1999 05 25 PCz
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
May 25, 1999
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 99-046
Beginning Minute Motion 99-006
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. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes for May 11, 1999
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................. SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #5 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-642
Applicant.......... Century -Crowell Communities
Location .......... South of 5Uh Avenue, west of Washington Street along Calle Norte,
east of Avenida Las Verdes - Duna La Quinta
Request ........... Approval of an amendment to a specific plan to increase the unit
county; approval of development plans for three new prototype
residential plans ranging in size from 1,802 to 2,418 square feet.
Action .............. Resolution 99- and Resolution 99-
B. Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT 29147
Applicant.......... KSL Land Corporation
Location........... Northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58
Request............ Recommendation for approval of a 133 single family and other
miscellaneous lot subdivision on 172.88 acres in Specific Plans 83-
002 and 90-017
Action .............. Resolution 99-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ................... MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 99-004
Applicant........... Coachella Valley Housing Authority
Location............ Cove area
Request ............. Approval of prototype plans for residential houses.
Action ............... Minute Motion 99-
B. Item .................. SIGN APPLICATION 99-460
Applicant.......... Golden Spoon Yogurt/Ultra Sign Company
Location........... 74-742 Highway 111, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center
Request............ Approval of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit
corporate signs for a new business.
Action .............. Minute Motion 99-
C. Item .................. SIGN APPLICATION 96-351, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant.......... U. S. Signs for Auto Zone (formerly Chief Auto Parts)
Location........... 78-792 Highway 111, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping
Center
Request............ Approval of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit new
corporate signs for an existing business.
Action .............. Minute Motion 99-
PC/AGENDA
D. Item ................... USE INTERPRETATION
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location ............. The Village
Request .............. Interpretation of a retail sales use per Zoning Code Section
9.65.040(C)
Action ................ Minute Motion 99-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Written correspondence received from Centrex Homes.
B. Discussion of Planning Commission summer meeting schedule.
C. Commission report on the City Council meeting of May 4,1999
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
May 11, 1999
C4r.1114 0
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by
ChairmanTyler who to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Kirk,
Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abel/Robbins to excuse Commissioner Butler. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred
Baker, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of April 27, 1999.
Commissioner Robbins asked that under Consent Items, it be corrected to read the
minutes were adopted as submitted; Page 4, Item 18, be corrected to read,
"...Jefferson Street or make a U turn to go north on Jefferson Street. Chairman Tyler
asked that Page 5, Item Title "B" be elaborated to indicate the streets involved in the
case. There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Abels/Robbins to adopt the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously
approved.
B. Department Report: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A-1. & A-2 Environmental Assessment 98-375, Specific Plan 98-034, and Parcel Map 29052: a
request of Lundin Development for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact for development principles and design guidelines of a 111,000
square foot shopping center and subdivision of 12.5 acres into seven parcels and one
remainder parcel located on the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd I
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development. Staff went
on to state the City Attorney requested Condition #1 of the Tentative Tract
and Parcel Map and Condition #7 of the Specific Plan be modified to require
a note be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder stating there are
conditions that have been approved by the City and further information can
be obtained at City Hall regarding those conditions. In addition, staff has
added conditions of the Fire Marshal that were just received. Public Works
Department requested the following condition be added to the Tentative
Tract: "In the event any of the above improvements are constructed by the
City prior to the applicant recording a final map, the applicant shall reimburse
the City, at the time the final map is approved by the City Council for the
cost of that potion of the improvements constructed by the City that are
required by these Conditions of Approval."
2. Chairman Tyler asked staff if the Environmental Assessment applied to all
applications. Staff stated yes. Chairman Tyler asked if staff had contacted
the City of Indio regarding the possibility of alining the access at the north
end. Staff stated they had not. Chairman Tyler questioned the proposed
name, La Quinta Vista Shopping Center, as a residential area in north La
Quinta had the name La Quinta Vistas and this could lead to some confusion.
3. Commissioner Kirk questioned the amount of landscaping and why staff was
still asking for more landscaping and less parking. Staff stated the numbers
could be changed. Commissioner Kirk questioned Condition #47 of the
Specific Plan, and asked staff why the applicant had been required to make
their checks out to Riverside County for posting of the Notice of
Determination. Staff stated the County has requested all checks be made out
to them.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify a condition of the Parcel Map
regarding drainage, as to which bulletin number was correct. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the bulletins are sequential in number and the
year is changed accordingly.
5. Chairman Tyler asked staff if the Commission was approving the sign
program at this time. Staff stated it is a conceptual approval of the sign
program. Chairman Tyler stated the monument signs were too much. He
questioned the use of citrus trees in the landscape plan as they can draw rats.
In addition the tree caliper size should be corrected to read 2-2-1/2 inches.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-I1-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
6. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Mike Smith, representing the applicant, handed out a recap of what was
discussed at the last meeting. In regard to the extra parking spaces, they
believe their request is justified based on their previous projects. Mr. Kareem
Ali, representing Lucky Supermarkets, requested modification to Condition
#4 of the Specific Plan. Their figures are based on a minimum of five spaces
per 1000 square feet on a combination of a food and drug store. They do not
want to lose customers due to a lack of parking especially during the peak
season. In addition, they currently exceed the landscaping requirements and
request leniency. Condition #5 of Specific Plan requires them to reduce the
number of ancillary signs from five to three. This will be a hardship as they
will have a food, drug, and bank building which will all need identification
for their services.
7. Chairman Tyler asked for a comparison in the number of parking spaces
between this store and the ones on Washington Street and Deep Canyon at
Highway 111 in Palm Desert. Mr. Ali stated he did not know. Each plan
changes from area to area. Chairman Tyler asked if the drug store would be
incorporated into the Lucky's. Mr. Ali stated yes as this would eliminate
overlap. Chairman Tyler stated that one of the problems with the parking lot
at Hovley store is the parking stalls are perpendicular rather than angled. Mr.
Ali stated they do prefer to use the angled parking as it works better.
Mr., Mike Smith questioned Condition #25 of the Specific Plan. As Jefferson
Street has been planned why are they being required to file a Transportation
Demand Management Plan (TDM). Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the State requires the TDM to be prepared as it relates to air
quality. Mr. Smith stated this was to be done with the Jefferson Street
Improvement Plan. Staff stated the TDM is based on the number of
employees on the proposed site and has nothing to do with Jefferson Street.
9. Mr. Smith questioned Condition #27. They had agreed to give a deceleration
lane in front of each access. This condition requires the lane for the full
length of the development and they do not believe this is necessary. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer agreed that it may not be needed.
10. Mr. Smith questioned Condition #45 of the Parcel Map and asked if Jefferson
Street was being constructed with tax money why are they being charged a
second time. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is a combination of
federal money, Measure A, La Quinta funds, with Coachella Valley
Association of Governments fronting some of the money in anticipation of
reimbursement. That portion the City is expected to pay will be reimbursed
by this development.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
11. Mr. Greg Bever, Lundin Development, stated that in regard to the reduction
of 27 parking stalls, their decision to have 530 parking stalls is based on a
culmination of several projects. It is their determination they need everything
submitted on their request. They have leads for restaurants and want to be
sure they can accommodate all their tenants.
12. Chairman Tyler asked how many total parking spaces were proposed for the
site. Staff stated they are proposing 530 parking spaces and staff is
recommending 503.
13. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this
project.
14. There being no further public comment, Chairman Tyler closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the project for Commission
discussion.
15. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred with the applicant on the number
of parking stalls requested as they are looking down the road and he agrees
they will be needed in the future.
16. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to Condition #7 of the Specific Plan,
he agrees this condition is excessive. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
that it would be satisfactory to the City if they recorded a note stating there
are conditions on the project and they can be obtained at City Hall. It is true
that the vast majority of the conditions will be fulfilled when the project is
built out and to have all the conditions recorded against the property would
be excessive. She would review the condition further and provide
modifications to staff for future projects.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked about the applicants request regarding upstream
drainage. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this was addressed in
Condition #36 of the Parcel Map. He does not anticipate any concerns.
18. Commissioner Kirk stated that in regard to the parking, the applicant has
done a good job turning the point around to show his request is valid. He is
concerned about parking as he does not want to see a lot of asphalt. He
suggested the project be conditioned to provide an area for future parking, but
not constructed until the need is valid. This way he could plan for the
additional 86 spaces and not construct them till some time in the future.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
19. Commissioner Robbins asked if the parking code was based on a maximum,
minimum, or was a fixed number. Staff stated they are minimums. They are
not doing anything outside the Code by providing additional parking.
Commissioner Robbins stated he concurred with Commissioner Abels in that
parking is not adequate for most markets. He then asked staff to explain the
purpose of recording conditions against the property since they stand alone.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the only purpose is to notify a
prospective buyer of the requirements and that is why staff is recommending
the change. It is not something that is required and could be deleted.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated a potential problem existed with the well site
in the residential tract as the access was through the commercial Parcel Map
site. The well site is recorded with the residential and yet no access is
allowed from the residential side. He would like a condition added to address
this.
21. Chairman Tyler stated he would like the applicant to change the name of the
project. In addition, he also has a problem with the circulation plan.
Delivery trucks will have difficulty getting to and from the loading docks.
In regard to parking, as the applicant is unable to come up with comparative
figures on other projects, he concurs with Commissioner Kirk that he would
not like to have acres and acres of asphalt. Staff stated they did contact the
City of Palm Desert and the parking for the Lucky's on Highway I I I is five
parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building.
22. Commissioner Abels stated the parking is important and the Commission
should look down the road to be sure that the parking is adequate. By
reducing this down it will compound the problem at a later date.
23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
032 recommending to the City Council Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Specific Plan 98-034, Parcel Map
29052, General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-089, and
Tentative Tract map 29053.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-033 recommending to the City Council
approval of Specific Plan 98-034, subject to the Findings and Conditions as
modified:
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC'5-11-99.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
a. Condition #4: Delete.
b. Condition #5: Three signs shall be allowed with the option to apply
for additional signs subject to approval by the Planning Commission.
C. Condition #7: Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting
that City Conditions of Approval for development applications exist
and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the
property with the Riverside County Recorder's office.
d. Condition #27: "....or a combination of dedicated right turn lane and
onsite driveway equaling 90 feet."
e. Additional condition: The name of the project shall be changed.
f. Conditions as stated by the Fire Department in their letter of February
22, 1999, shall be added.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 99-034 recommending to the City Council approval
of Parcel Map 29052, subject to the Findings and Conditions as modified:
a. Condition #1: Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting
that City Conditions of Approval for development applications exist
and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the
property with the Riverside County Recorder's office.
b. Add to Condition #6: "...City and CVWD for off -site well site for
emergency services and for maintenance...."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-035 recommending to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment 98-060.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
27. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-036 recommending to the City Council
approval of Zone Change 98-089.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
28. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 99-037 recommending to the City Council approval
of Tentative Tract 29053, subject to the Findings and conditions as
submitted/modified:
a. Condition # 1: Upon City Council approval a memorandum noting
that City Conditions of approval for development applications exist
and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the
property with the Riverside County Recorder's office.
b. Condition #6: An easement shall be granted to CVWD for access into
the well site from the residential development.
C. Conditions as stated by the Fire Department in their letter of February
22, 1999, shall be added.
d. Add to Condition #47.A.5.: "In the event any of the above
improvements are constructed by the City prior to the applicant
recording a final map, the applicant shall reimburse the City, at the
time the final map is approved by the City Council, for the cost of
that portion of the improvements constructed by the City that are
required by these Conditions of Approval."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
B. Site Development Permit 99-651; a request of Valentine Professional Services for
Laguna de la Paz Homeowners' Association for approval of clubhouse building
addition and modifications to the recreational facilities and two parking lots for the
property located on the north side of Eisenhower Drive, west of Washington Street
within Laguna de la Paz.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Kirk asked if the parking lot near Eisenhower was proposed or existing. Staff
stated it is an existing lot and proposed to be modified.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked how many employees use the parking lot.
