The URL can be used to link to this page

1998 03 10 PCF`y OF TN�� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California March 10, 1998 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 98-008 Beginning Minute Motion 98-005 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. PRESENTATION A. Presentation of a Resolution of Appreciation to Al Newkirk for his time served as a Planning Commissioner. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for February 24, 1998 B. Department Report VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... CONTINUED - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-057, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Approval and recommendation to the City Council for certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to amend Chapter 9.140 - Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the Land Use Element and Environmental Conservation Element of the La Quinta General Plan regarding Hillside Development Density Action ............... Request to continue B. Item .................. SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #1, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590 AMENDMENT #1 Applicant.......... Lapis Energy/Allstate Self Storage Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road Request............ Amendments to existing approvals to allow an increase in approved floor area for a self -storage facility, from approximately 67,000 square feet to 91,000 square feet, and to allow minor architectural, material, and color changes for new tenancies and other additions to the project. Action .............. Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- C. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-619 Applicant.......... RJT Development - Dennis Cunningham Location .......... North side of Calle Tampico and west of Park Avenue within La Quinta Fairways Request ........... Compatibility review approval to allow six new prototype single family houses in Tract 25389 ranging in size from 2,180 square feet to 2,610 square feet under Specific Plan 83-001 Action .............. Resolution 98- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of March 3, 1998 X. ADJOURNMENT PACAROLYNTC AGENDA.wpd MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 24, 1998 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Butler. It was noted that Commissioner Gardner would arrive late. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 10, 1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be clarified on Page 2 B. La. Staff stated the last sentence would be deleted. There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Seaton abstaining and Commissioner Gardner absent. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Village on the Green - Environmental Assessment 97-349, Specific Plan 97-031, General Plan Amendment 97-055, Tentative Tract 28601, and Site Development Permit 97-618; a request of Catellus Residential Group and the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for approval and recommendation to the City Council for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval and recommendation of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract, PC-2-47-98 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 and Site Development Permit for a 26 acre, 86 family residential lot subdivision, and 118 senior apartments with recreational amenities on ten acres, reduce several street widths from the General Plan required 36-feet to 28- and 32-feet at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 48`' Avenue. The project is affordable from very low through moderate income levels. 1. Chairman Butler informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a continuance to March, 1998. 2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abels to continue the project to the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 1998. Unanimously approved. B. Tract 28470. Amendment #1; a request of Tradition Club Associates, LLC, c/o Winchester Development Company for approval and recommendation to the City Council for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-354 and revision of Tentative Tract 28470 Condition #79 reducing the 335-foot wide 17-foot maximum building height restriction corridor to a 150-foot wide corridor east of the ultimate right of way of Avenida Bermudas. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff requested additional language be added to the amended condition requiring the maximum of 24-feet for the rear of the lots listed in the condition. 2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to indicate where the applicant had placed the site poles at the site. 3. Commissioner Woodard stated he had heard the problem was the pad elevations were not graded correctly and asked if the line of site drawings were correct. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the pads were graded to the City's requirements, in accordance with the approved grading plans. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked what the distance was between the trees to be planted at the perimeter wall. Community Development Director stated the landscaping plan had already been approved. Commission Woodard stated his concern was that the line of site did not portray what affect the trees would have on the view. If the distance between the trees was wide enough the line of site studies would be true. PC-2-47-98 2 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if any restrictions had been placed on the applicant to require varying roof lines for the homes. Staff stated as the homes were custom, they did come before the Commission for review. In addition, it was rare that custom homes would have the same roof designs. 6. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff was to review the custom home plans. Staff stated they would be reviewed by the Building and Safety Department. 7. Commissioner Seaton asked staff if the homes in the Cove Subdivision had a 17-foot height limitations. Staff stated this was correct. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated he too was interested in the landscaping along Avenida Bermudas. The letter from Mr. Rowe, dated January 31 st and contained in their staff report, talks about a change to Condition #79 and #81. He is unaware of any changes and asked staff to identify them as they occurred. Staff stated there were a number of modifications that occurred to the Conditions of Approval between the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings including additions, deletions, and renumbering. Commissioner Kirk stated he was uncertain as to whether or not the applicant was asking to have the 150 foot height restriction extended to the second row of homes. 9. Mr. Mike Rowe, Winchester Development Company representing Tradition Club Associates, explained that when the project was originally approved the Conditions of Approval were established. The discrepancy happened when they held a town hall meeting with the residents to discuss the issues that had been raised at the first City Council public hearing. As the project was before the City Council on two different occasions, the changes to the conditions were made between these Council meetings based on the results of the meetings. They did not object to the changes at that time and they probably should have, because it has become a problem for the architects to work with this requirement. In regard to roof heights, the Tradition design review guidelines requires the roof heights to vary. He went on to describe the models he had brought to the meeting illustrating the differing roof heights of proposed homes. The design guidelines stipulate that the maximum lot coverage can only be 40%. He went on to demonstrate the line of sight for the 17-foot and 24-foot height measurement using pictures as examples. In addition, he stated the landscaping would not be so dense as to close off the view of the hillsides. PC-2-47-98 3 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 10. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to demonstrate on the line of site drawings, where the poles had been placed at the site. Mr. Rowe stated the poles were to give a true representation of what would be seen if a house were constructed at the 30-foot front yard setback line. The 24-foot marker shows what a house would look like at 150-feet and again at the 335-foot measurement. Commissioner Tyler noted the pictures were misleading in that a home would take up more space than what was represented by the poles. Mr. Rowe stated the purpose was to give a representation. 11. Commissioner Tyler asked if the landscaping would be designed to leave the open space between the lots. Mr. Rowe stated the models were a speculation and the exact determination for planting had not been made. The interior landscaping was designed to enhance the perimeter landscaping. Commissioner Tyler noted there was a 24-foot side yard distance and as the lots were well defined, it seemed the landscaping could be planned to take advantage of this open space to retain the mountain view. 12. Commissioner Seaton asked the applicant to explain the 150- and 335-foot distance. Mr. Rowe demonstrated on the plans where the two distances would fall on the lots backing up to Avenida Bermudas. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to show where the next row of homes would be built that he had referred to. Mr. Rowe clarified this was if the 150 foot was flipped onto the other side of Avenida Bermudas. It shows the extent of what the 150-foot represents and that it is more restrictive on their side as it would take into the account the second row of houses on Avenida Bermudas. What they intended to do was push the homes back away from Avenida Bermudas to have the 150-foot lot set back. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant to clarify that the poles were set at the proposed location of the facade at the 30-foot setback at 150 feet from Avenida Bermudas and this would not be allowed with the changes they were proposing. Mr. Rowe explained this was to represent what would be the worst case scenario. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated he had always supported the 24-foot height limit from the beginning of the project and it had been his understanding they had requested the 17-foot height limitation. Mr. Rowe stated it was not at their request. 16. Chairman Butler asked if the landscaping to be planted on the interior and exterior of the perimeter wall was to buffer some of the roof heights. If so, would this create a wall of landscaping that would block the view even PC-2-47-98 4 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 though the houses did not? Mr. Rowe stated the landscaping is not the typical row of Oleanders. It is not their purpose to create a wall of landscaping to block off the view. 17. Chairman Butler stated the Commission has no control on what the individual homeowners would plant, but would the development restrict the landscaping to maintain the open space. Mr. Rowe stated the design review committee would maintain the open space. 18. Chairman Butler asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission on this project. Diane Garcia 78-825 Nolan Circle, stated she was a resident of La Quinta and also represented the Desert Contractor's Association who also supported this development as it would be an enhancement to the City. 19. Mr. John Gunther, 53-235 Avenida Bermudas, stated he was not in opposition to the Tradition project. As he lived across the street, he would either benefit or be impacted by this development. He would prefer to retain the desert view, but he understands development must occur and this is a good project. His question is whether or not he would legally lose his right to raise any questions brought up at this meeting, if he does not speak take this opportunity to ask questions. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated he would have another opportunity to speak regarding this project at the City Council public hearing. Mr. Gunther questioned the City Attorney as to whether or not his personal problem had any basis on this project. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not believe it was applicable. Mr. Gunther informed the Commission that his purpose in speaking was that he was denied the right to build his house on Avenida Bermudas at 17-feet 6- inches and he needed to be sure his rights are protected on this issue. 20. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public hearing. 21. Commissioner Kirk commented on the size of the staff report for such a small request. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that any change to the Conditions of Approval opens up the entire tract map to any changes the Commission or Council deems necessary. Therefore, it is important that the Commission/Council have all the information available to evaluate whether any changes would impact the entire project. Second, this project is the subject of an environmental litigation with Fish and Game. Therefore, staff deemed it necessary to do an environmental study to make sure the height limitation as reviewed for any environmental concerns. Commissioner Kirk asked if the litigation was still active. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated PC-2-47-98 5 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 it was and would probably go to trial. Commissioner Kirk stated that in his opinion, the viewshed was significantly aesthetically affected on the northern lots, but not the southern. Perhaps there was a way this could be addressed by the Commission. 22. Commissioner Abels stated he thought this request was a necessary change and he supported the request. 23. Commissioner Woodard stated he too supported the requested change. He suggested the Commission look at the perimeter wall as it is a bigger disruption to the view of the mountains than the roof heights. He supported the applicant's request due to the placement of the homes facing Avenida Bermudas and the view not being violated as indicated by the report and presented. He went on to state that if the Cove had continued to be built as it is now, the view of the mountains would have been worse than what is currently being planned. 24. Commissioner Seaton stated she was not in favor of the change due to the aesthetics impacts and because the Cove Subdivision has stayed at the 17- foot height limit. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated he applauded the applicant on making this a world class operation with a wide variety of architectural treatment to the homes. In reviewing the history of the project he had a hard time determining when the height restrictions were changed. When the Planning Commission recommended approval this project it had a 17-foot height restriction at 150- feet. He noted that in the City Council minutes for March and again at the continued meeting in April, there was no mention of how the height restriction changed to the 335-foot distance. However, he was in favor of the change as it will give the project the necessary flexibility it needs. The Cove has a 17-foot height restriction and a 20-foot setback. This development has a 17-foot height restriction with a 150 foot setback. This plays out to have no impact. He would have felt better about the project if the Commission had been able to review the entire design review package that the applicant has prepared for their designers. Neither the Commission nor Council have been given the opportunity to review and approve the design guidelines let alone the individual home sites.. 