster development, as prescribed by the General Plan. This option
would achieve a more aesthetically pleasing (less dense) appearance. However, this
option will result in smaller building pads and the development of more second story
homes.
Option 3. No change
This option would keep things the same. The decision makers and staff would review
each development on a case -by -case basis and make a determination regarding home
location, architectural style, site Payout, and other development characteristics to
determine if a project is "too dense".
Staff recommends Option 3. This option allows the City the opportunity to review and
make adjustments on a case -by -case basis consistent with the General Plan provisions
while establishing requirements that could result in higher construction costs.
Other issues
Nonconforming projects:
At the previous meeting the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of
providing a legal nonconforming status ("grandfathering") to projects currently under
construction, or under the entitlement process. The Planning Commission also
suggested that the nonconforming status be limited in time. The City Attorney has
indicated the difficulty associated with providing legal non -conforming status to certain
projects. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus.
Casitas:
Discussion took place with regard to the front yard setback requirements for casitas
(Guesthouses Section 9.60.100). The Commission agreed that casitas should be
designed so the driveway is not part of the casita unit. The discussion was expanded
to include development standards for guesthouses, but no direction was provided to
staff. Please note that staff (Community Development and Building and Safety) is
currently reviewing the development standards, including entitlement process.
P:/oscar/zoning issues/stfrpt2-ZCA-076 4
Projection:
The Commission discussed architectural projections, which included eaves. It was
suggested that eaves be permitted to encroach into the side yard setback, while other
projections such as chimneys, windows, balconies, etc. be required to comply with the
side yard setback requirements. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus.
Structures in the side yard:
The Xode requires that yard structures (patio covers, gazebos, play equipment, etc),
storage and other accessory buildings maintain the 3.5 foot to 5.0 foot side yard
setback. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of reducing and or
eliminating the setback requirement. The Planning Commission did not reach a
consensus.
Side yard setback definition:
According to the Code, a side yard means "...a yard extending from the front setback
line to the rear setback line. The depth of the side yard is equal to the setback
established in the development standards for the applicable zoning district and is
measured along a line drawn at a ninety -degree angle to whichever of the following
results in the greatest setback: the side lot line, or its tangent, or the ultimate street
right-of-way, or its tangent". Discussion took place regarding the rear yard area
versus rear setback and the impact of the side yard setback (as defined by the Code)
when developing in the rear yard area adjacent to the side property line. More
specifically, the Planning Commission was concerned that the side yard setback, as
defined, would limit the ability to construct accessory structures. After a review of
aII the relevant Code provisions, Staff determined that the definition section should
remain and that the "depth ... [of the] setback established in the development
standards" should be modified accordingly.
Public Notice
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 31, 2003. No
comments have been received to date.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Zone Code Amendment can be
made, as noted in the attached Resolution.
P:/oscar/zoning issues/stfrpt2-ZCA-076 5
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076; or
2. Continue this item and provide direction to staff.
P:/Oscar/zoning issues/stfrpt2-ZCA-076 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL, AN AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN
CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD
SETBACKS AND LOT SIZES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
CASE NO.: ZCA 2003-076
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 10" and 24th day of June, 2003, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to make
certain amendments to the Municipal Code, to allow an amendment to the front and
side yard setbacks as well as lot sizes within residential zones; and
WHEREAS, the text amendment is exempt pursuant to Chapter 2.6,
Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act
statutes, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Zoning Code Amendment:
1. The proposed text changes are consistent with the goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan, and the Land Use Map for the General Plan and
surrounding development and land use designations, ensuring land use
compatibility.
2. The proposed text changes will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
and welfare, as they have been designed to be compatible with surrounding
development, and conform with the City's standards and requirements.
3. The proposed text changes supports the orderly development of the City.
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.
PAOscar\Zoning Issues\PC Reso-setbaks.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2003-
Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076
Adopted: June 24, 2003
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Zoning Code Amendment
is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Chapter 2.6, Section 21080 of the Public
Resources Code, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes, and
Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines.
3. That it does recommend approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076 to the
City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of June, 2003, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAOscar\Zoning IssuesTC Reso-setbaks.wpd
B I #A
DATE:
APPLICANT
PROPERTY OWNER:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 24, 2003
BART RINKER
RINKER ENTERPRISES
REQUEST: REVIEW AND CLARIFY USE OF BANNERS AND FLAGS,
INCLUDING THE AMERICAN FLAG, FOR TEMPORARY
ADVERTISING CONSIDERATIONS
LOCATION: 47120 DUNE PALMS ROAD (DUNE PALMS PLAZA)
BACKGROUND
Mr. Bart Rinker, owner of the subject building, was cited by the Code Compliance
Division for four banners he has displayed on his building at 47120 Dune Palms
Road. Specifically, this property, has four for lease banners displayed in violation
of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. These banners are in
violation because banners, other than for grand openings, are not permitted, and
the aggregate area of the four existing banners exceeds 24 square feet. In an effort
to work with the building owner, staff directed him to submit a written request
outlining his proposal for temporary leasing sign requirements. After review, staff
determined that the Planning Commission should review and clarify the use of
banners, including the use of flags as part of the owner's request.