Staff stated approximately six.
4. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commissioner. Mr. Gary Dubois and Mr. Robert Willis, representing
Valentine Professional Services, the applicant, stated they had nothing to add.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
5. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this
project.
6. Mr Tom Cunningham, representing the Board of Directors, stated they were
in support of the project and went on to explain the purpose of the expansion.
7. Mr. Dennis Creager, 48-231 Vista De Nopal, stated he was objecting to the
modifications to the clubhouse as it would obliterate his view of the lake and
mountains. He did not contest the amenities were needed, but the clubhouse
and tower would completely block his south and southwesterly view. The
applicant had lowered the tower to 19 feet, but it would still block his view.
The new game room, addition, and the wall on the north side will be 12 feet
high which would all block his view. The CC&R's state the purpose of this
development is to preserve the views.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Tyler closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if this was reviewed by the Architecture and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC). Staff stated it was and they
recommended approval as submitted. Staff become aware of Mr. Creager's
concerns after the ALRC meeting.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked if the only addition to the clubhouse was the
hallway as described by Mr. Creager. Staff stated it was not the only change,
but a considerable addition was being proposed. Mr. Deboise indicated the
addition on the plan.
11. Commissioner Robbins asked the applicant to address the concerns regarding
the wall and trellis. Mr. Willis indicated the changes on the plan. Discussion
followed as to the issues raised by Mr. Creager.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
038 approving Site Development Permit 99-651, subject to Findings and
Conditions of Approval as modified:
a. New Condition #N: The trellis arbor shall not be higher than four feet
above the grade of Mr. Creager's rear yard.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Tyler recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
C. General Plan Amendment 99-062, Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment #3, and Change
of Zone 99-090; a request of T.D. Desert Development for approval to remove 30
acres of Tourist Commercial use at the corner of Avenue 48 and Jefferson Street and
replace it with Golf Course and Low Density Residential development uses; approval
of an Amendment to the Specific Plan to allow for a mixed use development
consisting of a combination of Residential, Golf Course, and Tourist Commercial
uses on 718 acres with guidelines and standards; and approval of a Zone Change
which generally removes 30 acres of Tourist Commercial use at the corner of Avenue
48 and Jefferson Street and replaces it with Golf Course and Low Density Residential
development uses within the project boundaries identified as south of Avenue 48,
North of Avenue 50, west of Jefferson Street, and east of Washington Street.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff stated that in the Tourist Commercial Planning Area II,
the applicant could build fractional ownership units but, but it is not their
intent to do this within that ten acre Tourist Commercial. They want to build
the clubhouse related uses in this ten acre site. On Avenue 48 there is an
access point at Dune Palms Road to the parking lot for the maintenance
facility and an additional access on Avenue 48 to the maintenance facility
with a right turn in and out.
2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Abels asked if this was the site where a hotel was approved by the
Commission a year or so ago. Staff stated it was.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify why the land area of the Tourist
Commercial specified on the exhibits differed from the staff report. Staff
stated that Planning Area 2 is all Tourist Commercial. Now the Planning
Area has changed. All Low Density Residential is removed from Planning
Area 2.
4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant was requesting any changes to the
development plans. Staff stated they were minor changes.
5. Chairman Tyler asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if the changes had been
incorporated into the changes proposed for the Jefferson Street
improvements. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there was a full turn
movement proposed at 49th Avenue. The applicant may need to define the
width of the access. Chairman Tyler asked about Condition #48.H. Staff
stated the applicant has participated in what has been built and the condition
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC;5-11-99.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
needs to be reworded. It should indicate that traffic signals are needed on 48''
and Dune Palms Road. Jefferson Street is addressed in Condition #48.G. A
condition needs to be added that on Jefferson Street at 49'h Avenue shall have
a traffic signal and the applicant will be responsible for 50% of that cost. The
last paragraph should include City incurred expenses
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag,
representing the applicant, stated he had no additional information and was
available to answer any questions.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant agreed with the right of ways at 28
foot minimums and could he bring it narrower. Mr. Haag stated that in a
privately gated community it becomes a management problem and Rancho
La Quinta has agreed to manage.
8. Chairman Tyler stated the Specific Plan needed to be corrected to indicate the
Tourist Commercial area. Mr. Haag stated that once a final approval is given
by the City Council, they will make the necessary changes to the final
Specific Plan document.
9. Mr. Grady Sparks, Construction manager for Rancho La Quinta, asked for
clarification on the Avenue 48 construction costs as they were never made
aware of any costs owing. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that 48'h
Avenue and Dune Palms Road have three of the four legs needed. The north
leg needs to be added to make it complete. Those improvements were not put
in and have not been charged to Rancho La Quinta. When the City makes the
improvements at this location, the applicant will be required to pay for his
portion of those improvements.
10. Mr. Sparks questioned if they were required to pay for 50%, shouldn't the
City of Indio pay for their portion. Staff stated the signal will come in the
future and at that time Rancho La Quinta will be required to pay for their
portion.
11. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of
the hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
12. Commissioner Kirk commended Mr. Haag on his presentation and he
supported staff s recommendation.
13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
039 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment
99-062, subject to the Findings.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-1 l-99.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
14. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-040 recommending to the City Council
approval of Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment #3, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. Condition #1: Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting
that the City Conditions of Approval for development applications
exist and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded
against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's office.
b. Condition #48.H.: Delete any reference to Jefferson Street.
C. Condition 48.J. The applicant shall be responsible for 50% of the
cost for a signal at 491 Avenue and Jefferson Street for City incurred
expenses only.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
15. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-041 recommending to the City Council
approval of Zone Change 99-090.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
D. Specific Plan 97-031 Amendment #1 and Site Development Permit 99-618
Amendment #1; a request of Catellus Residential Group for approval of entry gates
and architectural and landscaping plans for a pool facility within the single family
residential subdivision located south of Avenue 48, north of Avenue 50, west of
Jefferson Street, and east of Washington Street.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Kirk asked about Condition #3. Staff stated it could be addressed by the
applicant.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC:5-11-99.wpd I I
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Fire Department was requesting the entrance
to be 16 feet, or is it be mandatory. Staff will be recommending that it be 14
to 16 feet based on the Fire Department approval.
4. Chairman Tyler asked why the caliper tree size is not identified. Staff stated
the Specific Plan identifies the size of the plant material.
5. Chairman Tyler asked if the City had an increased liability for the pool due
to the City's assistance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the project is
privately built and owned and therefore the City is not liable.
6. Commissioner Robbins questioned why two streets were named
Bougainvillea. Staff would look into it.
7. There being no further question, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would
like to address the Commission. Mr. John O'Brien, representing Catellus
Residential Group, stated the purpose of the request. In regard to the
concerns raised by the ALRC, they would be seeing that the foreman of the
maintenance crews have a key to the pool restrooms for their use during their
working hours.
8. Chairman Tyler stated his concern that there would not be enough room for
two cars to go through the entry gate at one time. Mr. O'Brien stated there
will be adequate space with a stacking lane at the entrance.
9. Chairman Tyler asked about the 16 versus 14 feet entrance required by the
Fire Department. Mr. O'Brien stated they had met with the Fire Department
and they did not indicate any problem. They will, however, be working with
them to reword this condition.
10. Mr. O'Brien stated he had a concern regarding Condition #2 of the Site
Development Permit as raised by the ALRC. They will adjust the location
of the Palo Verde and Acacia trees, but object to the addition of Palm trees
as they are being used to make a statement at the entrances, and do not want
them in the pool area. He would like to request they not be required to make
the adjustments.
11. Commissioner Kirk asked about the transportation to adjacent services. Mr.
O'Brien stated this relates to the Senior Apartments take assist seniors in
getting to various sites. It will be relevant if the apartment program moves
forward.
12. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There
being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
13. Commissioner Robbins noted that all the streets in the project were either
"streets" or "boulevards" whereas "Avenida" and "Calle" were more in
character with the City. Staff stated they would review the matter.
14. Commissioner Kirk stated it is an outstanding project for the City and he
wholeheartedly supports it.
15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
042 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 97-031
Amendment #1, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
modified:
a. Condition 41: Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting
that the City Conditions of Approval for development applications
exist and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded
against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's office.
b. Condition #7: "Gate entrance openings shall not be either 14 or 16
feet based on Fire Department approval. All ....."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
16. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 99-043 recommending to the City Council approval
of Site Development Permit 99-618, Amendment #1, as modified:
a. Condition #2: deleted the use of Palm trees.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
Chairman Tyler recessed at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
E. Site Development Permit 99-603 Amendment #2; a request of Stamko Development,
Mazda Superstore, and Indio Chrysler Center for approval to amend the building
elevations, landscaping plans and development plans for two of the three auto sales
facilities.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC541-99.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dave Stark, representing the
applicants, stated the purpose of the request.
3. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant had any problem with staff's
recommendation. Mr. Stark stated they had no objection. Chairman Tyler
stated he hated to see the deletion of the landscaping on the east side. Mr.
Stark stated the manufacturers did not want to hide the vehicles behind trees
and bushes and they were trying to meet their demands.
4. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. There
being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Abels stated the landscaping along Highway I I I should
remain as approved by the City Council to conform with the Highway I I I
Design Guidelines.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
044 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit
Amendment 42, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
1�. Site Development Permit 99-651; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation for
approval to relocate existing corporate office modular units from the southern
terminus of PGA Boulevard to a four acre site developed with existing interim uses
in the Tourist Commercial District pursuant to Specific Plan 83-002.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing KSL
Recreation Corporation, state the purpose of their application. He then
questioned Condition #8 and stated the Fire Department had agreed to
remove.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
has indicated this use will lead into something else. The plan submitted by the
applicant is not complete as the applicant has indicated the layout will
change. How many additional temporary buildings will be moved onto the
site in the future, or temporary containers as are now existing. He would ask
the Planning Commission to deny this application and require the applicant
to relocate to the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and 54t' Avenue, at the
entrance to PGA West as this would not infringe on any ones view.
10. Dr. Alexander Korn, Pebble Beach, stated he agrees with what has been said
and there are alternative sites. He was unable to paint his house grey, or place
awnings on his house, therefore, why should they be allowed to make
exceptions.
11. Mr. Larry Lichliter, 55-920 PGA Boulevard, KSL, appreciates what has been
said and he agrees there are better solutions, but there is an issue of timing.
Sometimes you can be oblivious to the impact on the adjacent homeowners.
They met with the homeowners and tried to address and clean up the area to
meet the concerns of the homeowners. What they are requesting will not
impact the existing homeowners. What is there is impacting them. They do
recognize the need to move due to the impact on the homeowners, but they
need to make this move at some reasonable point in time. The potential
alternative locations do exist, but are not viable due to the time factor and
need to move now.
12. Chairman Tyler asked if Mr. Lighliter if he didn't agree that this was not
architecturally compatible. He also asked for the definition of temporary.
Mr. Lichliter stated there is a need for temporary facilities to get through the
whole phase of construction. There is no definitive definition of temporary.
13. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
14. Commissioner Abels asked if a time frame of two to three years would be
acceptable. KSL has been cooperative with the City and there have not been
any issues and he would think that the issues between the HOA and KSL
could be worked out in a time period that is agreeable to both.