26. Chairman Butler thanked the applicant and staff for taking the time to meet him at the site and explain the request. It is his opinion that the project will be a benefit to the City. PC-2-47-98 6 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 27. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to recommend to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-354 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 98-006. 28. Chairman Butler asked if there was any discussion. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain how the corridor setback change to 335 feet happened. Community Development Director Jerry Herman went over the history. He noted that the 24-foot height limitation is appropriate for most of the homes, but not for these that front onto Avenida Bermudas. Commissioner Kirk noted that since the events are not documented, it must have been a desire of the Council and the community to protect this viewshed and perhaps the Commission should not be changing this requirement. He would be voting against the change and he would like to state that the 24-foot height limitation is appropriate for the majority of the lots, but does not seem appropriate for the homes at the northern end of the project. 29. Commissioner Tyler also noted that the change of 335-feet is not noted in the Minutes of March 18, 1997. 30. Commissioner Woodard noted this was an environmental issue and asked where you should draw the line between the design guidelines of an existing development and allow a new development to have their own design guidelines. If you had homes on the other side of Avenida Bermudas constructed at 17-feet without the setback that is being presented, you would have more a view obstruction. He asked that Commissioner Kirk revisit his decision that this height change would be a detriment. Commissioner Kirk stated it was true that if the Cove had continued to develop as it had, the view affect would be different. However, this was not a typical Cove development, but a specific plan and you cannot apply the Cove regulations to this development. Commissioner Woodard questioned what the Commission was trying to achieve by keeping the height restriction at 17- feet. With the berming, wall, and setbacks, the amount of the view intrusion is minimal compared to the assets it brings. Commissioner Kirk stated his concern was that the public process may be circumvented, but as he was not present during the approval process, he could not tell. Community Development Director clarified this was a tract map not a Specific Plan. The zoning is low density residential which allows two story and 28-foot height limitations as a matter of right. Staff recommended the houses adjacent to Avenida Bermudas keep the 17-foot height restriction to maintain the PC-2-47-98 7 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 character of the Cove. In addition, the General Plan requires a 150-foot setback for image corridors and even though Avenida Bermudas is not an image corridor, staff determined the street was major enough to require the 17-foot height limitation. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Seaton, Gardner, Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to recommend to the City Council approval of Tract 28470, Amendment #1 as submitted, by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 98-007. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Seaton, Gardner, and Kirk. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 32. Commissioner Kirk clarified that he was unaware that the first motion was related to the Environmental Impact, and if he could vote again, he would not vote against the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He concern was with the height limitation itself. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if his objection was the viewshed, it is an objection to the findings in the environmental and therefore, appropriate that he vote against the environmental. Discussion followed. C. Environmental Assessment 98-351, General Plan Amendment 97-056 and Zone Text Amendment 97-057; a request of the City for approval and recommendation to the City Council for certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to amend Chapter 9.140 - Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the Land Use Element and Environmental Conservation Element of the La Quinta General Plan regarding Hillside Development Density. 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. 2. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern that one of the Commissioners had a strong involvement in two projects that would be directly affected by this potential change. 3. Chairman Butler asked the City Attorney to give her opinion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she had not studied the proposed changes in depth, but the issues appeared to be whether the proposed changes will have an impact on an individuals source of income. The proposed changes do not change how the blowsand is, or will be, treated. Commissioner Woodard PC-2-47-98 8 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 should have a better idea of whether some revision of this ordinance is going to impact his client financially. Commissioner Tyler stated he would rather continue this item until the City Attorney had the opportunity to review the proposed changes. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated he was unaware of what Commissioner Tyler was referring to as he did not believe he had any conflicts of interest. Commissioner Tyler asked if it wasn't true that during the City Council and Planning Commission tour of the Hillside and areas that would be affected by the proposed changes, Commissioner Woodard spoke regarding his plans for two projects, St. Frances of Assisi Church and the La Quinta Arts Foundation. Commissioner Woodard stated he is not involved with the church at all, and second, he is a member of the Board of Directors for the La Quinta Arts Foundation and he represented them in the acquisition of the property and has since been hired by them as their architect. Whether this Commission votes to allow development on a one percent grade, or on top of the ridge, has no affect on his economic income regarding this project. 5. Commissioner Tyler stated he has a problem accepting that statement as any design or suggestions he proposes for the hillside could have an impact. 6. Commissioner Woodard clarified that he had not been contracted by anyone to be their architect and second he stated there all sorts of options available in regard to the hillside. However, there are no plans on what they will do. 7. Chairman Butler stated that in addition to this request, there are some other concerns regarding this General Plan Amendment he would like to have the City Attorney review before the Commission discussed the proposed changed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she would like to have additional time to review the 20 acre per unit issue. As to Commissioner Woodard, it does not appear that the Arts Foundation would monetarily benefit from this proposal. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to continue this item to the next meeting of the Commission. Unanimously approved. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked the City Attorney to clarify whether he would be in conflict of interest if he lived at PGA West and an issue came before the Commission that would potentially affect the value of his property. Should he abstain from voting. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated he should if PC-2-47-98 9 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 it would affect only his property in a specific way. PGA West itself is such a large community within the community, that it meets the exception for the "public generally" test. If it affects the entire specific plan community he would not need to abstain. 10. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether his decisions on the Hillside Ordinance would affect his income as an architect for the Foundation. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it is more of a problem if it affects the source of his income. V. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Presentation by Cultural Commission Chairman Kathryn Hull on the Draft Cultural Plan; a presentation was made on the draft plan. 1. Chairman Butler introduced Ms. Kathryn Hull, Chairman of the Cultural Commission who gave a presentation on the Draft Cultural Plan and asked for feedback from the Commissioners. 2. Chairman Butler stated he had read and was impressed with the Plan. It is not a document that he believes should have any major changes made to it. 3. Commissioner Tyler agreed that the primary goal of Plan is to foster culture in La Quinta. However, it has the mentality that, "if you build it, they will come". He questioned the two references to the La Quinta Open Air Museum/Sculpture Park and whether it was this still germane. Ms. Hull stated the Park is still open and available for tours by appointment. The family who now owns the Park, has it on the market to sell. It might be wise to take any reference to the Park out of the Plan due to its uncertainty. 4. Commissioner Tyler further stated the Plan appears to focus on the handicapped individuals rather than the whole community. In his opinion, the most important Goal is #6-Arts Education. Finally, on Page 10 he is not certain how the Historic Commission would be involved in the Plan. Ms. Hull stated the Plan was written first by listing the priorities and finally the way the thought process took place. 5. Commissioner Seaton stated she liked the Plan, but did she see a duplication of efforts. One example is the duplication of an Artist Bank by the Art in Public Places Commission and the La Quinta Arts Foundation. Ms. Hull clarified that the implementation of the Plan is not to be accomplished by the Cultural Commission, but for the Commission to coordinate the Plan. PC-2-47-98 10 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 6. Commissioner Seaton asked if the La Quinta Pageant was still in the making. Ms. Hull stated it was and gave a brief update. 7. Commissioner Woodard stated it was a visionary statement that is well thought out and has been discussed by the Arts Foundation. It is their hope that the Foundation will be able to help fulfill the Plan. 8. Commissioner Abels enjoyed the report and looks forward to its implementation. 9. Commissioner Gardner stated he too thought it was a good Plan and agreed that La Quinta should be known for something. He would encourage the Commission to keep going. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he too agrees with the other Commissioners that the Plan is well written and comprehensive. It does a good job of reaching out to the entire community. His concern is where this Plan will go from here. Goals are wishful thinking, but it appears that the objectives are as well. It is hard to determine when the objectives could, or would be, implemented. The Commission needs to determine when the objectives have been met. Commissioner Kirk sited an example where a local resident was treated unkindly by staff after she had been encouraged to obtain a Home Occupation permit as she was a local artist and La Quinta is known to be "art -friendly". In reviewing this Plan, he would hope it would be encouraging to those who would want to live here. Ms. Hull stated that once the concept is approved, they will get into the specifics of the Plan. It is her hope that some of the Goals in the Plan will come before the Commission in time. B. Sign Application 98-415; a request of Royal Sign Company for the William Warren Group for approval of a planned sign program including monument and wall signs for a self storage facility located at 46-600 Adams Street. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. 3. Mr. Clark Lynch of Royal Sign Company and Mr. Bill Hogan, the developer, stated they had tried to meet all City requirements in a tasteful manner. PC-2-47-98 11 Planning Commission Meeting February 24, 1998 4. Commissioner Tyler stated he preferred the rounded corners and asked if it was necessary to place the registered corporate markings on the sign. Mr. Lynch stated it is a requirement of the corporate office. In regard to the rounded corners, he too preferred them rounded. However, in reviewing the sign with the building, it was found that the building detail was not rounded and therefore, the rounded corners of the sign did not blend. 5. Commissioner Seaton stated she too liked the rounded corners. Mr. Lynch showed they were trying to match the building and how the rounded corners did not match the building's architecture. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Gardner to adopt Minute Motion 98-004 approving Sign Application 98-415, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Unanimously approved. VII CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion to set a date for a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission that the Council was requesting the Commission suggest a date and time for a joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission. Council has requested the meeting start at 4:00 p.m. on a regular Planning Commission meeting day. 2. Commissioner Abels suggested the meeting be held in March, either the Commission's first or second meeting. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of February 3 and 17, 1998. He informed the Commission that he would not be available to attend the next City Council meeting. Commissioner Gardner stated he would attend. C. Commissioner Woodard asked about the signs on south side of Highway I I I west of Jefferson Street advertising retail in Indio. Staff stated they were billboard signs that had been grandfathered into the City. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated billboards had become an issue that has received strong support and it is better to have the landowners terminate their lease, rather than have the City require removal. PC-2-47-98 12 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAH YLAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: MARCH 10, 1998 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 Staff requests a two -week continuance for the above items so that the City Attorney can complete a review of the proposed amendments. PH #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 10, 1998 CASE NO: SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028 - AMENDMENT #1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-590 - AMENDMENT #1 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SITE AND BUILDING AREA REVISIONS FOR PARCELS 1, 3 AND 4 OF SDP 96-590, SPECIFICALLY THE SELF - STORAGE PARCEL AND BOTH FUELING STATION USES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR LAPIS ENERGY. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF DUNE PALMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 (47-250 DUNE PALMS ROAD) APPLICANT: JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. (MR. MIKE BUNGANICH) LAPIS ENERGY (MR. DALE LEOPARD) PROPERTY OWNER/ DEVELOPER: MR. JULIAN SAUNDERS (ALLSTATE SELF -STORAGE) LAPIS ENERGY (MR. DALE LEOPARD) ENGINEER: RON MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES (ALLSTATE SELF -STORAGE) GARY ENGINEERING, INC. (LAPIS ENERGY) ARCHITECT: JORDAN ARCHITECTS ( ALLSTATE SELF -STORAGE) BUNDY/FINKEL (MOBIL OIL) BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit 96-590, one of four applications (Conditional Use Permit, Specific Plan, tentative Parcel Map being the other three) filed by the applicant for the referenced site. This approval was granted based on conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. The originally approved project plans are provided as Attachments 1 through 12. On April 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved minor site modifications to Parcel 1 of the Site Development Permit, which contains the Lapis fueling station, convenience store and restaurant uses. A:Uapspamdrpt.wpd On August 12, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to revise the approval for this project to allow an internal storage building of 30,900 gross square feet, some minor architectural, siting and parking changes, and a zero -setback along the east property line. It was determined that the applicant would need to file a specific plan amendment to allow these changes, and the request was continued indefinitely. On October 28, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the final landscape plan for compliance with the approval conditions for the entire site. The plan was approved, with a few minor changes. On December 23, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed changes proposed by Lapis Energy to the fueling canopy, equipment building and convenience store. Based on the conditions recommended by staff, Lapis requested that the item be continued, and the Planning Commission granted the request. The applicants propose revisions to the existing approval, as follows: ALLSTATE SELF -STORAGE - • Addition of a second internal storage building of 27,750 gross square feet. • Incorporation of an emergency fire access per fire department requirements. • Elimination of parkway retention on Dune Palms Road to allow landscaped berms. • Incorporation of increased drainage retention requirements. • Reducing the staggered 10 foot average setback along the east property line to zero. • Revisions to architectural design, elevations, colors and materials These changes affect the approved building square footage, increasing the gross building area for Parcel 3 from 66,810 to 90,936 square feet. This requires amending the Site Development Permit and the Specific Plan. LAPIS ENERGY/MOBIL OIL - • Minor architectural changes related to the Parcel 1 fueling station, which are essentially those continued from the 12/23/97 Planning Commission meeting. This requires amending the Site Development Permit. A:Uapspamdrpt.wpd DESERT SANDS CNG/DIESEL FUELING FACILITY - • Incorporation of a CNG dispensing equipment shelter/enclosure for an equipment pad of approximately 1,980 square feet on Parcel 4. This requires amending the Site Development Permit and the Specific Plan. These revisions are illustrated in the attached plan and elevation reductions immediately following this report as Attachments 13 through 19 for the Allstate proposal, Attachments 20 through 24 for the Lapis/ Mobil Oil proposal, and Attachment 25 for the Desert Sands CNG equipment enclosure proposed by Lapis. Larger 11 " x 17" exhibits of these attachments have been included in the Planning Commission packets. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Allstate Self -Storage Proposal: Amendments to the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit are required because Building C has been added where the previous outdoor RV storage area was approved. Other amendments to the Specific Plan are also required to allow the increased floor area. There will be some indoor RV storage available, in various sizes. The Site Development Permit is required to be modified because the architect has added further design articulation to the storage facility elevations facing Dune Palms Road. The manager's office has also been redesigned and reduced in total size from 3,037 to 2,346 square feet. Other changes include revising the site layout for the self -storage facility, eliminating the 10 foot staggered setback in favor of a zero -setback along the easterly property line, as allowed under the approved specific plan. The site layout was also revised to accommodate additional storm retention capacity made necessary by eliminating the Dune Palms parkway retention along this parcel. There is also a secondary access proposed, as required by the Fire Marshal. The revised elevations propose reducing the varied setbacks along Dune Palms Road from 4 individual storage buildings having 15 to 29 foot setback, to one continuous building with 20 to 29 foot setbacks from the ultimate Dune Palms right-of-way. The parkway area landscape has been revised to include 3 foot berms. The landscaping shown on'the revised pVans reflects the plan components previously approved on 10/28/97. As requested by the Commission, no oleander species have been included in the plant palette. Staff recommends approval of these changes because they do not significantly affect the concept, intent or provisions of the originally approved project. Several condition revisions are necessary, and are attached with the adopting Resolution. A:Uapspamdrpt.wpd Lapis Energy and Mobil Oil Proposal: 1. Mobil Oil, Parcel 1 - Revisions are proposed to the fueling canopy, equipment building and convenience store. These are the same revisions which were brought to the Commission on 12/23/97, but now incorporate staff's recommendations. Convenience mart - This structure's architectural design includes twelve inch square ceramic tile along the building wainscot, and glass block squares have been symmetrically placed in all building walls. The east elevation (entry) shows paneled windows surrounding the entry doors, in lieu of the previously approved glass block windows. The entry trellis has been widened, but shortened in depth, and the pop -out area housing the entry doors has been eliminated. The proposed west elevation eliminates the original trellis expanse, and the north elevation now shows an access door to employee and sales areas, along with a single -pane window. The south elevation has additional revised storage doors and the same single -pane window as the north elevation. Fuel canopy - The major change to this structure is in the roof line, eliminating the hip roof in favor of a flat roof. The roof cornice shown matches that of the convenience mart. The same ceramic tiles have been applied to the support columns to match the convenience mart wainscot. Equipment building, - This structure now incorporates a hip roof to complement the convenience store building. There are some changes to the number, type and location of access doors to the building. The wainscot areas are finished in the same ceramic the proposed with the convenience mart and fuel canopy support column bases. As with the previously approved building, there are no windows. The applicant has addressed all concerns of staff pertaining to the proposal when it was continued, such as lighting, color and material use, roof lines and the drive through window (see Attachment 26). Based on this, staff recommends approval. 2. Lapis Energy, Parcel - Lapis' original approval showed only a fuel pump island for this parcel. They now propose an approximately 66' x 30' concrete pad which will house equipment for fuel delivery to the island, thereby requiring that these amendments be processed. The structure is approximately 1900 square feet and flanked on the east and west with a metal shed roof, supported by stucco -walls to house the electrical equipment. The enclosure's interior is open, and houses additional equipment such as CNG tanks. The enclosure requires an open, vented design consisting AAIapspamdrpt.wpd of wrought iron fencing and gate sections between the two electrical sheds. The enclosure is Pocated north and central to the parcel, with gates facing south. The colors for the stucco and metal equipment shed panels (medium brown), and wrought iron (tan) are two of the same colors used for the Mobil proposal. Staff recommends approval of the enclosure based on the accessory nature of its use and incorporation of consistent project color and material. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98 -_, recommending City Council approval of Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #1, in accordance with the revised conditions as attached with said Resolution. 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98 -_, recommending City Council approval of Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1, in accordance with the revised conditions as attached with said Resolution. Amendment #1 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, planning Manager Attachments: 1 - 12. Originally approved project plans 13 - 25. Complete project revisions as proposed 26. Staff recommendation from 12/23/97 Planning Commission meeting on Lapis fueling station for Parcel 1 A:\Iapspamdrpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 96- 028, AMENDMENT #1 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 105,246 SQUARE FOOT MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.29 GROSS ACRES SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #1 LAPIS ENERGY/ALLSTATE SELF STORAGE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the I O'h day of March, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #l, to revise building siting, architecture, colors and materials, landscaping and drainage; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4`, day of February, 1997, approve Environmental Assessment 96-328 and Specific Plan 96-028, to allow various uses in conjunction with requesting approval for a 81,110 square foot commercial project on a 10.29 acre (gross) site; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has determined that the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original Specific Plan approval (EA 96-328) is adequate in addressing project impacts, and that no new environmental impacts can be anticipated from the proposed amendment; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation on said Specific Plan Amendment: The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the La Quinta General Plan, as it does not modify the approved uses or intent of the original project concept, land uses and objectives. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. The Initial Study (EA 96-328) for the original Specific Plan approval indicated that the project does have the potential to eliminate an important example of California prehistory; however, extensive investigations of the site have been completed pursuant to mitigation requirements as contained in EA 96-328, and the site has been monitored during all grading conducted thus far, and will continue to be. P:\WAI.I.Y\PCreso\sp028amd 1. wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 3. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties, as the proposed amendment will not alter the types or intensity of the commercial uses already approved under the existing Specific Plan approvals. The surrounding properties are also zoned CR and CP; development of these properties will incorporate similar compatible commercial uses. 4. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. The site is vacant, designated and zoned for commercial use, and located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, which commonly attracts automotive -based commercial uses. The Specific Plan as originally approved and proposed for amendment remains a consistent representation of and consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission regarding this Specific Plan Amendment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 96-028. Amendment #1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to approval conditions, attached hereto, as Exhibit "A" and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10`h day of March, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\W ALLY\PCreso\sp028amd l .wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98 - EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Recommended SPECIFIC PLAN 96-028, AMENDMENT #1 - LAPIS ENERGY/ALLSTATE STORAGE MARCH 10, 1998 1t Original condition approved by City Council on 2/4/97, as modified by Planning Commission on 3/10/98 (modified text shaded) GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. + Specific Plan 96-028 (SP 96-028) shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, the specific plan document as amended, 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 SP 96-028, the conditions shall take precedence. 2. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the property(ies) to which they apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Number 649-020-014). 3. + SP 96-028 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 96-328 • Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1 • Conditional Use Permit 96-029 • Tentative Parcel Map 28422 • Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #1 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 4. + The specific plan document for SP 96-028 shall be revised in conformance with the following: A. Section 2.4.6 - The document shall incorporate language to allow unenclosed shade and/or screen structures to locate within the 10 foot building setback, which is behind the 20 foot landscape setback. In general, the document shall reflect reductions in building setbacks for the mini -mart parcel (Parcel 1), the auto retail parcel (Parcel 2), and the storage parcel (Parcel 3) as shown on the approved site plan. coalapis.sp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - B. + Section 2.4.8 - The parking table shall be revised to separate the building area for the lube and retail uses, and to refer to the correct parking requirement of 1 space/300 square feet, and revise the number of spaces required. Revise the number of RV spaces as reflected the approval for SP 96-028, Amendment #1. Parcel 1 shall show the pizza restaurant use at 500 square feet and it's required parking. Total number of spaces required shall be 88; the document table shall contain all correct footage and include all correct number totals. C. Section 2.5.4 - This section shall discuss the actual distance from the Dune Palms Road/Highway 111 intersection to the Highway 1 1 1 access drive, as well as identify potential for permitting shared access with the easterly property, either via the Lapis access or another mutually agreeable alternative. Eliminate the discussion of the second Dune Palms access point in regard to full turn signalization; revise as right-in/right-out only. D. The Specific Plan shall reference that deviations from the Zoning Code include the allowance of tandem parking for the auto retail use, location of parking spaces on or within three feet of any property line, potential reduction or elimination of requirement for 5% minimum interior landscaping for Parcel 3, and allowance for a reduction in parking requirements on Parcel 3. E. + All revisions related to Amendment #1 for SP 96-028 shall be incorporated, pertaining to landscaping, berming, siting and building area of the self storage (Parcel 3), the C1G fueling facilities for Desert Sands (Parcel 4) and architectural, material and color changes as necessary for the specific plan. Parcel 2 development shall incorporate all design -related items associated with Amendment #1 for SP 96-028. 