PRnPnSAl
Attached is a letter from Mr. Bart Rinker, dated June 6, 2003, requesting
permission to display several American flags along his parcel at 47120 Dune Palms
Plaza (Attachment 1). The exact number of flags is not specified; the photos
supplied show three pole -mounted flags along the north building elevation, and five
along the west elevation. Mr. Rinker has basically put forth two preferred options:
1. Retain the existing banners , as described (Attachment 2) or,
2. Allow the series of American flags along the north and west parcel
boundaries, as shown in Attachment 1.
ANal YSIS
In regard to Option 1, the existing banner signs do not comply with the City sign
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6284\rinkersignrptl.doc
provisions. First of all, the Code does not allow the display of banners, other than
for grand opening signing. The sign code as written allows up to fifty temporary
signs on any one parcel, but those signs may not exceed an aggregate sign area of
24 square feet. The applicant proposes to retain the 4 established banner signs,
which total ±48 sq. ft. In order to come into compliance under the Code, the owner
would have to change out the existing banners with fixed -mount signs, with a
cumulative total of 24 square feet or less.
With Option 2, the sign provisions are less definitive. A key consideration under our
Zoning Code is that, while flags are specifically defined in the Code, they also
generally meet the definition of a sign, to the extent that they call attention to a
particular use.
The City's sign code exempts only temporary flags related to any national, local or
religious holiday in residential districts. They are only regulated in terms of height,
which is limited to that of the particular zoning district. Flags are also permitted as
part of model homes/sales office operations; again, these are residential accessory
uses regulated under a use permit. Essentially, there are no regulations identified
with regard to the use of American flags on commercial properties. While
apartment complexes are residential in nature, they do have a commercial
component to their operations, which require similar considerations for advertising.
ISSUES
The owner, in his letter, argues that the auto dealers are permitted to maintain a
much higher density of signs as part of their operations, and that regardless of
whether they are legally entitled, the impact is significant in light of the limitations
placed on other similarly zoned parcels.
The auto mall was given license to erect non -conventional types of signing as part
of their specific plan approval. In order to insure that this allowance does not
constitute a grant of special privilege, the opportunity must be available to other
similarly zoned properties - that opportunity is available via the specific plan and/or
sign program processes. Whether or not there is a basis for denial of future
requests, in light of any precedent set as part of the auto mall approval, remains to
be seen. It appears to be more prudent to pursue an alternative process, or to
amend the zoning code, in order to regulate temporary commercial signs.
RECOMMENDATION
In addressing the immediate issue raised for the applicant's property, staff
recommends that the Commission require the applicant to apply for a temporary
program for signs, independent of the existing permanent sign program, in order to
address the options he has set forth. The Commission should specify which of the
two options the applicant may pursue. This allows the applicant an avenue under
C:\WINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6284\rinkersignrptl.doc
the existing code, with no granting of any special consideration or privilege.
In terms of the general issues raised by this request, staff recommends that the
Commission focus their considerations on the following alternatives, or combination
thereof:
1► Provision of a temporary sign program process, for apartments and commercial
buildings. Defer to the sign program process for temporary signs for multi -tenant
buildings. Specific standards would be set for single tenant buildings.
2) Revising the code to allow for -lease banners. The current code prohibits banners
other than for business grand openings. Standards can be prepared for
commercial and apartment buildings, applicable only to arterial highways, or by
the zoning district. Allowing banners would be more cost-efficient for
management firms, and would help reduce sign clutter along streetscapes.
3) Revise the grand opening banner regulations to address leasing, new
management announcements and similar conditions, setting forth standards for
size, number, validity and location. This would be the simplest option to
implement.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Owner's letter dated 6/6/03
2. Photos of existing banners
CAWINDOWS\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6284\rinkersignrptl.doc
i
1 RINKER COMPANY
June 6, 2003
Mr. Wallace Nesbit
Mr. Anthony Moreno
CITY of LA QUINTA
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code
Temporary Signage — Dune Palms Plaza
Dear Gentleman,
Pursuant to several conversations with the Planning Department in particular Wally
Nesbit I am hereby requesting a review of the proposed violation that is stated above. As
you are aware I am attempting to do everything that is possible to market the lease up of
my building at 47-120 Dune Palms Road.