15. Chairman Tyler stated the proposed use is legal in this zone. The issue is
how long is temporary. What opportunities does the Commission have? City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell indicated it is reasonable to state a time in
consideration of what the purpose is. There are no specifics that guide this
in the current Specific Plan.
CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC5••11-99.wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
16. Commissioner Robbins stated he thought KSL had made a good effort to hide
what is there. If the Commission wanted to they could retroactively condition
the exiting buildings to a time frame. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
the Commission could. The Specific Plan is a legal document and the City
Council could direct staff to bring it back and place specific time frames on
it. Short of doing that, the Commission could place some time issues on it.
17. Commissioner Abels stated that if the Commission approved or denied the
request, the applicant, or the other parties could appeal the decision.
18. Commissioner Kirk stated that in an effort to reach a compromise, they
should define temporary as two years, but within one year KSL should file a
progress report with an alternative site offered.
19. Commissioner Robbins stated he concurred, but he would have to state that
this use is better than a 1,000 room hotel.
20. Commissioner Abels suggested three years and a review in two years.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
045 recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit
99-651, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified:
a. Condition #18: time limit for three years with a progress report at the
end of two years for all the temporary uses proposed and the existing
at the site.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None.
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Master Design Guidelines 99-003; a request of Lench Design Group for La Quinta
Partners/William Rogers for approval of three new prototype residences and
landscaping plans for different lots in the Cove area.
1. Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC5-11-99.wpd 17
Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1999
2. Chairman Tyler stated he could not find the square footage in the plans. Staff
stated they could be no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Skip Lench,
representing Mr. Rogers, stated the smallest is 1400 up to 1700 square feet.
Chairman Tyler asked that this be added to the plan.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Robbins to adopt Minute Motion 99-005, as submitted.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Chairman Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of May 4, 1999.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held May 25, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was
adjourned at 10:41 P.M. on May 11, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC5-11-99.wpd 18
PH #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 - AMENDMENT 5,
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-642
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
KENT ARMSTRONG, PROJECT MANAGER
PROPERTY OWNERS: KSL
LOCATION: SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE, WEST OF WASHINGTON
STREET, ALONG CALLE NORTE, EAST OF AVENIDA LAS
VERDES, AND SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST OF
AVENIDA LAS VERDES, IN DUNA LA QUINTA.
REQUESTS:
Specific Plan:
TO MODIFY THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT,
2. REVISE THE BOUNDARIES TO SEPARATE THE
SEASONS FROM DUNA LA QUINTA,
3. ADD A NEW GRADING/UNIT TYPE REQUIREMENT
FOR UNITS NECESSITATING RETAINING WALLS
HIGHER THAN FOUR FEET ALONG THE 50-FOOT
ELEVATION OF THE CHANNEL BERM
Site Development Permit:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
4. APPROVAL FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE
RESIDENTIAL PLANS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1,802
TO 2,418 SQUARE FEET WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN
83-001.
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EIR
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 83-061305, SPECIFIC PLAN
83-001) CERTIFIED ON MAY 15, 1984. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT EIR PURSUANT TO PRC SECTION 21166.
P:\LESLIE\perptSP83-0015-25-99 wpd
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
ZONING
DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM)
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: PROJECT SITE: VACANT
NORTH: GOLF, GOLF COURSE
SOUTH: FP - FLOODPLAIN AND RM - MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WEST: GOLF AND CONDOS
EAST: WASHINGTON STREET, CO, FP, RM, G
BACKGROUND:
The project location is within Planning Areas II and ill of the Duna La Quinta community,
which is bounded on the east by Washington Street, on the north by 50th Avenue, and on
the south by the La Quinta Evacuation channel (Attachment 1). Duna La Quinta is a part
of Specific Plan 83-001. To date, Duna La Quinta is developed with a golf course and 103
condominium units built in 1984/85. A total number of 187 residential units are permitted
in Duna La Quinta.
In 1994, Specific Plan 94-024 was created from a portion of land (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map
19730) within Specific Plan 83-001 for the Seasons development, which is located south
of the applicants' project area. Specific Plan 94-024 consists of the Seasons senior
apartments and the Seasons Villas subdivision.
Proposed Planning Area II, where a portion of the proposed condominiums will be located
has been graded to accommodate previously approved split-level types of units. To the
west of the project site there are existing units along the north side of the channel that are
split-level units designed to fit the site.
Project Requests
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5
The applicant has submitted a request for approval of Amendment #5 to Specific Plan 83-
001 (Attachment 2). The proposed project locations are vacant parcels, one section north
of the golf course (Planning Area II) which is in the flood channel, and the second area
(Planning Area III) south of the golf course, and north of a detention basin and the
Seasons developments.
P:\LESLIE\perptSP83-0015-25-99.wpd
The amendment request consists of modifying the total unit count in the Specific Plan by
increasing the number of permitted units to 40 in Planning Area III, as shown in Exhibit A
of Attachment 2. This area is currently approved for 25 units, but was approved for 40 units
with the original Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The addition of 15 units would result in the
applicant's project total of 81 units. As proposed, the applicant's request would result in a
total Duna La Quinta build -out of 184 units. This is 3 units less than originally approved
within the Specific Plan.
The second amendment is to separate the Seasons project from the Duna La Quinta
Specific Plan as the Seasons is subject to the development standards of Specific Plan 94-
024. Staff has asked the applicant to revise Specific Plan 83-001 to reflect the current
boundaries.
The third request was originally two-part. The first request reduced front yard setbacks for
those proposed units on the south side of Calle Norte, as shown in Exhibit B of Attachment
2. The applicant is now proposing 20-foot front yard setbacks. To accommodate 20-foot
front yard setbacks for the proposed single story 74 -foot long units, requires that the units
along the south side of Calle Norte use retaining walls of various heights (1 to 7 feet high)
along the 50 foot elevation of the channel berm. In particular, this would apply to the
proposed units along the south side of Calle Norte. To clarify the need for retaining walls,
staff requested that the applicant prepare a Retaining Wall Study (Attachment 3). The
study indicates that of the 26 proposed units along the south side of Calle Norte, seven of
the units would require retaining walls with heights of four feet or less.
Existing Housing Unit Description for Duna La Quinta
The existing residential development within Duna La Quinta includes one story and split
level condominium units, in duplex and fourplex buildings. Near the southwest corner of
Washington Street and 50" Avenue (Tract 20218), there are 16 one-story units featuring
front courtyards. The exterior walls have a rough texture plaster with hipped roofs covered
with mission roof tile. To the west, are 52 units in duplex and fourplex buildings (Tract
20158) with attached 2-car garages. The units along the north side of Calle Norte are one-
story (14'6" to 22'6" high). Along the south side of Calle Norte, west of Avenida Los Verdes,
the units are split level with garages located along the street level and the one story units
behind the garage atop of levee. These units feature hipped roofs and plaster walls. The
existing units along Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los Verdes, are one-story units with
hipped roofs and flat roofs. The remaining vacant pad sites within Duna La Quinta were
graded in the past in anticipation of similar residential development, including grading for
split level units along the channel berm.
Site Development Permit 99-642
In addition, the applicant has submitted a request for approval of Site Development Permit
99-642, for three new residential prototype plans for use in Duna La Quinta (Attachment
4). Eighty-one single family houses are proposed utilizing three prototype floor plans, each
with two facade alternatives, varying from 1,802 (two bedrooms) square feet to 2,418
(three bedrooms) square feet in size. Houses are situated on existing (Calle Norte and
PALF?SIAE\perptSP83-0015-25-99.wpd
Avenida Los Verdes) or future private streets on lots backing onto golf course fairways. All
plans are one-story (17" to 18" high), excluding the chimney projections. The plans feature
two car garages with golf cart storage areas.
A California/Mediterranean architectural style is proposed for the project, utilizing exterior
plaster walls and concrete S-tile roofing. Roof styles are front facing gable and hip. Desert
color tones (e.g., various shades of brown and grey) are proposed for the exterior building
surfaces. The material sample board will be available at the meeting. All side and rear
elevations will be the same within each plan.
The typical front yard landscaping plan is attached. Front yards are to include a minimum
of two shade trees, palm trees and numerous shrubs highlighted by lawn. A varied plant
palette is proposed.
Public Notice: These cases were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 5, 1999,
as well as mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. Comments have been
received, and are attached (Attachment 5). Any additional comments will be handed out
at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies on
February 18 and 26, 1999, and any applicable comments received have been incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval.
ALRC Action
The City's Architecture and Landscaping Committee reviewed the proposed new unit
prototypes on March 4, 1999 (Attachment 6). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 99-
007 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 99-
642, subject to the recommended conditions.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission considered the applicant's requests at their April 27, 1999
meeting and continued these items until May 25, 1999, to work with staff on various design
issues (Attachment 7).
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The Specific Plan findings, per Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code, to approve this
request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution, except for the following
finding (number sequencing according to Resolution Finding):
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5
4. Property Suitability: Staff does not recommend the proposed grading along the
south side of Calle Norte due to the lack of compatibility associated with site
configuration and building design, both architecturally and structurally, with existing
residential units. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) requires an elevation
of 50 feet along the top of the berm adjacent to the storm water channel/golf course.
P ALF, SLI E\perptSP83-0015-25-99. wpd
The proposed residential pad elevations have been decreased to an elevation as
low as 43 feet, requiring retaining walls at the rear property line adjacent to the berm
to be as high as seven feet. Staff recommends that a maximum of four feet is
acceptable for retaining wall height for the single story units proposed under Site
Development Permit 99-642. The remaining units would require retaining walls
higher than four feet, creating an unacceptable grading situation resulting in the
units being incompatible with the existing graded pads.
To remedy this problem, staff recommends that all those units requiring retaining
wall heights over four feet, be redesigned as split level units to provide units suitable
for the existing property configuration and compatible with the existing units. If the
property was allowed to be graded to suit the proposed one story units those units
with retaining walls higher than four feet would in effect sit below the channel berm
and have difficulty complying with the required front yard setback, creating a parking
problem along the street. As a result, staff is recommending that the applicant
redesign all of the houses along the south side of Calle Norte as split level
units with below grade garages and 20 foot long driveways for all lots
requiring more than a 4-foot high retaining wall in accordance with the
Precise Grading Plan (See Condition No. 8 of the Specific Plan Conditions).