5. + Minor changes, as determined by the Community Development Director to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan, may be approved. Examples include modifications to landscaping materials and/or design, parking and circulation arrangements not involving reductions in required standards beyond those identified in the Specific Plan, minor site, building area or other revisions necessary due to changes in technical plan aspects such as drainage, street improvements, grading, etc. Such changes may be approved on a staff - level basis and shall not constitute a requirement to amend the Specific Plan. Consideration for any modifications shall be requested in writing to the Director and submitted with appropriate graphic and/or textual documentation in order to make a determination on the request. P:\coalapis.sp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 6. 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 96-328), as certified by the La Quinta City Council. 7. + All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 96-590 and any subsequent amendment(s) shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 96- 028 in the appropriate sections. The revised Specific Plan document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review at the time of initial building permit submittal. 8. 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. P:\coalapis.sp PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590, AMENDMENT #1, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 105,246 SQUARE FOOT MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 10.29 GROSS ACRES SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590, AMENDMENT # 1 LAPIS ENERGY/ALLSTATE SELF STORAGE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10`h day of March, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4`h day of February, 1997, approve Environmental Assessment 96-328 and Site Development Permit 96-590, to allow various uses in conjunction with requesting approval for a 81,110 square foot commercial project on a 10.29 acre (gross) site; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has determined that the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original Site Development Permit approval (EA 96-328) is adequate in addressing project impacts, and that no new environmental impacts can be anticipated from the proposed amendment; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation on said Site Development Permit Amendment: The proposed Site Development Permit Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the does not propose any changes in use or use thresholds that are inconsistent with the original approval. 2. The proposed Site Development Permit Amendment land uses are consistent with the Zoning Code, in that the amendment does not propose changing the uses which have already been approved and identified as permitted, subject to conditions on operation of those uses being applied. PAsdp590amd1.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 3. The requirements of CEQA have been complied with, in that an Initial Study was prepared (EA 96-328), which concluded that no significant impacts from implementation of the Site Development Permit and related applications will occur, with incorporation of mitigation as identified in the Initial Study. The applicant agreed to implement the necessary mitigation prior to site development activities in concurrence with project conditions relating to this. and in some cases has completed certain mitigation requirements. 4. The architectural design aspects proposed by the amendment are compatible with the type and quality of design prevalent in the City as well as with development on surrounding properties, based on the architectural theme, materials, colors and treatments to be incorporated into the overall project design. The overall site design of the project as amended is compatible with the type and quality of design prevalent in the City. On -site circulation layouts, access provisions and parking are in substantial compliance with the previous approval and all applicable development and design standards enforced by the City. 6. The revised drainage concept and landscaping approach for Parcel 3 is consistent with current City requirements pertaining to retention of storm waters in arterial parkways and provision of berms in landscaped parkways to provide screening of parking and building areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission regarding this Site Development Permit Amendment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 96- 590, Amendment #1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to approval conditions, attached hereto, as Exhibit "A" and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10`h day of March, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\sdp590amdl.wpd RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98 - EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Recommended SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590, AMENDMENT #1 LAPIS ENERGY/ALLSTATE STORAGE MARCH 10, 1998 + Original approved condition by City Council on 2/4/97, as modified by Planning Commission on 3/10/98 (modified text shaded) GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. + Site Development Permit 96-590 (SDP 96-590), 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 96-590, the conditions shall take precedence. 2. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the property(ies) to which they apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Number 649-030-014). 3. + SDP 96-590 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: • Environmental Assessment 96-328 • Specific Plan 96-028, Amendment #1 • Conditional Use Permit 96-029 • Tentative Parcel Map 28422 • Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Community Development Director shall determine precedence. 4. + This amendment approval shall expire one year 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. The validity of other related applications, as identified in Condition #3, shall not be a consideration in determining extension provisions. coalapis.sdp Resolution 98 - 5. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Building and Safety Department • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement/Encroachment Permits) • Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Southern California Gas Company • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) • Sunline Transit • Waste Management of the Desert The applicant is responsible for any requirements of these permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. 6. A plan for the provision of refuse storage and recycling locations and facilities shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review/approval prior to any Certificate of Occupancy. Said plan shall be prepared in accordance with City standards as set forth in Section 9.100.200 of the Zoning Code, and submitted with a written clearance from Waste Management of the Desert as to locations and design detail provisions. 7. + Handicap access and facilities shall be provided in accordance with Federal (ADA), State and local requirements. Handicap accessible parking shall generally conform with the approved exhibits for SDP 96-590, as amended. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 8. + Any deviation from setbacks requirements of the CR and CP zoning districts shall be in conformance with those approved as part of Specific Plan 96-028, as amended. 9. 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 96-328), as certified by the La Quinta City Council. 10. All parking area civil plans and improvements shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in applicable portions of Section 9.150.080 of the Zoning Code. 1 1.+All applicable conditions of approval for SDP 96-590, as amended, shall be incorporated into the revised text for Specific Plan 96-028, as amended, in the appropriate sections. The revised document shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review prior to issuance of the first building permit. PROPERTY RIGHTS 12. Applicant/Developer shall comply with the terms and conditions as stipulated in the temporary construction access agreement and reimbursement agreement entered into with the City. 13. 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. 14. Prior to approval of a final map, grading plan, or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which any grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes or other encroachments are to occur. 15. The applicant shall dedicate 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. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - Property rights required of this development include: A. State Route 1 1 1 - 86' half of a 172' right of way B. Dune Palms Road - 55' half of 1 10' right of way Right of way grants shall include additional widths as necessary to accommodate additional -width improvements shown on the approved improvement plans. If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. 16. The applicant shall dedicate or grant an access easement over the most southerly driveway off of Dune Palms Road to the owner of the abutting property to the south. The applicant may propose easement language requiring a reciprocal easement and participation in maintenance costs from the abutting property owner. 17. The applicant shall dedicate or grant an access easement to provide an access route from the center driveway on Dune Palms Road to the property to the east. The applicant may propose easement language requiring the owner of the property to the east to construct drive improvements not constructed by the applicant and to participate in the cost of construction and maintenance of the shared portion of the access drive. Width of this easement shall be a minimum of 41 feet, with design/improvements to be determined by the City Engineer. 18. +The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. State Route 1 1 1 - 50' B. Dune Palms Road - 20' Minimum widths may be used as average widths if meandering wall designs are approved, and as identified in SP 96-028, as amended. If public sidewalks are constructed in the setback areas, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setbacks. ;oalapts.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 19. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary, including placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 20. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the Public Works Director. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 21. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media. On -site plans shall be submitted in the categories of "Grading, Paving and Drainage" and "Precise Grading and Plot Plan." Off -site improvements shall be submitted in the categories of "Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." The "Precise Grading and Plot Plan" shall have signature blocks for the Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 22. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City Resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 23. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the Schedule of Unit Costs adopted by City Resolution or Ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the Public Works Director. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or television cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 24. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the Conditions of Approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works Director. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the Public Works Director. 25. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of improvements which have been or will be constructed by others (participatory improvements). Participatory improvements for this development include: A. Underground installation of existing overhead utilities. B. Ultimate improvements to the applicant's side of S.R. 1 1 1 including half of a raised landscape median (if Caltrans will not allow the widening concurrently with construction of this development). C. A raised landscape median on Dune Palms Road. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. GRADING 26. Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, the applicant/developer shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and indicate time lines for any project phasing, coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - and shall establish standards for comprehensive control of airborne dust due to development activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over the entire buildout of the project, such as for disturbed lands pending future development. 27. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 28. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 29. A grading plan, which may be combined with the on -site paving and drainage plan, shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall list, in tabular form, the pad elevations approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. DRAINAGE 31. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of public streets adjacent to the development. 32. Nuisance water and storm water shall be retained in retention basin(s) or other approved retention/infiltration system(s). In design of retention facilities, the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. 33. If retention is in an open basin, a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 34. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and depth shall not exceed six feet. 35. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. Doalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 36. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 37. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 38. Prior to approval of any final map, issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived final map, or construction of associated common drainage improvements, the applicant/developer shall obtain permission from Desert Sands Unified School District for drainage of stormwater from this property to retention facilities on that agency's property. 39. If stormwater retention in the area proposed for recreational vehicle parking is . permitted by the City, the retention depth shall not exceed eight (8) inches. 40. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 41. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the Public Works Director. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 42. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. State Route 1 1 1 - Major Arterial: 1) Street Improvements - Construct ultimate improvement on applicant's half of street as required by Caltrans. This work shall include a raised landscape median and six -foot -wide sidewalk. If Caltrans requires that all or a portion of the improvements be delayed until a later date, the applicant shall secure this obligation as a participatory improvement. 2) Traffic Signal at S.R. 111 and Dune Palms - relocate mast arm and pole to the ultimate location for fully -improved street conditions. It is anticipated that this work will require new pole and mast arm equipment. Make other modifications to signal as necessary to accommodate street improvements constructed with this development. -oalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - B. Dune Palms Road - Primary Arterial: 1) Construct ultimate improvement on applicant's side of street including a six -foot -wide sidewalk. The applicant's half of the raised landscape median is a participatory improvement which will be constructed by others. Bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 43. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: A. State Route 1 1 1 - One 28' wide right-in/right-out drive at the east boundary of this development. The applicant/developer shall grant a reciprocal access easement to allow the easterly property access to this driveway. Any modifications necessary and directly related to achieving a shared access situation shall be reviewed by City staff for compliance with applicable conditions and City standards. Upon development of the east property, this driveway shall be relocated to provide 50% coverage on each property, and be done as part of the east property's improvement requirements." B. Dune Palms Road - Three access drives as follows: 1) One 30' right-in/right-out drive centered approximately 360' south of the centerline of S.R. 1 1 1 right of way. 2) One 30' right-in/right-out/left-in drive centered approximately 620' south of the centerline of S.R. 1 1 1. 3) One 40' full -access reciprocal access drive at the south end of the development which shall straddle the boundary line with the property to the south. 44. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 45. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 46. The applicant shall provide transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. A minimum of five (5) bicycle spaces shall be provided for the pizza restaurant use at Parcel 1 (convenience mart/service station), as required under Section 9.150.060.D.3 of the Zoning Code. Location of these spaces shall be reviewed, along with other required revisions, as part of grading plan submittal. LANDSCAPING 47. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas along Dune Palms Road and S.R. 111. 48. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Revised landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works Director. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Public Works Director, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 49. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right-of-way. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 50. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Public Works Director. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 51. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 52. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 53. + Prior to any building permit issuance, any revisions to the overall landscape plan approved 10/28/97, for any future development in the project area, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for compliance review with the approved plan. Any proposed changes shall also conform with applicable zoning code provisions pertaining to landscaping, which do not conflict with the specific plan provisions, as amended. 54. + Landscaping within the overall project area shall be commonly maintained under a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, an appropriate maintenance mechanism shall be established to assure compliance with this requirement. Documentation necessary to meet this requirement shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Community Development Department prior to any Certificate of Occupancy for building areas. Said documentation must include that landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity, and that dead, dying or otherwise missing landscape improvements shall be replaced, replanted or provided within 30 calendar days. QUALITY ASSURANCE 55. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the Public Works Director. 56. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 57. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the Public Works Director. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the AutoCad plan files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - MAINTENANCE 58. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. FEES AND DEPOSITS 59. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 60. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 61. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT 62. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure, which must be available prior to any combustible material being placed on the job site. 63. A combination on and off -site Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/2 " X 2'/2 ") will be located not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. 64. Blue reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 65. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be approved and signed by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." coala.pis.scip Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 66. Buildings 5,000 square feet or larger shall be equipped with a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building. 67. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan check inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card, must be at the job site for all inspections. 68. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and NFPA Standard 72. 69. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining under ground/above ground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 70. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 71. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 72. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch; this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 73. + Gating across the secondary access for Parcel 3 (storage facility) shall have a minimum opening width of 16 feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. 74. + Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Department. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30 feet with the following: "No Parking - Fire Lane - L.Q.M.C. 12.28.130(C). 75. Specific fire protection requirements for each occupancy will be determined when final building plans are submitted for review. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are submitted. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. coalapis.sdp Planning Commission Resolution 98 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 76. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth disturbance, the applicant shall have prepared and obtained approval from the Community Development Department for a Phase III archaeological mitigation program for CA-RIV-5832. The program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, and shall include provisions for strictly controlled archaeological monitoring and data recovery, including research and field methods, lab analysis methodology, Native American consultation and monitoring, curation procedures, report preparation and disposition of artifacts and records. The final report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. MISCELLANEOUS 77. + 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. 78. The applicant shall submit a final, detailed project area lighting plan, based on the preliminary lighting plan reviewed with this application. All pole -mounted light standards shall be limited to 25 feet in height; coverage provided shall be demonstrated to adequately light the project area with minimal light wash on surrounding property. All lighting provisions shall be consistent with the Outdoor Lighting standards in Section 9.100.150. Said lighting plan shall be approved prior to issuance of the first building permit. 79. A comprehensive sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to establishment of any permanent signs for the project. Provisions of the sign program shall be in compliance with applicable sections of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Code. 80. 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. 81. Establishment or conversion of any use authorized under this approval shall not occur unless the appropriate applications, as deemed required by the Community Development Department, have been filed for review and approval. coalapis.scip Planning Commission Resolution 98 - 82. + Applicant/Developer shall submit design details for the access gates proposed for the self -storage warehouse use at the time of submittal for a building permit. Clearances shall be obtained from the Riverside County Fire Department and Public Works Department. All gating, including the secondary fire access gate along Dune Palms Road, shall be painted to match the color scheme for that use. 83. + Revisions or deviations from approved architectural aspects such as design materials, color schemes, accents, etc. shall be subject to review by the Community Development Director, who shall have the option of deferral to the Planning Commission on any such matter. • All trellises proposed shall be constructed in steel, painted to match the approved colors for the overall project. • The retail building at the south boundary of Parcel 2 shall be relocated 10 feet to the east in order to provide additional landscaped area on the west side of said building and facilitate pedestrian hardscape improvements associated with Parcel 2. 84. The applicant shall be required to provide a revised hydrology study and to submit revised site and drainage plans for rechecking by the City's plan check consultant. The rechecking entails a fee of $100/sheet. ;oalapis.sdp CO z uj aio Haas as asnsa —ul U - LLLLLL -----------------I is pp dz . cm 4rm a LL uj 0- o LU j > 0 __ cc a d o Iii� MIl ......... ...... z uj ail all 5 till 01 I OI Ni CL LU R .--- .. ....................... i AMH ....................................... — ---------- — -------------------------- ----- ---- - :L -------------------- d%d I a--------------- I 1 1 I , I I 1 1 — �__-lam____-�-_-_-T__,�___ I N 1 N ZZ 3ON W NS IU I Q I V � u I 1 I J ' 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I CL U ON I of is r m WO��, �D J N m 3 U my"T 91 O UN o its a it 0 ti @� .-- 1Q via •nags •aa asnsa -As ------------------- -- - r----------------- ------------------- W-----------� --- I I \ I I , I � I j l , I 1 I I I e 1 ; 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I j I I I I I I F— I is i' >.1 rO N1 { 1 I T F-,— I i I 1 ^ vy le. -- "I NYI I IIII sa g thus goo, asuhthusmmaas that, is 9�� t th F Oil �a 9m 11411.111 1 z w O U- J Q V Q z_ C� R CD z O CO w w cc OL COCI w 1 J J a a O cc a LEW-c" a l x�d •Nd n 4n n�y� OLmIn AWa 4 4� 90,Z-99919061 xvd 9Z00-90919091 Na 069Z8 Y7 'V 1n03W31 Ofl 31S tl0 HWO 31ONIS 99LOE G 1 = ^, a Y00-c" NLLI - ♦s9ss ro wa�ae Orra19uv2 ' 'MN AOPAd �E •�.� '�yM-� �OKav-0N0� RAF: t�Id9di001• 'd rlt = p LL p 60t A9ng Iwo wive• tKt•tn� Y•t �� L AOniS ONIOWHO AtltlNIWIi3Md m.DNA �I i `aossv 1NgNl1013MO AklVMYUHkld .r.. �.o ala'SIORLHOWV Nvaaor ! Ala mar Wim aloe NY ;1O311N7av !p yt r d .F x •aaamana ---' --- 3nN3Av Nlsti _ I� II uau3S _3 'N1O 'a3 asnsa J I -LL 111 H Ill .L1�, x E u e 9!f'.'. r mli UI �• � OI Z'IN @ o„ x D t �IrIt � Lta 9 _ v •`Da19 a �• � x - xL - L r -- — )•ue arson 11 I 19BS^ICv� 1 r-. 4 -77 o L' LU Q 7 x I�, 6 ` �9 • Ieeb I A� ti- L % 1 9 m m1 QI' ►, LO rm z cW C U Q I— H Q +5=•--:t. tax+—ax— lari ,,, ar+— «--�az�:; O OW 2 Z a E' 7 a W W Ln z 0 W r N W 3 a - a N cc W a z a 00 W 0 z N z 0 a i W z m s 0 z C z N of W N a z a �e a 0 z 0 J_ Ol fi r- L O c u L V) 10.('01,Dim, +` Luz gaga s y 888 �jl z S �g7 BNj��7 i��11 a�r3Is I 9 I J .si Illy S SS "N13 108 rVS 1138 I R I c A I __ _ _ .— _ _ _ —11/x — — ra, r I S '3 I a✓S 0NW30NV3N .9 dOac +� q N I N Cl) Lr z 0 W V/ 0¢ W Q I= Z cry 0 oCl) W --� co 0 a -' m a o N H Z W Z Q H ]) \ � � 2 | % \< I � j ,|K Hill l � | \ | §§§ ��' kkKkK■ �§ 2mmxm■ k2mNmmmm b b 0 � b .suss �{�e.0� � < � •� � o g } 1 t! 8 B lE� �6�e��a�Q It $ �> g a5 0 e t• tg!' g B i i s f ji' b b I I �rh I I Ig I I I i I� I I c I c I I o I � I O I 0 i G I I O I O I i -------------� In I .K aaoxn A-. • cl X ox N 0. �O 0 o il= �.� <� � kw3 9 i fall � Y n a-t B 51 1 GPEE111111. B 1111111111 s s oldw T In i! iff o p s �ssss y6Gy- „p co ZF FN O 5 CD W VIP I S ✓j I I I I I I - 1Y101 9L KO'[[ »�0 aa xn M A NDLLYYO,A109 .1,YllVl OWOY) 0. 7]S D2Y._ G�ET1� _......_-. -_____ ______________ __________ .i K/ OOM ONOI ,0-.LC i OU jj --- -------- --- - - N _—__—___—__—V—V > ° lt�ilt --------------- w - s F., 22 zio d--------------- $ �a a d I II II r"I I 8$ak Bpd ar II i� �@ II e y R II S F IIa j An 0 J Q I fitt+ cr G F Q p f �fFQi cc U) w U acc w oZ LIJ CD 0 U. 0 Z a v CO U) a a Lb N W U H Q required. There are 24 fixtures shown in the canopy; staff recommends reducing the number to 18, eliminating the two rows of three lights each, in between the fueling islands (refer to Attachment 5 for these locations). 4. Areas are shown where signs will be proposed. While no sign approvals are implied, the 3' x 3' logo sign areas on the fuel canopy shall not be permitted as part of any sign program or application. Under the Sign Code, this parcel is permitted one free-standing combined gas price/business identification sign per street frontage and one building -mounted identification sign. 5. The applicant has shown revisions which indicate a potential drive -through setup along the west elevation of the convenience store. Any improvements for a drive -through use require an amendment to the Specific Plan and Site Development Permit approvals. Staff therefore recommends that the drive - through window shown at the west elevation be deleted. Adopt Minute Motion 97- , approving architectural modifications to Site Development Permit 96-590, subject to compliance with the following requirements: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, building elevation plans for the convenience mart, fuel canopy and equipment building shall comply with the following: 1. The equipment building shall incorporate a hipped roof, consistent with the convenience store structure. 2. The ceramic the wainscot and column base areas shall retain the approved split face block material, and the trellises as shown shall be painted steel, pursuant to the existing Site Development approval conditions. 3. The under -canopy lighting fixtures shall incorporate a flush lens cover that is opaque. The total number of fixtures shall be reduced to 18, eliminating the two rows of three lights each, in between the fueling islands 4. The 3' x 3' logo sign areas on the fuel canopy shall not be permitted as part of any sign program or application. 