Given the building orientation to Dune Palms Road and Highway 111 it has become very
difficult to attract attention to interested tenants without going beyond the "norm" in
bringing attention to the building. Apparently the small "For Lease" banners on the face
of the building in three (3) locations are in violation to a Code with the City. As an
alternate to this temporary situation I would like to propose installing and adding several
flag poles with the American Flag, as shown on the attached schematics. This would be
done in good taste and certainly would not be met with any objections by the general
public, unless of course they were un-patriotic.
I do not believe this request is any more out of the ordinary than what is currently being
allowed with several of the auto dealerships along Highway 111.
As I indicated this temporary solution will resolve itself as soon as I have completed the
lease up on my building. An alternative to the flag poles would be to allow the existing
banners to remain until the lease up has occurred.
ATTACHMENT 1: 4 PAGES
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 7250 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-7250
TEL: (714) 979-8300 • FAX: (714) 979-3327
Mr. Wallace Nesbit
Mr. Anthony Moreno
CITY of LA QUINTA
June 6, 2003
Page 2.
Feel free to contact me with any questions or inform what measures are available to me in
order to move forward.
Palms Plaza, LLC
Cc: Mr. Harold B. Hembree — The Rinker Company
Mr. John Boyd — CB Richard Ellis, Inc.
0 8477
res:
'ures
#1 West side.
#2 West side.
ATTACHMENT 2: 3 PAGES
eer Assigned Date Closed _ (Approved By
- - -- -- �- -- - r --- —
My Moreno --- —� -- -- -- --
lay, June 17, 2003 Page 5 of 8
?# 8477
#2 West side close up.
#3 North side close up.
#3 North side.
:er Assigned Date Closed AApproved By
ny Moreno - -- --- --
lay, June 17, 2003 Page 6 of 8
V 8477
er Assigned
iy Moreno — --
ay, Juice 17, 2003
#4 East side.
Address
Address closeup
------ ------ -- --,
F Date --Closed
t
roved By - -
Page 7 of 8
Ma3mr®e Dates, 3ULC
1387 Ambassador Way
Salt Lake City, Utah 84108
(801) 582-0293 Fax (801) 583-1722
craigknight2002@hotmail.com
ccw,r..
June 20, 2003
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
La Quinta, Ca
Re: Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076
Dear Members,
I am the owner of Property on Monroe Street in the City of La Quinta and am informed of the
above referenced Amendment and wanted to express my concern and opinion.
The changes proposed may achieve some of the intended results but others always follow that are
not intended. My experience is market conditions generally drive a better project in its respective
zoning rather than forced changes. The City of La Quinta has done a very good job with what
has been produced. For example a larger lot size will bring in numerous request to change of
zoning to allow smaller lots than the current 7200 sq ft.
I am opposed to the Amendment and would subscribe to the staff recommendation "Option 3.
No Change" and allow the staff do what they have done in the past and that would be to make
minor adjustments on a case -by -case basis.
I will be in attendance of your meeting on June 24.
Thank you for your consideration.
Resp tfully,
Craig A, Knight, Manager
June 24, 2003
Mr. Rich Butler
Chairman
La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Rich:
Desert Chapte,
Building Industri, Associal
of Southern California
77-570 Springfield Lane
Suite E
Palm Desert. CdEfortua 9221
760.360.2476
fax 760.772.3372
www. Desert (:Iiapte.r. con i
E Mail: BIA@DesertChapt
Two weeks ago, members of the building industry of the Coachella Valley appeared before your
commission and expressed concerned with Zoning Code Amendment 2003-076. During the
rather lengthy discussion on the item, including front and side yard setbacks, we requested a
meeting with city staff to try and work out the differences in philosophy. Today we had that
meeting.
The crux of the meeting is that the building industry does not agree with either of the
aforementioned changes, nor the question of increasing lot size to 8,000 square feet, discussion
of which was never reached at your last meeting. The building industry sees no reason for the
suggested changes and has come to the conclusion that these changes will not achieve the stated
goals of some members of the commission.
As stated by you at your last Commission meeting, the changes being contemplated are too
important to be hurried. Given your thinking and the apparent lack of understanding of just what
the problem with current rules are, we respectfully suggest that no action be taken on Zoning
Code Amendment 2003-076 at your meeting tonight and, instead, the subject be referred to a
Commission study session with the building industry so we might work out realistic changes if
that is what is needed.
I am sorry for the last minute nature of this request, but a meeting with staff was required to
arrive at this conclusion. There will be members of the building industry at tonight's meeting to
further e#plain our thinking.
1/ I i ,/
Respkt X'y,
L �
Exec ive Director
c,'ttome Builcicrs vnd the California Building IndustryAssociation