Site Development Permit 99-642
The Site Development Permit findings, per Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code, to
approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution, except
for the following:
3. Land Use Compatibility. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to
existing dwellings in the project with respect to the following design elements -
architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door
style, colors, roof lines, lot area, and building mass and scale: There are ten
existing units along Calle Norte, in Planning Area II (Tract 20158). The proposed
roof tile, and exterior colors do not match these existing units. There will be a sharp
contrast in architectural styles and exterior colors and roof materials between the
existing units and the proposed units, especially with an existing unit next to a
proposed unit on the north side of Calle Norte. This contrast can be softened if the
new units along Calle Norte incorporate the same exterior colors and roof tile color
and shape found in the ten existing units on the north side of Calle Norte. Staff
recommends that the applicant submit a revised color and materials exhibit
for Planning Area II that includes a mix of the exterior colors, and style and
color of roof tile matching the existing (See Condition No. 7 of the Site
Development Permit Conditions).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- recommending to the City Council
approval of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment 5, subject to the attached Findings
and Conditions of Approval; and,
P:\LESLIE\perptSP83-0015-25-99. wpd
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- recommending to the City Council
approval of Site Development Permit 99-642, subject to the attached Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. General Location Map
2. Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 Exhibits
3. Retaining Wall Study
4. Site Development Permit 99-642 Exhibits
5. Public Comment Letters
6. ALRC Minutes - March 4, 1999
7. Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 1999
Prepared by:
',,/L lie Mouriqua d, Asso ate Planner
Submitted by:
J
f � C
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
P:\I.ES L IE\perptSP83-0015-25-99. wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001
AMENDMENT NO. 5, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO
MODIFY THE UNIT COUNT IN A PORTION OF LOTS 1 & 2
OF PARCEL MAP 19730, SEPARATE THE SEASONS FROM
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AND ADD A NEW GRADING/UNIT
TYPE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE 50-FOOT ELEVATION OF
THE CHANNEL BERM, IN DUNA LA QUINTA
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT NO. 5
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 27th day of April, and the 25th day of May 1999, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider the request of Century -Crowell Communities for approval of a
modification to the specific plan unit count to permit the construction of 40 single
family condominium units, separate the Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001, and
adding a new grading/unit type requirement along the north side 50-foot elevation of
the channel berm, south of 50th Avenue, west of Washington Street, southwest and
southeast of Avenida Los Verdes, more particularly described as:
Lots 1 & 2 of Parcel Map 19730 and Lots 2, 3, & 4 of Tract 20158
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has been determined to have
been previously assessed in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #83-061305) prepared for Specific Plan 83-001, and certified on May
15, 1984; and,
WHEREAS, no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which
would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending
approval of said Specific Plan Amendment No. 5:
Consistency with Specific Plan: With the recommended Conditions of Approval,
the proposed amendment to modify the unit count, separate the Seasons from
Specific Plan 83-001, and add the new grading/unit type consistent with the
goals, objectives, and policies of Specific Plan 83-001, in that the request for
an additional 15 residential units will not cumulatively exceed the project
PALESLI E\peresSP83-001 Amd5Dunampd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment No. 5
Century -Crowell Communities
May 25, 1999
maximum of 187 residential units allowed within Duna La Quinta, the separation
of the Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001 will accurately reflect the current
boundaries of the specific plan, and the addition of the new grading/unit type
requirement will ensure units that are suitable for the existing grading in this
area.
2. Public We/fare: With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed
specific plan amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare of the public, in that these issues have been
considered in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83-
001.
3. Land Use Compatibility: With the recommended conditions of approval, the
proposed amendment to modify the unit count, separate the Seasons from
Specific Plan 83-001, and add the new grading/unit requirement within Specific
Plan 83-001 is compatible with Zoning designations on adjacent properties as
the number of units proposed by the applicant will not exceed the total number
of units permitted by the specific plan, and that the proposed development
consists of detached single family condominium residential units, similar to
existing residential development within Duna La Quinta, including split level
units.
4. Property Suitability: With the recommended conditions of approval, the
proposed specific plan amendment to modify the unit count, separate the
Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001, and add the new grading/unit requirement
within Specific Plan 83-001 is suitable and appropriate for the subject property
located in Planning Areas II and III of Duna La Quinta.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment
No. 5 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 25'h day of May, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
P:\LESLIE\peresSP83-OOlAmd5Duna.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment No. 5
Century -Crowell Communities
May 25, 1999
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
Uli9*19
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\peresSP83-OOlAmd5Duna.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT 5
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
May 25, 1999
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these
Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation
against the properties to which they apply (Assessors Parcel Numbers 769-021-
029, 769-021-030, 769-022-037, and 769-022-038).
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this specific plan
amendment. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
Fire Marshal
® Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
Community Development Department
® Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent
received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction
permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution
Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site.
\pccoaSP83-001#5.wpd 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT 5
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
May 25, 1999
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that City Conditions of
Approval for development applications exist and are available for review at City
Hall, shall be recorded against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's
office. (Assessors Parcel Numbers 769-021-029, 769-021-030, 769-022-037,
and 769-022-038).
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this specific plan
amendment. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent
PApccoaSP83-001#5.wpd 1
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment 5
May 25, 1999
received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction
permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution
Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site.
DRAINAGE
4. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the La
Quinta Evacuation Channel or the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant,
and subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for any
sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be required under
the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program,
and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such
discharge. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall
make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
5. The applicant or developer shall comply with the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
a. Low -volume private residential streets shall have a 36-foot travel width
(between curb faces or gutter flow lines). This width may be reduced to 32
feet with parking restricted to one side and to 28 feet if no on -street parking
is allowed provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and
visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the
restrictions by the homeowners association.
SCHOOLS
6. The applicant shall pay a per -unit school development fee as determined by the
Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation
agreements as approved by the La Quinta City Council and in effect at the time
of the issuance of building permits.
MISCELLANEOUS
7. The applicant shall install necessary perimeter walls including that along the
retention basin at the south boundary of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 19730.
P:\pccoaSP83-001 #5.wpd 2
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment 5
May 25, 1999
8. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall redesign the units along
the south side of Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los Verdes, to be split level, with
below grade garages and 20 foot long driveways for those units requiring higher
than a four foot retaining wall.
P:\pccoaS P83-001 #5.wpd 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 98-642, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, PROVIDING
COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF THREE PROTOTYPE UNITS
FOR CONSTRUCTION IN A PORTION OF TRACT 20158
ALONG CALLE NORTE, IN DUNA LA QUINTA
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-642
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 271h day of April, and the 251h day of May, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing to consider approval architectural and landscaping plans for three new
prototype residential condominium plans to be constructed, south of 50th Avenue,
west of Washington Street, along Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los Verdes, more
particularly described as:
Lots 2, 3 & 4 of Tract 20158
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta, California, did on the 4th day of March, 1999, hold a duly -noticed
public meeting to consider approval of architectural and landscape plans for three new
prototype residential condominium plans to be constructed along Calle Norte, east of
Avenida Los Verdes, and did, by Minute Motion 99-007, recommend approval of the
request subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been determined to be
exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Section 15303,
Class 3 (A) of the Guidelines For Implementation; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending
approval of said Site Development Permit:
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed units are of a
compatible architectural design, colors, and materials to the existing units in the
tract. The units utilize similar architectural features such as tile roofs, exterior
plaster, recessed windows, popout window and door surrounds, and wood
fascias. The plans are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed landscaping plans will provide a minimum of one 24 inch box size
tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least one additional tree and
other shrubs and groundcover.
P:\peresSDP99-642CenturyDuna.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-642
May 25, 1999
3. No two story residences are proposed adjacent to, or abutting a lot line of an
existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision.
4. Masonry walls and sideyard gates are proposed between units and will be
compatible with existing walls and sideyard gates in the tract.
5. The size range of the existing residences is 1,375 to 2,160 square feet. The
proposed units vary from 1,802 square feet to 2,418 square feet. This request
is in compliance with compatibility review requirements.
6. The final plot plan will ensure compliance with the requirement that identical,
or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across
the street from one another.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 99-642
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 251h day of May, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\peresSDP99-642CenturyDuna.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-642
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
MAY 25, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that City Conditions of
Approval for development applications exist and are available for review at City
Hall, shall be recorded against the property with the Riverside County
Recorder's office.
2. This approval is for three residential prototypes containing 1,802 to 2,418
square feet in habitable floor space.
3. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first building
permit for these units. The plans shall provide for and indicate 24-inch box tree
sizes with 1.5 to 2-inch caliper measuring 10 feet tall from the top of box as per
Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Garage doors shall be constructed of metal, wood, or composite materials and
be sectional roll -up style if located less than 25-feet from the front property line
pursuant to the requirements of Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment 5. Lites are
optional.
5. Air conditioning mechanical equipment shall not be installed in the five foot side
yard setbacks.
6. Lawn areas shall be either hybrid Bermuda (summer) or hybrid Bermuda/Rye
(winter) depending on the season planted. All trees shall be double staked to
prevent wind damage.
6. Prior to issuance of building permits, a revised exhibit shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department featuring decorative chimney caps.
7. Prior to issuance of building permits, a revised color and materials exhibit shall
be submitted to the Community Development Department for Planning Area II
that includes a mix of the exterior colors, and style and color of roof tile
matching the existing.
8. Lots 8 though 26 located along the south side of Calle Norte, shall have split
level units constructed where the retaining wall height exceeds four feet. The
split level units shall be reviewed and approved by the Architecture and
Landscape Review Committee and Planning Commission under a separate Site
Development Permit.
P ApccoaSDP99-642-5-25-99.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
133HIS NOIJNIHSVM
U)
z
w
O
0-
0
cc
a
T7
cr)
�j
Q
C�
o
m �1 00
N
N
(n
F-
fn
~
Z
~
U
z
z
w
Z)
2
�
U
(�
W
Q
c/)
Q
_Z
F-
O
F—
J
—
x
OO
w
¢
a
�-
ATTACHMENT A
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001
PLANNING AREA II
i1RECENE
AP1 °- 7 1999
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
There are currently 10 existing units within Planning Area II. 41 additional units are proposed as
shown in attached Exhibit A. An amendment to the Specific Plan is requested to permit reduced
front yard setbacks for those proposed units on the south side of Calle Norte, as shown in
attached Exhibit B. It is proposed that this reduction, from 20 feet, to 10 feet, be applied only in
those situations where the depth of the existing large lot, or elevation differential, will not permit
adequate rear yard areas, as shown in attached Exhibits C & D.
PLANNING AREA III
The latest Specific Plan Amendment # 4 currently stipulates a maximum of 25 dwelling units for
Area III. An additional amendment is hereby requested that will allow 40 condominium units as
shown in Exhibit A. Originally, the 82.38 acre portion of Specific Plan 83-001 located southwest
of the intersection of Washington Street and 500' Avenue, was approved for the construction of
200 units. Based on the fact that 103 units have been constructed to date (Exhibit A) the addition
of 81units as proposed for both Areas II & III would result in a total build -out of 184 units, or 26
units less than originally approved. In addition, under the provisions of the RM Development
Standards that currently govern Area III, this proposed total build -out of 184 units is well below
the allowed 8 dwelling units per gross acre ( 82.38 Acres X 8 DU's per Acre = 659 units).
My Docs/Kent/SP83-001
133HIS NOIJNIHSVM
w
D
Z
w
Q
0
LO
U)
z
w
(n
0
a
�i
"I'
co
o
�
.i �
m
r
N
U)
0
Cl)
U)
~
_H
Z
~
Z
z
w
cr
O
U
C7
w
Q
U)
<
_Z
0
O�
J
<
U)
0-
0
X
z
O
w
Q.
21
EXHIBIT
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(DUNA LA QUINTA )
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PROJECT LOCATION: SOUTH WEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, 4 TO 8 DU'S PER ACRE
EXISTING ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RM)
NUMBER OF UNITS: 81 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
ACRES: 12.16 ACRES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (82.38 ACRES TOTAL INCLUDING GOLF HOLES)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 5000 SF (NA WITH CONDOMINIUMS)
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 50 FEET (NA WITH CONDOMINIUMS)
MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 28 FEET
MAXIMUM STORIES: 2
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO MAIN STRUCTURE: 20 FEET (10 FEET SO. SIDE OF CALLE NORTE)
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO GARAGE: 25 FEET (10 FEET SO. SIDE OF CALLE NORTE)
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO GARAGE W/ ROLL -UP: 20 FEET (10 FEET SO. SIDE OF CALLE
NORTE)
REQUIRED FRONT VARIATION: 20 TO 25 FEET (NO REQUIREMENT FOR CALLS NORTE UNITS)
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 5 FEET WITH ONE ADITIONAL FOOT FOR EVERY FOOT IN EXCESS OF
17 FEET IN HEIGHT, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET.
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK: 15 FEET (VARIES FOR LOTS ON CALLE NORTE)
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 60% (NA FOR CONDOMINIUMS)
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1400 SF
PRIVATE DOCS\KENT/DUNA LQF
Mainiero, Smith and .associates, Inc.