5. No drive -through window shall be shown on the west elevation of the convenience mart. ATTACHMENT 26: STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 12/23/97 FOR INITIAL MOBIL SUBMITTAL PH #C STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MARCH 10, 1998 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-619 REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW APPROVAL TO ALLOW SIX NEW PROTOTYPE HOUSES FOR THE LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS DEVELOPMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADOPTED SPECIFIC PLAN AND TRACT #25389 LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND PARK AVENUE APPLICANT: MR. DENNIS CUNNINGHAM (REPRESENTATIVE FOR RJT DEVELOPMENT) PROPERTY OWNER: RJT DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECT: DOWNING, THORPE, & JAMES, INCORPORATED ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING (MR. MICHAEL SMITH) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: MR. ROBERT E. WEAVER GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE)/RESIDENTIAL PER SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 (AMENDMENT #4) AND RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: LA QUINTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB EAST: VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS (I.E., PAINTED COVE, BAJADA, AND CITRUS COUNTRY CLUB) SRPCSSDP619-22; RESOSDP619-22; CONDSDP619-22 Page 1 of 6 BACKGROUND: WEST: VACANT (STORM CHANNEL) AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS General The City originally approved the mixed use Duna La Quinta Specific Plan (SP 83-001) in 1984 which permitted over 1,200 dwelling units on 266 acres. Subsequent amendments of SP 83-001 have reduced the number of residential units to 966. The La Quinta Fairways development (previously named Desert Fairways) is Phase #8 of SP 83-001 allowing 300 residential units (condominiums) and golf course fairways on 94 acres. The initial home builders of the La Quinta Fairways (Tract #25389) were Brock Homes and Jascorp. They built homes ranging in size from 2,204 square feet to 3,017 square feet on lots that front onto Del Monte Court, Indian Wood Court, Doral Street and Grand Traverse Avenue. The existing homes are one and two -stories and were built in the early 1990's (Attachment 1). In the mid-1990's, Fairways La Quinta acquired various single family lots in Tract #25389 (Phase #1) to develop 2,316 square feet and 2,424 square feet single story houses within five percent of the size of the existing homes. On September 12, 1995, the Planning Commission approved two additional houses that were 1,999 square feet and 2,300 square feet under Plot Plan 95-563 (Compatibility Review). The houses, built by Ayres Homes, were constructed on Spyglass Hill Drive with the exception of the model homes on Grand Traverse Avenue. Exterior finishes consisted of concrete roof tile with plaster cement walls (i.e., desert colors). Flat and shingle concrete tile roofing was permitted provided the houses were interspersed among houses with S-tiled roofs. Additionally, stucco boxed roof eaves of 18-inches were required to ensure the homes were similar in design to the existing homes. This developer completed the remaining lots of Phase #1. Proiect Request RJT Development has requested approval of six new prototype plans for the La Quinta Fairways development. The proposed one story houses would be built on the remaining vacant lots within Tract #25389. Each prototype plan is described below: Plans 1 and 10 Plans 2 and 20 Plans 3 and 30 2,180 square feet 2,349 square feet (2) 2,431 square feet (20) 2,610 square feet 3 bedrooms 3 bedrooms — :::]3 bedrooms SRPCSSDP619-22; RESOSDP619-22; CONDSDP619-22 Page 2 of 6 2 car garage 2 car garage + golf cart 2 car garage + golf cart storage area storage area The architectural style is California Mediterranean with the houses having concrete "S" the roofs, exterior cement plaster walls and fascia treatments. Roof pitches are 4:12 with hip and gable designs, and each house plan has two different street elevations. Stucco coated privacy walls are provided in the side and front yard areas. The developer anticipates development of the model complex and initial houses on Castle Pines Drive. (Attachment 2, Typical Site Plan). Public Notice A public hearing notice was published in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 26, 1998, and mailed to all affected property owners informing them of the March 10"' hearing. Any written correspondence received is attached. Homeowners Association Review The applicant has submitted a letter from the Desert Fairways Homeowner's Association (HOA) dated November 7, 1997, indicating that they have reviewed the house plans and have given preliminary approval, subject to certain architectural revisions being made to the plans. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment 3). Compatibility Review No residential unit shall be approved under compatibility review unless the Planning Commission determines that it complies with the following development standards: 1. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting, a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. Response: One story houses, less than 17' in overall height, are being proposed by RJT Development which can be built on any lot within Tract #25389 according to the provisions of SP 83-001 and the requirements of the Zoning Code (i.e., RM District). 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same, or better, type of fencing for the new dwelling, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. Response: New cement plaster on masonry walls is proposed by applicant for the front and side yard areas to match existing houses. Perimeter tract fencing was SRPCSSDP619-22; RESOSDP619-22; CONDSDP619-22 Page 3 of 6 installed by the prior developers along Avenue 50, Park Avenue, Calle Tampico, Avenida Ultimo and Calle Rondo. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission with respect to the following design elements: (a.) architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; (b.) colors; (c.) roof lines; and (d.) lot area. Response: The applicant's plans propose an architectural style which includes concrete tile roofing (S-shaped tile) and exterior cement plaster surfaces with desert color tones. Windows are embellished with stucco surrounds and roof fascias are also stuccoed to match existing homes. To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines are varied by using hip and gable design elements and standard 4:12 roof trusses. The proposed houses are consistent in design with the existing houses built by prior tract builders. The proposed conditions ensure the houses meet the requirements of SP 83-001, Tract #25389 and the Zoning Code. The existing single family lots, averaging 7,800 square feet, were established by the City Council's approval of TTM 25389 in 1990. No lot changes are proposed by the applicant. 4. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum 24" box size and minimum 10' tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard or street side yard. Response: The front yard of each house will have a minimum of one 24" box tree and one 15-gallon tree for interior lots and additional trees on corner lots. Additionally, plant shrubs and lawn will be used to accent the proposed trees. A diverse plant palette is proposed. The plant material is compatible with existing landscaping as proposed. Conditions are recommended to ensure an adequate number of trees and shrubs are installed prior to final inspection of the houses. 5. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. Response: The proposed houses are between 2,180 square feet and 2,610 square feet and comply w4th the 10 percent deviation requirement. CONCLUSION: The prototype houses have architectural design elements consistent with other previously approved houses in the La Quinta Fairways development. The house plans, as designed, meet the requirements of Specific Plan 83-001 (Amendment #4) and the Zoning Code. SRPCSSDP619-22; RESOSDP619-22; CONDSDP619-22 Page 4 of 6 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , approving the prototype houses for Tract #25389, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Tract #25389 (Phasing) Exhibit 2. Typical Site Plan Exhibit 3. Desert Fairways HOA Letter 4. Large Architectural Plans (Commission only) Prepared by: Greg Trok§deI1,l kssoci ate Planner Submitted by: C ristine di lorio, Planning Manager SRPCSSDP619-22; RESOSDP619-22; CONDSDP619-22 Page 5 of 5 RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-619 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SIX PROTOTYPE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2,180 SQUARE FEET TO 2,610 SQUARE FEET FOR THE REMAINING SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN TRACT #25389 (LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-619 APPLICANT: RJT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 10th day of March, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider prototype housing units for the remaining undeveloped portions of Tract #25389, located to the north of Calle Tampico, and west of Park Avenue within the La Quinta Fairways development, more particularly described as: Portions of Section N1/2 NE 1/4 Section 6, T6S, R7E, S. B. B. M. (Tract #25389) in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California WHEREAS; said Site Development Permit 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 Director has determined that the original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-001 (Duna La Quinta Specific Plan) approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; 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 of approval for Site Development Permit 98-619 as required under Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code: A. A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to, or abutting, a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. One story houses are being proposed by RJT Development which can be built on any lot within Tract #25389 according to the provisions of SP 83-001 and the requirements of the Zoning Code. RESOPCSDP619RJT-22, CONDSDP619-22 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Site Development Permit 98-619 March 10, 1998 B. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same, or better, type of fencing for the new dwelling, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. New cement plaster on masonry walls is proposed by applicant for the front and side yard areas to match existing houses. Perimeter tract fencing was installed by the prior developers along Avenue 50, Park Avenue, Calle Tampico, Calle Rondo and Avenida Ultimo. C. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission with respect to the following design elements: (a.) architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style; (b.) colors; (c.) roof lines; and (d.) lot area. The applicant's plans propose an architectural style which includes concrete tile roofing (S-shaped tile) and exterior cement plaster surfaces with desert color tones. Windows are embellished with stucco surrounds and roof fascias are also stuccoed to match existing homes. To accentuate the street views of the houses, roof lines are varied by using hip and gable designs elements. The houses are plotted so that the front yard of the house is generally 20-feet from the front property line with the backyards facing onto the golf course fairways. Garage parking will be provided for each house as required. The proposed houses are consistent in design with the existing houses built by previous developers. The single family lots, averaging 7,800 square feet, were established by the City Council's approval of TTM 25389 in 1990. No lot changes are proposed by the applicant. D. At least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum 24" box size and minimum 10' tall, measured from top of box) shall be provided in the front yard, or street side yard. The front yard of each house will have a minimum of one box tree and one 15- gallon tree for interior lots and additional trees on corner lots. Additionally, shrubs and lawn will be used to accent the proposed trees. A diverse plant palette is proposed. The plant material is compatible with existing landscaping as designed. E. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision, shall not deviate by more than ten percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. The existing houses range in size from 1,999 square feet to 3,017 square feet which permits a size deviation within this project of 1,800 square feet to 2,716 square feet. The proposed houses are between 2,180 square feet and 2,610 square feet and comply with the 10 percent deviation requirement. The RESOPCSDP619RJT-22, CONDSDP619-22 Planning Commission Resolution 98-_ Site Development Perm!t 98-619 March 10, 1998 development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 98-619 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 10" day of March, 1998, 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 RESOPCSDP619RJT-22, CONDSDP619-22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-619 (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) RJT DEVELOPMENT (LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS) MARCH 10, 1998 CONDITIONS: 1. Pedestrian gates leading into the side and back yards shall be wrought iron or tubular metal and painted to match the exterior house colors or approved HOA colors. 2. The landscape/irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review. The plans will require Community Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner approval before they will be considered final. The plans shall include the following: (A) front yard landscaping shall include lawn and a minimum of ten shrubs (i.e., 5-gallon or larger) and two trees (i.e., one 15-gallon with 1" diameter trunks and one 24" box tree with a 1.75" diameter trunk) for interior lots and five trees (4 trees @ 15-gallon minimum with one 24" box tree) for corner lots; and (B) landscaping or fencing shall screen all ground mounted mechanical equipment (i.e., A/C condensing units, pool equipment, etc.). All provisions of Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation) shall be met. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all landscaping in a healthy and viable condition. 3. Lawn areas for front yards shall be either Hybrid Bermuda (Summer) or Hybrid Bermuda/Rye (Winter) depending upon the season when it is planted. All trees shall be double staked with lodge poles to prevent wind damage. All shrubs and trees shall be watered with bubblers, or emitters. Landscape improvements for each house shall be installed before final occupancy of the house. 4. Ground mounted equipment (air-conditioning condensers, etc.) shall be located in side and/or rear yard areas behind screen walls or landscaping. All equipment shall be a minimum distance of five -feet from any property line. 5. The concrete driveways shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better) texture. 6. All requirements of Tentative Tract Map 25389, SP 83-001 and the RM Zone District shall be met during building permit plan check approval. The minimum rear yard building setback for this project is 15-feet. Front yard setbacks shall be varied from 20-feet to 25-feet to create additional interest in the streetscape as required by Section 9.30.050 of the Zoning Code. CONDSDP619RIr-22. RESOSDP619-22 Page I of 2 Resolution 98-_ Site Development Permit 98-619 March 10, 1998 7. This site development permit shall expire on March 10, 1999, unless extended pursuant Section 9.200.080 of the Zoning Code. 8. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for temporary model complexes (sales offices) including signs/flags per Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Code. 9. Roll -up, sectional metal garage doors shall be installed for all homes. 10. Private yard walls shall be constructed using masonry blocks and be finished with stucco. Rear yard walls shall be stepped down when adjacent to golf course fairways. 11. Two car garages shall have a minimum interior dimension of 20' in width by 20' in depth. 12. Street mailboxes shall be shared between two or more houses. The mailboxes shall be set in cement plaster stucco enclosures matching existing mailboxes within the La Quinta Fairways development. 13. Exposed wood outriggers are not required for this project because stucco fascias are being provided by the developer. 14. Property owner/developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. CONDSDP602-14 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS vvv� i ilmle, Wl ATTACHMENT �� TRACT NO. 2538 Phase #2 Lots Shown (1-42) PORTION OF No Eo 1/40 S EC* 69 T 6 S.lp CATE WrIFIES THAT 1ND FOUND IT rH THE ' "AL 0) ST� AVENIDA ULTJM0 .'J\iJ 2J8362 50TN AWPki l tc 0 cn o o LLj ZI) CALLE TAMPICO LNpEX MAP - _ I°=300' Y a ATTACHMENT 2 TYPICAL SETBACK DIMENSIONS 18 FF=41.10 PAD=40.6 PLAN 3 CASTLD/l N74'53'59" W SCALE 1"_20' ECEVE,F�l JAN201998 JI J CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESERT FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AVAIL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 1032 PALM DESERT, CA 92261 (760) 568-2717 ATTACHMENT 3 November 7, 1997 Dennis A. Cunningham RJT Development Representative 45-540 Desert Fox Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Dennis, The Board of Directors of the La Quinta Fairways Homeowners Association is encouraged by your willingness to work with the association in all aspects of your future project. By the same token, the board wishes to work towards an amiable relationship with your firm. The three plans submitted appear to be compatible in both elevation and square footage with the existing homes in the Fairways. Therefore, the Board gives preliminary approval subject to the following caveats: V 1. Cover all exposed facia wood with stucco (per our architectural guidelines) except for exposed beam 'dovetails' above the garages. 2. Provide cement pad area in front of side gates to accommodate three trash cans (we have trash 'walk-in' service) with 42" side walls, in a "T" configuration (as in existing homes). Dennis A. Cunningham November 6, 1997 Page 2 3 "Stair step" down the rear side walls, dividing each property, as to not restrict view of golf course. 4. Install mailbox structures per your sketch (attached). Two boxes per mailbox structure, as lot locations allow. S. Landscape n%terials and design suitable for desert use (see attached list). Use sod in front yard ('113 od). Shrubs should be planted in front planter area, as to creat hedge' look. 6. Provide front and rear yard irrigation timers with A/B (turf & planter separation) capabilities. One located in the front courtyard, the 2nd located at the rear of the mouse. 7. Provide lighted address number displays as on existing houses. 8. Paint the front dRors a light complementary color. Trim colors are acceptable. (Accent Colors reserved for wrought iron gates only. 9 Upgrade the existing construction gate and road. ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MUST USE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 10. Be responsible for opening and securing construction gate each day. 11. Maintain hours of construction in accordance with established City of La Quinta ordinance. Monday through Saturday work only. 12. Locate the construction trailer and portable toilets away from existing homes. 13. Provide dust and rodent control on a regular basis throughout construction area. Dennis A. Cunningham November 7, 1997 Page 3 14. Complete daily construction clean-up. Dumpster(s) must be emptied a ninumum of once a week. 15. ree to repair that portion of Spyglass Hill Drive traveled by coas ruction equipment. 16. Provide construction liaison with board and Avail Property Management with periodic updates regarding scheduling and closings. 17. Maintain agreed phasing schedule of 20/22 units. 18. Display signage/advertising/promotional materials in a 'manner as to not disturb or offend homeowners. 19. Provide landscaping upgrades to outside perimeter wall around the south end of Park Avenue, Calle Tampico, and Calle Rondo. (This area is developer's responsibility to maintain until such time that that portion of the property is developed and incorporated into association). 20. Install landscape lighting along the Avenue 50th outside perimeter wall. Electrical already installed for flood lighting, requires fixtures only. 21. Erect an a ' ional 'e�,.lx' r this gate already Calle Rondo (b n lots of bui 1 - of that phase. 22. Incre rd service guard service is 7:0 fly' ear of property. Accommodation lock wall perpendicular to Tojunga along & 236). Gate to be completed at conclusion Dusk to daw of would protect see ice with RJT subsidy (current ? days a week, in entrance station). trustjDn site. Dennis A. Cunningham November 7, 1997 Page 4 2 . Pave Spyglass Hill Drive and Grand Traverse Avenue where it connects with short portion of Cypress Point Drive. This will provide easier access to main gate from the Castle Pines homes (see attached plot plan) To be completed at conclusion of first phase of 42 homes. The Board considers the subject requests to be in the best interests of all parties. To expedite the annexation approval process, we have asked that a presentation be made to the entire membership of the association by RJT representatives on November 15, 1997, at 4:00 p.m. at the La Quinta Hotel, Fiesta'118 ballroom. We look forward to a successful partnership. Please direct all questions and correspondence to Cam Anderson, Avail Property Management, (760) 568-2717, or Sandy Hawks, HOA president, (760) 564-6037. Sincerely, La Quinta Fairways Homeowners Association Board of Directors Attachments: Plod plan Plant list Mailbox Structure Architectural Guidelines LA ®UINTA FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION APPROVED LANDSCAPE LIST SHRUBS/PLANTS/BUSHES Pittosporums / wheelers, varrigated, moch orange Hibiscus Nerium orianders Photinia Phafphiolepis Natal plum Lantana / gold, purple Nandina Honey suckle Crissa box beauty Xylosma Moraea Mediterranean palms (chamaerops) Dodonaea Lagastrums Mexican birds of paradise Japanese boxwoods VINES Flamevines Barbara Karst bougainviI]a Calisandra Cape honey suckle Climbing fig Podocarpus TREES Ficus / green gem, benjaminia, nitida Lagerstroemia (crape mrytle) Brazi l l ian pepper Australian bottle African sumac California pepper Jacaranda Mesquire (thornless) Citrus • LH f'HIRYYFi 1 J "%JI-IGVYYIYI-ICJ I IVI\ P.O. BOX 1032 PALM DESERT, CA 92261-1032 (760) 568-2717 TO: La Quinta Planning Commission RE: Site Development Permit 98-619, Tract #25389 FROM: Sandra K. Hawks, Homeowners Association President 78-770 Spyglass Hill Drive La Quinta Fairways HOA La Quinta, Calif 92253 (760) 564-6037 DATE: March 5, 1998 Introduction The La 0 inta Fairways Board of Directors has had numerous meetings with the RJT Development them preliminary annexation approval 7, 1997. The only issue pertinent 1 request for an entrance/exit gate or diagram). Presently, we have ninty-n completes the remaining one hundre( we will have two hundred and fifty-fc out. Scheduled completion date is thousand one (2001). Justification representatives. We gave with caveats on November this public hearing is our Calle Rondo (see attached ne (99) homes. When RJT and fifty-five (155) units, it (254) homes at full build sometime in the year two Homeowners voted overwhelmingly in favor of the RJT annexation with the understanding that an entrance/exit gate was a vital consideration. RJT7s original concern was 1) the idea of giving up a unit/lot for a gate location and sacrificing the profit, which is understandable. However, when the board examined the plot map and walked the perimeter, we discovered that accommodation had already been made by the original developer. A large opening already exists in the slump stone wall, with pilasters at each end of opening on Calle Rondo (now blocked with chain link fencing). Planning Commission Maich 5, 1998 Page 2 This opening is located on common area within our complex. When we told RJT that the problem of the 'lot versus gate' was solved, they said 2) "the city is opposed to the gate, absolutely, out of the question." And, 3) a second gate would be a security risk to our models, and 4) "then there is the cost of installation". None of their concerns are valid: 1. No loss of unit/lot - proposed gate location uses common area. 2. Security risk to their models - that will remain an issue until the models are sold. Self-serving attitude. They will be gone in three years and we will be left with the traffic problem. Additionally, the gate installation can wait until the last phase is in progress. 3. The City of La Quinta has said NO, NO, NO", for years, and it is still "NO"! - unacceptable statement due to current traffic and speed on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. 4. Cost issue - La Quinta Fairways HOA told RJT that we are willing to share the gate installation expense with them. Justification 1. Our single entrance/exit location has a short approach on both sides of the gate. When an exiting vehicle wants to enter Park Avenue, the driver must wait for the 'race track' traffic to clear. That makes good sense, however, due to the short approach, only three (3) vehicles can wait in line before they begin blocking traffic inside the gate. By the same token, entering our development can also be hazardous should an 18 wheel truck (moving van) be waiting for entrance authority. Vehicles begin to stack behind and then into Park Avenue traffic. But what choice will homeowners have with only a single entrance/exit gate? Bajada and Painted Cove all border Park Avenue also, and are building more homes as we speak. These new homes will generate more residents and service traffic, i.e. pool cleaning, landscapers, delivery trucks, etc. Additionally, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., traffic backs up from the intersection of Park Avenue and Avenue 50 to our guard house; further compounding the traffic problem. Planning Commission • . Ma. ch 5, 1998 Page 3 2. Should our only entrance/exit be blocked, residents and/or emergency personnel would have no access. This is an extremely dangerous situation H 3. Full build -out of two hundred fifty-four (254) homes, two vehicles per home, equates to over five hundred vehicles using a sin le entrance/exit. Of course, not all the vehicles will be in use at the same time, but it does demonstrate the possible volume. 4. It is a fact there are at least six (6) other developments in La Quinta that have two (2) or more entrance/exits: Montera Estates La Quinta G6f Estates Lake La Quinta Estates Rancho La Quinta Painted Cove (86) Parc La Quinta (150 homes) Parc La Quinta has a second entrance/exit on Sagebrush (a residential street with 16 homes and 3 vacant lots). Our proposed entrance/exit would be on Calle Rondo which has only 5 homes and 5 vacant lots. The proposed entrance/exit would not face a home, but rather the intersection of Calle Rondo and Tujunga. Conclusion The homeowners of La Quinta Fairways strongly believe a second entrance/exit is required H Therefore, we are asking the Planning Commission to include gate approval in conjunction with Permit 98-619 approval. Yours Truly, Sandra K. Hawks Board President Jii bdqUe of" California Gti( I \\Q1 N, , Ik'ttrr C It IC, A ]iCHCr I 1 It' \\ , k),;� Planning andl Community Development Ncl.,wsletter Ninter 1998 1998 Department Newsletter Update officers League offers exciting new communication mechanisms. °resident The Planning and Community Development Newsletter has been the primary Molly Erickson communication tool from the League for planning commissioners and planners Manning Commission around California. It serves as a way to keep planners informed on statewide and Vice Chair League issues. One of its drawbacks is that it is a one-way communication tool - Monterey it cannot allow planners to network with each other and discuss common issues. The League has been working hard to better serve its members and develop new First Vice -President communication tools. The Board of Directors has approved a new plan to Sob Brown accomplish the goals of better communication. -onimunity Development Director l Heard it Through the Internet Milpitas As you may already know, the League offers a free Internet -based service exclusively to its members called CITYLINK 2000, located at www.cacities.org. Yecond Vice -President Now, the League also offers newsgroups on the Internet. Newsgroups offer a way Vacant for planners to interact, discuss and exchange information. Currently, there are informational articles posted. If you have not signed on to the newsgroups, it Director would be helpful to take a look at them and see the useful information that is Tack Wong already there. There is a specific newsgroup just for the Planning and Community Zommunity Development Development Department, called "Ieague.planning." Instructions on how to access Director CITYLINK 2000 and the newsgroups are attached to this newsletter. Huntington Park What's Next? Regional Director Over the next year, the League will phase out the department -specific newsletters Tom Sullivan, AICP and send out a quarterly report that will help keep you informed about League Community Development activities. The department -related information will move to the newsgroups and Director offer the exciting possibility of exchanging information, rather than just reading it. Grover Beach The League also has a fax -on -demand service for members to quickly get information, 24 hours a day. The end result will be more efficient communications and more opportunities for information exchange. If you have any questions about these new services, please call Michael Gold at 916/658-8254. erd Cci—'1'jrity DeveiCP7.11: nt N4e\vsieiter VVj;,ter 1998 Help Wanted! The Manning and Community Development Department deeds You P here Elm r"1 is '✓�l-"C i� get irt' olved vili�`h th-a do-paiijtC- r; ` an gave ar it7p l t0 i// at tici7?�er fhrouc?- o;;t th.y aI. Many people attcncPd. the 1997 Manriers institute Conference in Monterey or the Annual Conference in San Francisco akid askccl hoer to get involved with the department. Getting involved with the Plain -ling and Coi.,mujji_y l)ovelo prriel=t Lepartnaent can rangc..rom helping to plan sessions for a conference, to moderating or speaking o., a _panel, to serving on a policy committee or as a regional director. Getting involved with v; l aejpart._<ent a..ci; .