Planning/ Civil Engineering/ Land Surveying
ATTACHMENT ;
777 East Tahquitz Canyon. Way, Suite 301 / Palm Springs, California 92262-6784
Telephone (760) 320-981 I / FAX (760) 323-7893 • e-mail info@mainierosmith.com • www.mainierosmith.com
May 7, 1999
Ms. Christine di lorio, Planning Manager t.CO'4ED
Community Development Department
CITY OF LA QUINTA o� �o
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: Retaining Wall Study
Dear Christine:
As requested, we have completed a preliminary study of the proposed retaining wall
heights for the 26 units in Lots 2 and 3 of Tract No. 20158. The proposed units are
located along the south frontage of Calle Norte and along the north side of the
CVWD Evacuation Channel. (See Phase 2 Unit Mix attached.)
The study was based upon interpolated gutter flowline grades from the existing and
proposed street improvement plan and Exhibit "A" (attached).
Our findings were as follows:
LOT NO.
F.F.
P.E.
RET.
WALL HT.
LOT NO.
F.F.
P.E.
RET.
WALL HT.
1
52.1
51.6
0'
14
44.3
43.8
6'
2
50.2
49.7
0'
15
44.1
43.6
6'
3
48.7
48.2
2'
16
43.9
43.4
7'
4
47.5
47.0
3'
17
43.8
43.3
7'
5
46.7
46.2
4'
18
43.6
43.1
7'
6
46.3
45.8
4'
19
43.5
43.0
7'
7
46.1
45.6
4'
20
43.2
42.7
7'
8
45.7
45.2
5'
21
43.1
42.6
7'
9
45.4
44.9
5'
22
43.1
42.6
7'
10
45.1
44.6 1
5'
23
43.4
42.9
7'
11
44.8
44.3
6'
24
43.8
43.3
7'
12
44.6
44.1
6'
25
44.1
43.6
6'
13
44.4
43.9
6'
26
44.4
43.9 16'
We hope this information is useful and addresses any concerns you may have
regarding the proposed unit placement for this Phase of the project. If you have any
questions please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
x�
Paul R. Sepulveda
Director of Design Services
PRS:ssf
cc: Kent Armstrong
Cindy Zamorez
w
l\
v
• 3 'o
i rti
,,a
V
�6
31vos
31V0 AS 033403H0
£68L•£Z£ (096 Xd3 I186-OZ£ (091)
178L9-Z9ZZ6 VINa0311d0 'SONIadS Wldd
31va As o3winOlVO
TOE a;ln$ AeM uoAue0 24lnbyel -3 LLL
8u1Aolunj pue-l/8ulja9ul8u3 llnl0/2uluueld
—jp ON133HS
'3Nl `S31nl30SSv ONV H1lWS `oH31Nlvw
eor
.q -r-"j-A C1 1 M F! M i fl4..
Ci
M
Q
M
si
a
Q
PLAN 1
10'-01 32'-0•
Cr�IpNnL
F COVES PATIO
--r--------------r---------T--
ja.Q
RESORT & CLUB
1802 SQ. FT.
IDXJIeTA FAIRWAYS AT
M LA QUIN'TA RESORT 8-, CLUB M
98087 �T �OwF7 T " C0 11 / /98
t/18/98
T- l&— C t+� SFORNZA
,c TE &
ASSO ATES
AF04TECTM AW Pt AN
MR
RIGHT
I irll i i Fri il
REAR
LEFT
RESORT & CLUB
1DUTq-A.. 1FlA1EPlWjk'Ys AT
1—,A QUIN-r—A. PJESC3P,-r d& CLUB ED
98057 cma%qJR-y �c>-qv%rjFj[-Y- c-atvia%,iu-t,7-rn[ss 10/01/98
1/25/99
PLAIoT 2
i MOW
COYM PAM
1
I 1
Oda \7:
wa
RESORT & CLUB
2106 SQ. FT.
I'DXJISTA FAIRWAYS AT
ED ILA QU]:t ' .A RESORT 8z CLUB }
98087 y CRONV — _7 " CO S +orov9s
11H8/9b.
Z.A QLJIZ�i'TA. C.AL.IF'OP[NIA
VCAA
KNUTE"&
ASES
F01
W-MMELAMMIN no A 9
RIGHT
REAR
LEFT
N W
L%
ts .64,
Pl[--A-Tl-1 2 fOUh&
ILESOIKr &CLUB
IPAMRLWAkYS AT
JD 1,-A, CAI. IN R-IF.S40a-r Ar- CLUB
98057 y CRO CO S 1110/01/988/98 /1
1/25/90
PLANT 3
10'-0• 36'-0'
OPi1Cru+l
COY92ED PAM
i
f�O
RESORT & CLUB
2418 SQ. FT.
IDUNA FA RWAYS AT
]LA QU,INrA RESORT Bc CLUB
98 s7 CEN'I°URY C:P-OWELL CO 10/0�1/98
11/19/99
r _ s QLTIT7T'A. CAZ.012NIA
K1,7T
&
ES
AROMMM AID M-,W -O i
--------------------
_ ----------
�� oa a01 o0 00
RIGHT
REAR
LEFT
Ask
`T
PLA1�T 3 fe-Qu
RESORT & CLUB
I )Ul'gA FAIRWAYS AT
LA QUINI"A RESORT 8z CLUB ID
980b7 C]FI,ITup-Y CROWP CO 1o/oV98
ft/18/98
4 _4 Q�T]Q�iTA� CAL.gTOR.TTIA V25/99
ATTACHMENT #5
14 �?
May 14, 1999
La Quinta Planning Commission
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
Case: Specific Plan 83-001 Ammendment 5 and Site Development Permit 99-642
We are homeowners directly across the lake from this planned development. We approve
of your plan for a 10 foot set back from the street. This will allow more distance
in back of each house and the lake. This allows 10 more feet for water birds that
nest there yearly. This will provide 10 feet more green area which is more appealing
to the eye.
Your proposal to increase the unit count would make even worse the appearance of a
solid mass of houses completely unlike the attractive groups of condos on the
opposite side of the lake. We do not approve this action.
Ken Landis
7
Ro is
78-020 Calle Norte
La Quinta, California 92253
760-564-0808
City of La Quinta
City Council
•
Norman SpivockRECE!VED
Laurie Spiv® ,;flY 11 Pal 12
IE�"������
CITY OF LA UINTA
PLANNING DEPARTME
Ct I G� LA QUiNTA May 7, 1999
CITY CLERK
Re: Specific Plan 83-001-Amendment 5 and Site Development Permit 99-642
Dear Council Members:
I am a resident of Duna La Quinta. My house is on the 10th hole facing a lake.
My remarks are restricted to only those lots that will abut, or back up to, that lake.
I am concerned about two issues:
1. The setback from the rear of the houses abutting the lake to the lake.
My objection to increasing the number of lots facing the lake is this: To get more
lots in a given area the lots must be narrowed. A narrower lot dictates a narrower house.
To get the same number of square feet into a narrower house, the house must be
lengthened, as you can't make the lot deeper to accommodate the longer house.
Therefore you must either have a reduced setback from the street, or push the rear of the
house closer to the rear lot line. I don't know what the rear lot line setbacks are, but
there must be some existing minimum rear yard setback that should be maintained.
I most definitely would not like to have the rear setback line, i.e. the distance from
the house to the rear lot line, reduced. From my viewpoint there must be an adequate, if
not maximum, setback of the houses from the lake.
2. Setbacks of less than twenty feet.
There are, in the La Quinta Hotel area, some cul-de-sacs with five-foot setbacks to
the garage. I suggest you look at those (if you have not already done so). They speak
for themselves. Where can cars park if more than one person gives a party?
Unless you can accommodate my concerns I am against more lots bordering the
tenth hole. I have no problem with increasing the density in the other areas of the plan.
I hope you will give this due consideration in your deliberations.
Best regar '
Norman Spivock
MAY-NOVEMBER: 735 White Oak Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95409 707.539.5767 Fax 707.539.5768
DECEMBER-APRIL: 78024 Calle Norte, La Quinta, CA 92253 760.564.7044 Fax 760.564.7045
email: normlaurie@earthlink.net
0 ACHMENT #1
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
March 4, 1999
11. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the HOA had any comments on
the architecture. Mr. Chasey stated they had looked at the designs and in
their opinion they were compatible with the existing units.
12. Committee Member Cunningham stated the architecture was compatible. He
liked the overhang plastering effects and the designs were clean and crisp.
He was concerned about the chimney caps and thought they should be
reviewed by the HOA for compatibility.
13. Mr. Armstrong asked about the zero lot line in regard to the air conditioning
units and where they could be placed. Staff stated that with air space units
the City has left it to the HOA and developer to decide. Most of the HOA's
have a form regarding intruding into the HOA open space and it can be
worked out between the HOA and the developer.
14. There being no further discussion it was moved by Committee Member
Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 99-006 recommending to the Planning
Commission approval Site Development Permit 99-647, subject to the
recommended conditions with the following change:
b. Delete Item #3
C. Chimney caps shall be decorative.
d. Garage doors will be allowed to use other composite material.
Unanimously approved.
C. -Sik Devel=e.O Permit29-¢42; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for
approval of architectural plans for three prototype residential plans to be constructed
on the southwest corner of 50`h Avenue and Washington Street in Duna La Quinta.
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. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if these were the same plans as used at
PGA West. Mr. Armstrong stated they were similar except for minor
changes. Committee Bobbitt stated his concern regarding the use of date
palms in the traffic areas and if they were to be used, they should be used
away from heavy traffic. He had no objection to the remainder of the plant
palette.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there were any requirements on this
tract regarding pools. Staff stated there was no requirement on this tract.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC34-99.wpd 4
0
•
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
March 4, 1999
4. Committee Member Cunningham stated that architecturally this tract will be
upgraded. It is understated, but will work well at Duna La Quinta.
5. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 99-007
recommending to the Planning Commission approval Site Development
Permit 99-642, subject to the recommended conditions. Unanimously
approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Bobbitt/Cunningham to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping
Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on April 7, 1999. This meeting was adjourned at
10:54 a.m. on March 4, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC3-4-99.wpd 5
ATACHMENT #7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
7. Commissioner Butler stated that if there is a five foot sideyard, there is no
issue with the HVAC's location.
8. Ms. Kelly McGilliard, Operations Manager for the Homeowners' Association
(HOA), stated she has been working with the applicant to obtain approval
from the HOA. The outstanding issues are the final landscaping and pool
plans. The objective is to have a plan that is compatible with the HOA. They
would like to request the approval be contingent upon the remaining issues
being resolved with the HOA.
9. Chairman Tyler stated the required landscaping plans are limited to the front
yard and since this is a condo project the remaining landscaping is the
responsibility of the HOA. Ms. McGillard stated that as a condo project the
HOA will be maintaining the landscaping and therefore, is hoping for a good
working relationship.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant was required to have HOA
approval before proceeding. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the
CC&R's require it. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the Commission
approved the project, there is still a process whereby the applicant has to
obtain HOA approval. Staff stated yes that was true.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairman Tyler closed the public
participation portion of the hearing and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
029 approving Site Development Permit 99-647, subject to Findings and
Conditions of Approval as submitted/modified:
a. Condition #4 being deleted
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler.
NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None.