�. _` e., �s also a way '_c r_r_o . e toward becoming a department o tficer. Volunteers who help pi an conference sessions servo as resource people and share their ideas and suggest speakers. Serving en a. policy committee rneans attending quarterly meetings and represcnting the department as a professional --resource to one of eight committees that help set League policy. Regional directors are a new position on the board (along with the officers) that help with decision -making, and serve as a liaison between their region and the department. To find out more or to get involved, please contact Michael Gold by phone at 916/658-8254, by kx at 916/658-8240, or via c-mail at goldm@cacities.org. League Contact Regional `raining for Planning Commissioners Information One -day regions! training sessions torplanning commissioners are returning. Look for one in your area soon! Department Sta1J Michael Geld, A.TCP After a brief absence, the regional training sessions for planning commissioners 916/658--8254 are back. The popular, one -day sessions are designed to give new planning commissioners basic tools and information for the position. The League will be Fax-Ori-Demand working with a consulting firm, The Planning Center, to coordinate the training 800/572-5720 sessions. The first session will be held in mid --May in northern California (around Chico or Redding). Look for an announcement soon. Publicanoi?s 916/658-8253 `rhe 1998 Planners institute Conference .i;�forr,�atian Creating Communities for the 21" Century 91,6/658-822 / The 1998 Planners Institute in Long Beach scheduled for March 5-7 is probably Legislative Hotline the most complete conference for planners. This year, the planning committee 916/658-8225 developed a program that includes a diverse range of topics as well as many of the suggestions received from last year. The speakers at the conference include: Chri; What's Online? ? Gates from the National Civic League; Bill Fulton, author and educator; Donovan In, formation recently Rypkema, noted speaker on real estate and economic development; Michael ,posted!a the Planners Freedman, architect; and many others. Newsgroups Cassette tapes of the sessions will be available. • Information on federal The 1999 Planners Institute is scheduled to take place in Monterey. Your takings legislation comments, ideas and suggestions are always welcome to make each conference • opinions/articles one better than the last. livable communities • New information on the Brown Act League of California Cities Page League of California Cities 1,400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240 wv✓w.cacities.org How Do I Access CITYLINK 2000? Follow these simple steps: 1. Connect to the Internet via your Internet Service Provider (ISP 2. At the Address prompt, type: hitp://www.cacities.org/register/dc;fault.asp (Ibis will prompt a onetime nristration form for you fill out) 3. When prompted for the username, type (in all caps): LEAGUEMF_MBER 4. When prompted for the password, type (in all caps): ONLINELEAGUE 5. Fill out the simple on-line registration form, and press "enter" Once at the CITYLINK 2000 member site, you can access any one of a number of services or information resources simply by clicking one of the I inks on the top of the screen: • Member Services • Leadership • Publications • Educational Programs • League Staff • Cities On-line • Legislative Services* (Legislative Information Area) * This option will appear once you have registered What do I Need to Access CITYLINK 2000? 1. A computer 2. Access to the Internet via an Internet Service Provider (ISP) of your choice** 3. Internet Explorer 3.0 (preferably) or another Web browser such as Netscape 3.0 or higher It's easy. And it's FREE, as a membership service of the League of California Cities. The members -only Website within CITYLINK 2000 is for city officials only. In order to help the League maximize its service to y ou and give you the latest information you need —whether it's bill tracking or the special alerts —we ask that you do not share the access information with consultants, vendors, students or other non -city officials. Contract city attorneys who serve as the city uttorney are permitted access. The League welcomes comments and feedback on its Website. You may send an e-mail to the League's Webmaster at freelans(a;cacities. org or call the League at 916/658-8268. League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240 www.cacities.org Accessing the CITYLINK 2000 Newsgroups Internet Explorer 3.Ox 1. Click the Windows 95 Start button 2. Choose Programs 3. Choose Internet News 4. If you do not have an Internet News option, you can download the software from itp:','ttp.eacities.or,,'mailnews.exe 5. If you have never used Internet News before, you will be prompted with some setup screens: a. At the first screen, click Next > b. Enter your name and email address and click Next > c. The News Server name is news.cacities.org d. Check the box next to "This server requires me to log on" e. The account name is LEAGUEMEMBER f. The password is ONLINELEAGUE g. Click Next > h. Choose your appropriate access method and click Next > i. Click Finish J. Click on all the groups you are interested in and click the button that says [Subscribe] k. Click [Go To] 6. If you have used Internet News before, all you need to do is add our server to your list a. Drop down the News menu and select Options b. Click on the Server tab and choose ADD c. The News Server name is news.cacities.org d. Check the box next to "This server requires me to log on" e. The account name is LEAGUEMEMBER f. The password is ONLINELEAGUE g. Click the Connection tab h. Choose your appropriate access method and click OK i. When prompted to subscribe to groups, click yes. j. Click on all the groups you are interested in and click the button that says [Subscribe] 7. Click [Go To] Internet Explorer 4„Ox 1. Click the Windows 95 Start button, choose Programs, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express -or- Click the Outlook Express button on the IE4 toolbar 2. 1f you have never used Outlook Express before. you will be presented with some questions about your name, email address, etc. If you do not want to use Outlook Express as your email client, click Cancel. If you do want to use OE as your mail client, answer all the questions. 3. Once OE has loaded, to add the news server, click the Tools drop -down menu, and click Accounts 4. Click the jAddl button, and click News... 5. Enter the name you wan:, to use for the account (i.e. Joe User, City of Sacramento) 6. Click [Next --] 7. Enter your email address 8. Click INext -,] 9. For the News (NNTP) Server, enter news.cucities.otW 10. Chcck the box This ncivs s,,tier requires me to log on a. The account name is LEAGUEMEMBER b. I he password is ONLINELEAGUE I. Click [Next >] 2. Choose it "Friendly Name" such as CITYLINK 2000 3. Click [Next 1 4. Choose your appropriate access method and click Next 5. Click Finish 6. AVllen it asks if you want to subscribe to any groups, click [Yes] 7. Click on all the groups you are interested in and click the button that says [Subscribe] S. Click [OK] 9. The server will be added te, your list of servers using its "friendly name" 10. Click the plus sign next to 'the name to drop down the list of groups 11. Click on a group to retrieve the list of messages 12, Click on a message to read it Netscape Navigator 3.Ox 1. From the main browser, select the Window pull -down menu, and choose Netscape News 2. The Netscape News window will open and if you have never used Netscape News before, you will receive an error. Ignore this error, it is not important 3. Click the File pull -down menu and select Open News Host 4. At the Netscape User Prompt, enter news host name nUws.cacitics.org and click [OK] 5. nev�s.cacitics.org will now be added to the list of news servers. To the left of "news.cacities.org" is a yellow folder, to the left of that is a little minus sign in a box. 6. Click the minus sign to make it a plus, click it again to make it a minus (this is a bug in Netscape 3.0x) 7. At the Username prompt enter LEAGUEMEMBER 8. At the Password prompt enter ONLINELEAGUE 9. Click the minus sign again to make it a plus, click it again to make it a minus (same bug) 10. Under the news.cacities.org folder will now be a folder that says league.* (14 groups) 11. Click the plus next to the new folder 12. The list of news groups will drop down and you may click in the box to the right of the group name to indicate you wish to mark that group for viewing in the future. 13. Clicking on a newsgroup will display the list of available messages in the right-hand window pane 14. Clicking on a message will display that message in the lower window pane Netscape Navigator 4.Ox 1. Click the Windows 95 Start button, choose Programs, Netscape Communicator, Netscape Collabra —or- g. From the main browser, select the Communicator pull -down menu, and choose Collabra Discussion Groups 3. The Collabra window will open 1. Click the File pull -down menu and select New Discussion Group Server 2. At the New Discussion Group server prompt: a. enter server: news. cacities. org b. Port 119 (Note: If you are behind a corporate firewall, contact your IT department to make sure Port 119 is open for use. This port needs to be made available. If you use a modem to access the Internet, this does not affect you.) c. Click the check box Always use name and password 3. news.cacities.org will now be added to the list of news. Click on news.cacities.org using the Right Mouse Button 4. Click subscribe to Discussion Groups (with the left mouse button, of course) 5. At the Username prompt enter LEAGUEMEMBER 6. At the Password prompt enter ONLINELEAGUE 7. Click the minus sign again to make it a plus, click it again to make it a minus (same bug) 8. A new dialog box will open with a folder that says league.* (14 groups) 9. Click the plus next to the new folder 10. The list of news groups will drop down and you may click on the group name and click the [Subscribe] button to indicate you wish to mark that group for viewing in the future. 11. Click [OK] 12. News. cacities. org will be added to the list of available servers. 13. Click the plus sign next to news.cacities.org to drop down the list of subscribed groups 14. Double-click on a group to open the list of messages 15. Click on any message to read it. LA QUINTA FAIRWAYS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 1032 PALM DESERT, CA 92261-1032 (760) 568-2717 TO: La Quinta Planning Commission RE: Site Development Permit 98-619, Tract #25389 FROM: Sandra K. Hawks, Homeowners Association President 78-770 Spyglass Hill Drive La Quinta Fairways HOA La Quinta, Calif 92253 (760) 564-6037 DATE: March 5, 1998 Introduction The La Quinta Fairways Board of Directors has had numerous I eetings with the RJT Development representatives. We gave them preliminary annexation approval 7, 1997. The only issue pertinent 1 request for an entrance/exit gate or diagram). Presently, we have ninty-r completes the remaining one hundrec we will have two hundred and fifty-fc out. Scheduled completion date is thousand one (2001). Justification with caveats on November this public hearing is our Calle Rondo (see attached ne (99) homes. When RJT and fifty-five (155) units, jr (254) homes at full build sometime in the year two Homeowners voted overwhelmingly in favor of the RJT annexation with the understanding that an entrance/exit gate was a vital consideration. RJT's original concern was 1) the idea of giving up a unit/lot for a gate location and sacrificing the profit, which is understandable. However, when the board examined the plot map and walked the perimeter, we discovered that accommodation had already been made by the original developer. A large opening already exists in the slump stone wall, with pilasters at each end of opening on Calle Rondo (now blocked with chain link fencing). Planning Commission March 5, 1998 Page 2 This opening is located on common area within our complex. When we told RJT that the problem of the 'lot versus gate' was solved, they said 2) "the city is opposed to the gate, absolutely, out of the question. And, 3) a second gate would be a security risk to our models, and 4) "then there is the cost of installation". None of their concerns are valid: 1. No loss of unit/lot - proposed gate location uses common area. 2. Security risk to their models - that will remain an issue until the models are sold. Self-serving attitude. They will be gone in three years and we will be left with the traffic problem. Additionally, the gate installation can wait until the last phase is in progress. 3. The City of La Quinta has said NO, NO, NO", for years, and it is still "NO"! - unacceptable statement due to current traffic and speed on Calle Tampico and Park Avenue. 4. Cost issue - La Quinta Fairways HOA told RJT that we are willing to share the gate installation expense with them. Justification 1. Our single entrance/exit location has a short approach on both sides of the gate. When an exiting vehicle wants to enter Park Avenue, the driver must wait for the 'race track' traffic to clear. That makes good sense, however, due to the short approach, only three (3) vehicles can wait in line before they begin blocking traffic inside the gate. By the same token, entering our development can also be hazardous should an 18 wheel truck (moving van) be waiting for entrance authority. Vehicles begin to stack behind and then into Park Avenue traffic. But what choice will homeowners have with only a single entrance/exit gate? Bajada and Painted Cove all border Park Avenue also, and are building more homes as we speak. These new homes will generate more residents and service traffic, i.e. pool cleaning, landscapers, delivery trucks, etc. Additionally, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., traffic backs up from the intersection of Park Avenue and Avenue 50 to our guard house; further compounding the traffic problem. Planning Commission March 5, 1998 Page 3 2. Should our only entrance/exit be blocked, residents and/or emergency personnel would have no access. This is an extremely dangerous situation P 3. Full build -out of two hundred fifty-four (254) homes, two vehicles per home, equates to over five hundred vehicles using a single entrance/exit. Of course, not all the vehicles will be in use at the same time, but it does demonstrate the possible volume. 4. It is a fact there are at least six (6) other developments in La Quinta that have two (2) or more entrance/exits: Montera Estates La Quinta Gollf Estates Lake La Quinta Estates Rancho La Quinta Painted Cove (86) Parc La Quinta (150 homes) Parc La Quinta has a second entrance/exit on Sagebrush (a residential street with 16 homes and 3 vacant lots). Our proposed entrance/exit would be on Calle Rondo which has only 5 homes and 5 vacant lots. The proposed entrance/exit would not face a home, but rather the intersection of Calle Rondo and Tujunga. Conclusion The homeowners of La Quinta Fairways strongly believe a second entrance/exit is required !! Therefore, we are asking the Planning Commission to include gate approval in conjunction with Permit 98-619 approval. Yours Truly, Sandra K. Hawks Board President