C. Specific Plan 83 001 Amendment #5 and Site Development Permit 99-642; a
request of Century -Crowell Communities for approval of an amendment to allow ten
foot front yard setbacks where 20 feet is required, and to increase the unit count;
approval of development plans for three new prototype residential plans ranging in
size from 1.892 to 2,418 square feet.
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC4-27-99.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
April27, 1999
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the applicant had submitted new plans regarding the
south side of Calle Norte today.
2. Chairman Tyler asked staff to identify the lots proposed and which homes
he was requesting the ten foot front setback on. Staff stated they have not
been identified by lots, but they are asking for the south side of Calle Norte
to have ten foot front setbacks.
3. Commissioner Robbins asked why they were requesting the short driveway.
In his opinion, there is already a problem with insufficient parking because
the street is only 32 feet wide and parking is allowed only on one side.
4. Commissioner Robbins asked how the developer could put a house on a pad
that is lower than the dike elevation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the
dike elevation is 50 feet and that elevation will be maintained within the
CVWD right of way. The reduced house pad elevation will occur on private
property only.
5. Commissioner Abels stated it does not make sense to have a 20 foot long
driveway across the street and allow five foot long driveways here.
6. Chairman Tyler asked why the Plan 3 unit length is different on the drawing
than on the footprint of and Plan 3?
7. There being no further questions, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant
would like to address the Commission. Mr. Kent Armstrong, representing
the applicant, stated the request is null because the HOA would not approve
it. The idea is to reduce the front yard setback to get a usable rear yard. They
needs a variance to put the proposed plans on the lots.
8. Commissioner Butler stated the south side has a gradual grade and gets
higher as you go east. In order to maintain grades, some of the property
would be graded down to maintain it, then how can you keep the 50 foot
elevation required by CVWD. Mr. Armstrong explained. If he could have
a ten foot rear yard instead of 20 feet he could meet the 20 foot front yard
setback.
9. Commissioner Robbins stated he has a problem because the applicant
purchased the lots knowing the problems and they are not designing a house
to meet the lot constraints, but asking the City to grant approval to put their
standard home on a lot that it will not fit on.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-27-99.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 27, 1999
10. Commissioner Butler stated that the Commission was looking for more hip
roofs and they are proposing gable roofs. Mr. Armstrong stated he was not
required to have a gable. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they did
not pursue all hipped roof because the applicant proposed a mix of roof
styles. Instead staff requested a change in the roof material to be compatible
with the existing homes and provide a compatible color palette.
11. Chairman Tyler asked how high the retaining wall was on Exhibit "D". Mr.
Armstrong stated it was five feet and has a 3:1 slope that comes down to a
flat area.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked if the unit length was different on the existing
units. They have a 17 foot setback and no restricted rear yard. Staff stated
they are adjacent to the golf course.
13. Commissioner Abels stated that as proposed he does not agree with the
project.
14. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item. Mr.
Ken Landis, 78-020 Calle Norte, addressed Exhibit "A". He stated he bought
his home on the other side of the lake because of the view and now they are
proposing units that are packed next to each other and will resemble none of
the existing units. They need a green belt or separation between the
buildings.
15. Mr. Wayne Nystrom, 78-094 Calle Norte, president of Duna HOA, originally
supported the project because the houses would be the same size and
detached. However he has not seen any landscaping plans or pool renderings.
The average setback for driveways is 20 feet and 15 feet for a rear yard. They
are afraid because this is the smallest street and parking is already limited.
At this corner 17 feet is unacceptable. Basically, they have no problem with
the project, but they do not want to sacrifice driveways for a two one story
houses.
16. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and opened to Commission discussion.
17. Commissioner Abels stated the parking has not been addressed, but the
streetscape is not compatible.
18. Commissioner Kirk stated he is encouraged that the HOA is willing to work
with the applicant. He has a hard time understanding the request and when
the applicant submits a revision at the last minute before the Commission, he
has even more concerns. He is not against the request, but apprehensive.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-27-99.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
April27, 1999
19. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with what has been stated and agrees
with staff s recommendations as he believes it will address the neighboring
homeowners concerns.
20. Commissioner Robbins stated he was not in agreement with any deviations
to the setbacks.
21. Commissioner Abels stated he is not against development, but this project
should be revisited with the issues raised by staff.
22. Chairman Tyler stated he had a problem with Exhibit "B", but his main
concern is that if you stand on top of the berm and look south or southwest
with a view of the fairway and mountains, the developer stated they are down
in a hole and plans a retaining wall that is a travesity.
23. Commissioner Abels stated that due to the concerns raised he would like to
move to continue this item.
24. Commissioner Butler stated that the project proposed for the south side is not
in question. Staff stated the street proposed is 28 feet with 20 foot front yard
driveway setbacks.
25. Commissioner Abels stated he too felt there should be less units proposed.
26. Commissioner Butler asked if the Commission was asking the applicant to
redesign both sides of the fairway. Discussion followed as to the open space.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the specific plan has not been
built out and they are allowed the number of units requested. However, as
the applicant has opened the specific plan to revisions the Commission has
the opportunity to make any modifications they deem necessary.
27. Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to have a continuance. Mr.
Armstrong stated he would withdraw the request and redesign the houses.
28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Robbins/Abels to continue Specific Plan 83-001,
Amendment #5, to May 25, 1999.
Chairman Tyler recessed the meeting at 9:13 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
D. Tentative Tract 29136; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval to subdivide
286.6+ acres into lots for future residential golf, course, private streets, and related
miscellaneous uses.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC4-27-99.wpd 9
PH #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF 133 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS, A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT AND OTHER COMMON LOT
SUBDIVISION ON 172.88 ACRES WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017
AND A PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 58 AND MADISON STREET
ABUTTING THE EXISTING TOM WEISKOPF GOLF COURSE IN PGA
WEST
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION
ENGINEERS: M.D.S. CONSULTING
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147 IS PART OF SPECIFIC PLANS 90-
017 AND A SMALL PORTION OF 83-002 (PGA WEST). THIS MAP
HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 65457(A)
OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW BECAUSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
NUMBERS 90020727 AND 83062922) WERE PREPARED AND
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1991 AND 1984,
RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES,
OR CONDITIONS, EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE
PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR PURSUANT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE 21166.
GENERAL
PLAN/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PER SPECIFIC
PLANS 90-017 AND 83-002 (PGA WEST)
STPCTT29147 - 33
RES029147 -33, COND29147 - 33 1
BACKGROUND:
The vacant site has been rough graded and is located at the northeast corner of
Madison Street and Avenue 58. To the north and west of the site is the under
construction Rielly Homes development of 200 single family houses planned under Tract
28838 (Attachment 1).
This site is within PGA West Specific Plan 83-002 (i.e., EIR State Clearinghouse
#83062922), consisting of a country club community of approximately 1,800
residences (5,000 houses are allowed) and multiple championship golf courses, and
Specific Plan 90-017 (i.e., EIR State Clearinghouse #90020727), an approved master
planned community of 880 units on 200 acres south of the PGA West abutting portions
of the Tom Weiskopf Signature Golf Course (Attachment 2). The planned communities
share private streets and common open space. Other planned residential developments
within the boundaries cf SP 90-017 are Tract 28603 (Steven Walker Homes) and
portions of Tracts 28522 (Peninsula) and 28838 (Rielly Homes).
Project Request
Tract Map 29147 proposes to create 133 single family and various other nonresidential
lots on 172.88 acres (0.77 dwellings per acre) in the eastern section of Specific Plan
90-017 abutting portions of the Weiskopf golf course (Attachment 3). Lots 1 through
12 and the adjoining private street and golf course fairway at the northeast corner of
the project encroaches into Specific Plan 83-002. Tract access is proposed on Madison
Street via Street Lot "A" and on Avenue 58 via Street Lot "J" while Street Lots "B" and
"F" connect to future streets in Tract 28838 to the north.
The proposed single family lots vary in size but are generally 85-feet in width by 143-
feet in depth, with an average size of 14,536 square feet. Lots range in size from
11,858 square feet to 25,508 square feet. All residential lots will front onto private
streets and generally back up to golf course fairways. The proposed private streets are
linked to future streets in Tract 28838. Lots 137 through 139, at the southeast corner
of the site, provide sites for future residential development (3.25 acres), a well site, and
sewer lift station. Common open space amenity lots are identified as Lots "K" through
"X". Golf course fairways make up approximately 59 percent of the site area (i.e., Lots
134 through 136).
STPCTT29147 - 33
RES029147 -33, COND29147 - 33 2
Public Notice - This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on
May 12, 1999, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. No
written correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be distributed
at the meeting.
Public Agency Review - On April 23, 1999, the applicant's request was sent to affected
public agencies for comment. All pertinent comments received have been incorporated
into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve the request can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to City Council approval
of Tentative Tract Map 29147, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of
Approval.
Attachments:
1 . Site Location
2. PGA West Map
3. TTM 29147 - Reduced
4. Large Exhibits - Commission Only
Pre ared b ( -
M /1
Greg Trousdal, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
. ,, I t"t-- V /
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
STPCTT29147 - 33
RES029147 -33, COND29147 - 33 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 133 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS, A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOT, AND OTHER
COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 172.88 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND
AVENUE 58
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147
APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 251h day of May, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Land
Corporation for development of 133 single family residential lots, a future development
lot and other common lot subdivision on 172.88 acres in Specific Plans 83-002 and
90-017, generally located at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58,
more particularly described as:
Parcels 4 and 5 of Lot Line Adjustments 95-208 and 98-
286; SW 1 /4 of Section 22, T6S, R7E, SBBM (APN: 761-
140-015, 761-170-036 thru -039)
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-63). The La Quinta Community Development Department has
determined that TTM 29147 is within Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 and is
exempt from the CEQA of 1970, as amended, per Public Resources Code Section
65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports (State Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922
and 90020727) for the Specific Plans were certified by the City Council in 1984 and
1991, respectively. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger
the preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report pursuant to Public
Resources Code 21 166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending
approval of said Tentative Tract Map 29147:
RESOPCTTM 29147 - 33
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 29147
KSL Land Corporation
May 25, 1999
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan:
A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use
Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General
Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because residential lots are proposed
and the density is less than allowed. The project, as conditioned, is
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan
Circulation Element.
Finding Number 2 - Consistency with Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-
017 and City Zoning Ordinance:
A. The proposed single family lots exceed the minimum size requirement of
6,500 square feet. Specific Plan 83-002 allows 5,000 houses and SP
90-017 allows 880 houses oriented around golf courses and other resort
commercial land uses. The proposed 133 residential lots are consistent
with and will not negatively impact the overall growth and development
of PGA West.
B. The proposed single family lots are consistent with the City's Zoning
Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the PGA
West Specific Plans supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning
Code. Detached (or attached) single family houses will be built as
required. Conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with both
the PGA West Specific Plans and Zoning Code.
Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
A. Tentative Tract Map 29147 is within Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017.
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per
Public Resources Code Section 65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports
(State Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922 and 90020727) were certified
by the City Council in 1984 and 1991 for each specific plan,
respectively. No changed circumstances, or conditions, exist which
would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact
Report pursuant to Public Resources Code 21166.
RESOPCTTM 29147 - 33
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 29147
KSL Land Corporation
May 25, 1999
Finding Number 4 - Site and Landscape Design:
A. The proposed site design conforms with the design guidelines identified
in SP 83-002 and 90-017 and provides a harmonious transition between
other approved residential houses in PGA West.
B. The proposed common landscaping will be privately maintained. The
landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that
it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area.
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division.
Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements:
A. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf course to ensure
off -site properties are not impacted from seasonal storms.
B. The proposed private street serves all proposed lots and connects to
other existing streets in the PGA West development. Internal access is
provided as required ensuring public safety vehicles proper access to this
residential area.
C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will
be extended to service the site in underground facilities as planned under
the Specific Plans. No adverse impacts have been identified based on
letters of response from affected public agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required
for Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended;
RESOPCTTM 29147 - 33
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 29147
KSL Land Corporation
May 25, 1999
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Impact
Reports for the Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended, assessed the
environmental concerns of this tentative tract map; and,
4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map
29147 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 251h day of May, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPCTTM 29147 - 33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147
KSL LAND CORPORATION
MAY 25, 1999
GENERAL
1. Upon City Council approval, a memorandum noting that the City Conditions of
Approval for development exist and are available for review at City Hall shall be
recorded against the property with Riverside County.
2. This approval shall expire and become null and void within two years of approval
unless an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section
13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map
thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. The tentative map and all final maps pursuant thereto shall comply with the
requirements and standards of § § 66410 through 66499.58 of the California
Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code (LQMC).
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits,
the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 1 of 12
prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure
that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at
the project site.
6. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee
program in effect at -the time of issuance of building permits.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
7. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for
construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall
include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for
emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential
improvements.
8. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
9. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. Madison Street - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way.
B. Avenue 58 - 55-foot half of 1 10-foot right of way.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans.
If the City Engineer determines that 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 interim easements to those areas within 60
days of written request by the City.
10. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet
with the express concurrence of IID.
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows
(listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved):
A. Madison Street - 20 feet
B. Avenue 58 - 20 feet
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder
parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 2 of 12
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
12. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common
areas.
13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties
from all frontage along those streets and properties except access points shown on the
approved tentative map.
14. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate,
from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction,
permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur.
15. 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 City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAPS)
16. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of
the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in
a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard
AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets &
Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature
blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not
approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths,
equestrian paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall
normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
CONDpeT TM29147 - 33 Page 3 of 12
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
18. 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.
19. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City
Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully
retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior
to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -
constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and
the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to
construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are
obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction
by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City
prior to approval of any final map pursuant to this tentative map, the applicant shall,
at the time of approval of the final map, reimburse the City for the cost of those
improvements.
21. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a
certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement
costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. 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 City Engineer.
Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies
shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or
T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 4 of 12
authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots
within the development.
23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(e.g., a Site Development Permit), off -site improvements and common improvements
(e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or
secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed
and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within
the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by
the City Engineer.
24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement,
the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building
inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call
upon the surety to complete the improvements.
25. The applicant's obligations for portions of the required 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. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is located
within or immediately adjacent to a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and
exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and
building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits
for lots which are so located, the applicant shall receive Conditional Letters of Map
Revision based on Fill (CLOMR/F) from FEMA. Prior to final acceptance by the City of
subdivision improvements, the applicant shall have received final LOMR/Fs for all such
lots.
27. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a grading plan
prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the
recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer
or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are
required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section
17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 5 of 12
29. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties
and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations
on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract
or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not
exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will
consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance
difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
30. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.16, LQMC. 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.
31. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with
other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public
Works Departments.
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by a civil engineer or surveyor. The certifications
shall list approved pad elevations, actual elevations, and the difference between the
two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively
if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
33. Stormwater water and nuisance water handling shall conform with the approved
hydrology and drainage plans for Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017.
UTILITIES
34. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets,
electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for
aesthetic as well as practical purposes.
35. Existing and proposed wire and cable utilities within or adjacent to the proposed
development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are
exempt from this requirement.
36. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
37. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program.
Any property within this development which has not been subdivided in accordance
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 6 of 12
with this tentative map 60 days after the program is in effect shall be subject to the
program as determined by the City.
38. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - Construct the east half of a 76-foot
street (between curb faces including an 18-foot raised landscape median)
and six-foot meandering sidewalk.
2) Avenue 58 (Primary Arterial) - Construct the north half of a 76-foot street
(between curb faces including an 18-foot raised landscape median) and a
six-foot meandering sidewalk.
3) Traffic Signals - 100% of the cost to design and install traffic signals at the
secondary residential access drives on Madison Street and Avenue 58.
If the applicant's side of the arterial streets is improved prior to the opposite side,
the applicant's construction shall include a 16-foot lane on the opposite side of
the median.
B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC
1) Residential: 36-foot travel width. Width may be reduced to 32 feet with
parking restricted to one side and 28 feet with on -street parking prohibited
if there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors and the
applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the restrictions by the
homeowners association.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
39. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Secondary Residential Access on Madison Street approximately 1,490 feet north
of the centerline of Avenue 58 - full turning movements (with traffic signal).
B. Secondary Residential Access on Avenue 58 approximately 1,490 feet east of
the centerline of Madison Street - full turning movements (with traffic signal).
40. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
41. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 7 of 12
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
42. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
43. Street right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform
with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
44. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey
water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street
sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to
final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
45. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading
(including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or
approved equivalents for alternate materials):
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"
46. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal
shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix
designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months
old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
47. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only
when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices,
pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed
with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to
final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by
the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING/PERIMETER WALLS
48. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins and
common lots.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 8 of 12
49. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect and
comply with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
The applicant shall submit off -site landscaping plans for approval by the Community
Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department.
When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD
and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature
by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
50. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or
spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
51. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall
be constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract
unless a phasing plan, or construction schedule, is approved by the City Engineer.
52. The landscape improvements for Madison Street shall be designed to comply with
Policy 3-4.1.6 of the General Plan (i.e., Agrarian Image Corridor).
53. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
54. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required
landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of
the Zoning Ordinance.
PUBLIC SERVICES
55. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit
and/or the City.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
56. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
57. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers,
surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction
supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
58. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as
evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans and
specifications. Where retention basins are installed, testing shall include a sand filter
percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after tributary -area improvements
are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 9 of 12
59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City
Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
60. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
61. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
not included in the City's permit inspection program, but which are required by the
City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and
specifications.
62. 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.
63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. 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 plan
computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition.
MAINTENANCE
64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by
the City. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other
arrangement acceptable to the City for maintenance of retention basins, common areas
and perimeter walls and landscaping.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
65. Fire hydrants in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District Standard W-33 shall
be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any
direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot
reflectors shall be mounted in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants.
66. Applicant/developer will provide written certification for the appropriate water
company that the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 10 of 12
67. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the
fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil
Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by
the Riverside County Fire Department."
68. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on
an individual lot.
69. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of
the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the
Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
70. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system consisting of Knox Key operated switches, series KS-2P
with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company.
Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for review/approval prior to installation.
71. Gate entrance openings shall be not less than 16 feet in width. All gates shall be
located at least 40 feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop
without obstructing traffic on the road. Gates shall have either a secondary power
supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the
event of loss of primary power.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
72. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction
inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application
for plan checking and permits.
73. 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.
74. Plan check fees required by the Riverside Country Fire Department shall be paid when
plans are submitted for review and approval.
75. Prior to final map approval, parkland mitigation fees for houses within SP 90-017 shall
be paid to the Community Development Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
76. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file
documents for plan checking purposes.
CONDpeTTM29147 - 33 Page 11 of 12
77. Applicable conditions of Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-017 as
amended shall be met prior to building permit issuance.
78. The layout and design of the permanent tract access gates shall be approved by the
Community Development Department after review and approval by the Fire
Department.
79. The project's Homeowners' Association (HOA) will be organized to administer and
maintain common open space, private roads, security, and architectural consistency
pursuant Section 12.0 (Phasing and Implementation) of SP 90-017 and as required by
SP 83-002.
80. Prior to building permit issuance, housing plans for the tract shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
CONDpcTTM29147 - 33 Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
52nd 1 AVENUE
0 53rd AVENUE
N
O
Z
54th AVENUE
AIRPORT c
Z RT BLVD. rn
y
TRACT N0, 29147
58th AVENUE
V'KdNIT'1o'' MAP
NOT TO SCALE
`1
�fl
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29147
ATTACHMENT 3
4
46"
OraRrsl IOT 90
.- almm axrowa
�.,.-- asiR�[o coxlawrs
._-.-_.. OMeuCE now
r lax RONr
14nuGa aA.x
—m•— sRmNn sFNr+
—®— sraa awx
O Catx eASN
m sun raw
—T eOurgRx+
DC_
FIVE
I
CITY
i LRt UiNTA
PLANNI
DEPARTMENT
mar m
r � —
6 IC
s'
!T �
8' CONCRETE W®f7E C1AB
• arx
Avenue 58
LEGAL
eERlf A SUBd'IdOx df IIAIAs R NO 5 OF Ulf UM: 1QpaI4eM
x0. Y!-20e, RECCIO)EO NOA@ER 1!, 1918 AS Ner. MO RYT19. 5 n4 � � �5 R.2
.00 RCNROFD YMd 10. 199) /5 WSTRUYFM N0. OflRlp, .WO
PMCf+! R wlo s D< IDI 1DE IANT1p111 N0. !e-2ee, REWPOrD ww 17.
.lu. >. +poe a Nsr xo sflnl. cm a u anxrA couxn a
RIKJ6OE san a cauonxu
ler gas __
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS e e
ml-Iw-o+s. Na fl+-rro-ose nwoucx we
ACREAGE u�
+nee rnrcs
LOT AND LAND USE SUMMARY
+ors I uRaxx us - ss• wux rsmrmw cols - a.ao Arcs
wT IN MRCWI IM - Wlf COteKE l0r! - tO1,0Y M,RES
t1E - i srtE �r - o TYPICAL, CAOele1 SEC M
uJr 1. - lEwrA uR $rAnpx Ow ROA25 PiOVATE 87AEET8
lOR A ixR000x J - PRWIE SIRfEI! 12M xm
lO1S x'WaUGx e - OPfM lCM1/LWOSCWF 101s - 1to ICRE! ItIS
uwcts+ for - 2s.ae s
nsrini - ii'x�x s
PREPARED FOR:
LOT COUNT
ors + naau>I u! - Rrsipcnrin um
L AND CORPORATION
UTLM
.m - 55-920 PGA BCu1—d (780( 584-1088
SEwEi - CoaN]u V�t1F1' WRIER 0611ar
CS - eoOnERx WuolMu CAS [OWRxr la Qu+nta, CA 82253 FAX (9B0) 584-9131
lelIDMAa - GF.NFAA ipEFMON[
6ECnlC9Y - 4aW11 eRM.RnOx gSrRXR
lE1MlgR - wmlWx"
PREPARED BY:
MOS Noe �—co rauc re si
flJ99 O.D NufldlF !Y
U CUIOA G 9naa
=� n/MNp nnM[IH4 wR�i
aRrs ema onle
BIi
T--.Uf 4 4 a"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
RE: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR COACHELLA VALLEY
HOUSING COALITION, MR. CAL WHITE (MDG 99-004)
The Zoning Code requires additional development standards for the Cove Residential
area called Master Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines are required for any
developer/applicant constructing five or more houses in the RC District. Therefore
when a developer wants to pull a permit for the sixth house, the guidelines must have
been reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cal White, with the Coachella Valley Housing Coalition seeks building permit
approval for his sixth plus house. He is submitting Master Design Guidelines for
Planning Commission review. The attached Guidelines contain information as to how
the developer/applicant intends to vary the exterior of the units which includes, but
is not limited to, roof types, window and entry treatment, stucco and paint colors,
roof tile colors, and setbacks.
Staff has reviewed the guidelines and has determined the applicant has provided
adequate deviations to the elevations such as varied roof lines, entry treatment and
window treatments. In addition, upon Planning Commission approval, staff will use
the guidelines to evaluate each building permit application from this developer for
compliance with the approved guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the Master Design
Guidelines (MDG 99-004) as presented.
P:\FRED\MDG 99-004.pc.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 99-460
APPLICANT: GOLDEN SPOON YOGURT
SIGN COMPANY: ULTRANEON SIGN COMPANY
LOCATION: 74-742 HWY. 111, SUITE E, ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA
SHOPPING CENTER
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A DEVIATION TO AN APPROVED SIGN
PROGRAM TO PERMIT CORPORATE SIGNS FOR A NEW
BUSINESS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS SIGN
APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
ZONING DESIGNATION: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
NORTH:
CR, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
SOUTH:
CR, STATE HWY 111, EXISTING AND VACANT
COMMERCIAL
WEST:
CR, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
EAST:
CR, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
Golden Spoon Yogurt is located in the northern -most lease space of the Starbuck's
building, within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. This is one of several tenants
for the building. The applicant opened for business on May 13, 1999. Two of the three
requested signs have been installed without benefit of a sign permit. Staff required that the
C:\Mydata\perptSA99-46OYogurt5-25-9g.wpd
applicant completely cover the signs until this item has been considered by the Planning
Commission. In addition, the applicant applied for a "Grand Opening" banner, which was
approved. A comment letter has been received regarding this Sign Application and has
been included as Attachment 2.
SIGN REQUEST:
The shopping center has an approved sign program which requires 24" high individually
mounted internally illuminated Helvetica style channel letters. Length is permitted to be
75% of the lease width, up to a maximum of 50 square feet. A provision in the sign
program allows a national tenant with 5 or more outlets to request approval to use their
corporate sign. The applicant is requesting approval to use their corporate sign for all
three proposed signs.
The request is for individually mounted internally illuminated channel letters signs to be
located on the front of the building facing the west, on the back of the building facing east,
and on the north side facing the center's general parking lot area. Each sign will read
"Yogurt" with their logo to the left and a graphic of a cup of yogurt on the right of the
wording. The signs are each approximately 13 feet long by 2 feet high (26 square feet).
The sign copy "Yogurt" will have a face that is translucent red plex faced 20-inch high
channel letters. The white, black and red logo is rectangular shaped and measures
approximately two feet by 40 inches total. The yogurt graphic depicts a cup of yogurt in
applied vinyl that is white, black and pink, and measures 24 inches tall by 18 inches wide.
The signs are made of standard aluminum with semi gloss enamel finish. The returns are
painted black. The signs are illuminated with white neon fixtures.
The signs will be 5 inches deep and mounted flush with the stucco fascia, with the
transformer hidden behind the fascia. Two of the proposed sign locations (rear and north
elevations) would be centered on the stucco fascia within the applicant's lease area. The
sign proposed for the front elevation is positioned left of center of the lease area.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE:
Issue 1 - Acceptability
National tenants are permitted to use corporate or their standard signs with approval of the
Planning Commission. A number of national or regional tenants have chosen to do this in
the Center. The style of the letters is compatible with the other signs in the Center. The
signs proposed are typical of other Golden Spoon Yogurt locations. However, the graphic
of the yogurt cup is a product symbol. Product symbols have not been previously allowed
within the shopping center. Staff recommends that the product symbol be removed from
the proposed signs.
C:\Mydata\perptSA99-46OYogurt5-25-99.wpd
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Minute Motion 99- , approving the requested signs, subject to the following
condition:
The applicant has installed two of the three proposed signs prior to Planning
Commission approval, constituting work without a permit, an infraction of Section
304.5.1 of the 1994 Uniform Administrative Code. Upon Planning Commission
approval of the proposed signs, the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the
installation of the signs, which shall include the Investigation Fee per Section
304.5.2 of the 1994 Uniform Administrative Code in addition to the building permit
fee for the signs.
2. The product symbol of the cup of yogurt shall be removed from the proposed signs.
Attachments:
1. Sign exhibits
2. Comment letter dated 5-18-99
Prepared by:
Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
C:\Mydata\perptSA99-460Yogui-t5-25-99.wpd
ATTACHMENT A
Washington/Adams Partnership
Michael J. shovlin
Managing Partner
714184 Tamarisk Lane
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Tamp fanTm
Fox 700-321.2331
May IS. 1999
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: Sign Permit 99-460
Dear Ms. Mouriquand;
OEPARtMENT
I am in receipt of a copy of a letter from you regarding the Sign permit request for
Golden Spoon Yogurt for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. It appears that
this tenant has requested variances from the standard signage program on file for the
shopping center, and has not obtained prior approval for these changes from the owner of
the parcel nor the Developer of the Shopping Center as required.
I note that you have tentatively scheduled a meeting with the Planning Commission for
May 25th to consider this variance. Since this is the first that I have been made aware of
this request, I would like to request a continuance so that I have an opportunity to review
the request and to determine whether it is acceptable within the restrictions of the
shopping center.
Please remove this item from the agenda and postpone it for a future review. As you are
aware, all signage at the shopping center does require compliance with the program on
files with the City of La Quinta, and requires approval of the Developer.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,,
Michael J. S Ain
Managing Partner
cc Rob Sanford
B I #t
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 96-351, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: AUTO ZONE (FORMERLY CHIEF AUTO PARTS)
SIGN COMPANY: US SIGNS
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A A DEVIATION TO AN APPROVED SIGN
PROGRAM TO PERMIT NEW CORPORATE SIGNS FOR AN
EXISTING BUSINESS
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 IN THE ONE -ELEVEN LA
QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER, EAST OF SIMON DRIVE (78-
792 HIGHWAY 1 11)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS SIGN
APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
The building Chief Auto Parts received Planning Commission approval on July 25,
1995, and was constructed in mid 1996. The existing Chief Auto Parts signs were
approved at the same time. Corporate style signs were approved on the north, south,
and west sides of the building, which also houses Radio Shack
SIGN REQUEST:
Auto Zone recently bought out Chief Auto Parts and is requesting approval to use their
corporate signs in place of the existing signs. (Attachment 1). The original signs were
approved under the provision in the One -Eleven Shopping Center sign program that
allows a national tenant with 5 or more outlets to to use their corporate signs with
cApc rpt sa 96-351, am 1
Planning Commission approval. With regard to size, the approved sign program
requires 24" high internally illuminated Helvetica style channel letters, with the length
permitted to be 75% of the lease width, up to a maximum of 50 square feet.
Existing Signs:
The existing internally illuminated signs reading, "CHIEF AUTO PARTS" with "dashes"
on each side, are located on the front (south) and rear (south) fascia of the building
vary in height between 1'-6" by 2'-0" by 27'-6" long (48 square feet). The sign on
the right (west) side varies in height between 1'-6" by 2'-0" by approximately 24'
long (42 square feet). The letters and returns are dark blue, with the "dashes" red and
yellow.
Proposed Signs:
The replacement signs proposed for the front (north) and rear (south) sides will be
identical at 2'-0" high, by 24'-103/8" long (50 square feet), and 5 %4 "deep, reading
"Auto Zone" with an eight bar "stripe" placed on the left side of the sign copy. The
copy will be red internally illuminated channel letters with black returns, while the
"stripe" will consist of eight orange colored, individual, internally illuminated canisters.
The length of the "stripe" will approximately half of the total length of the sign.
The sign on the right (west) side of the building will be 2'-0" high by 25'-15/8 long
(50 + square feet) with the "stripe" on the right side of the sign copy. The location
of the new signs will on the fascia, which is the same as the existing signs.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
One of the two findings needed to approve this request can be made as noted in the
recommended findings and conditions. The second finding that all signs proposed in
the center are in harmony and visually related via the incorporation of several common
design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign
shape cannot be made due to the "stripe". This stripe cannister, while not a
background for the copy per se, is not in conformance with other main corporate
tenant signs throughout the center due to its internally illuminated cannister style and
size of over half the length. This These types of signs have not been approved by the
Planning Commission for main identification signs. Its size and orange color also
creates a concern regarding undue brightness per Zoning Code Section 9.160.030H.
W. Simmons Mattress, next to Wal-Mart, in -lieu of an internally illuminated cannister,
received Planning Commission approval to paint their triangular shaped background on
the wall, with "W. Simmons" mounted as individual internally illuminated letters over
the background. Although withdrawn prior to approval because the landlord would not
approve it, Wells Fargo Bank inside Albertson's had proposed a similar sign with the
rectangular background flat painted metal, instead of an internally illuminated
cApc rpt sa 96-351, am 1
cannister sign. The applicant for Domino's Pizza has indicated that the new sign
recently approved facing Highway 111 will not be installed, and that the existing logo
will be angled.
Therefore, Staff recommends the cannister "stripe" be painted on the wall or provided
on a non -illuminated painted flat material (Condition #2)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 99-_, approving SA 96-351, Amendment #1, subject to the
attached findings and conditions:
Attachments:
1. Sign exhibits for Auto Zone
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
c:\pc rpt sa 96-351, am 1
�
/
d
37 2 &
w � %
< < x
T ar*
0
z \\�
k p
e {
�7\
g
b
k
Q
.
�
0
z
\
�
�i
F- O
z
w
2 c..�
w
o[ cn W Q
O
W � C�
ca a-
J tZ
L _ cl-
e
W
p
J
W
K
--i
L
Ln '
N
Pw
df
LLLL..
-Li
I
0
m
w
w
J
W O
z CV ;n
w w
Z O
U
O
p Z
=
� p
Qt,
0
z 3kS)
LU
LLJ v
:s
<
Q
O O
N (3) W
W
Lil
O �Z� =
L
Zoz
W OIL
Fjw Q W
W �LL, p 0
J
F
In p (S) Z
z�w
Od Z LLJ J
U
Z
w W
J
J
W V Q
N
to c,
�g _Z
i to
LO
LLB i�
0 ' o
N m
,I W
G;O
NIA
LU
SUO
!- 2
OLL
O
Z
In Z
80
0
n
0
rnq c8o Q
°aC' aci 0% RolO
a gym.. w
LL '0
f � �
a
w
^FF LU
a b o n n O
co
OS n F
m, LU
N,
� o
a^ r a
w
}FwQ Fw ca
0
a
U U N a ¢
o 'a
cc
W _ O
Z }�
D o n 5G'F
�m
it
W
OLi U
W 0
.1i1 Lu
W > LL W
N = W>I' L
�mZ4)-CL0ag LL
UFO=lz
paw�p a
w in Z Lu
x= 000 Z O LL
O Z Fn Zn U W c
CC 0 LU LU u
UQNnL�QU F
%
/
a
U
/
j
>
\
w
/
\
/
�
C-i
__a
o CzI
� �
C-:3 C1-
C--
c
CX- CL-
1z'
�
MA
4■
lat-0
R,
a
|| ,
O
;! .
| .
|{�
�
CS
' IF
: to
i /,
. > .
�
(\§f§ i
§ig
�\kd\ �
.
�'q
E
�
I
! �
//\N
2co
.
l
i
8 o
U.
co o
� \_
,
u
�
)$
,ƒ .
o
t no
/
I
a .
' � e
j/
■,
e
o,
< y
w,
\§
m
,§//
$ q
/_
>-&»
QQQI�
\
®
�<z%=(Lcr
tu > |
��R��crCL®
$
S
Om221t<U
«
w�22�p9
*
�§222SIo
�2gww0:q
Q @oc«Q
O
W
W
oz 4
CwCC-
n-
L
CZY
r
LL
QZ
w
p
J
w
LL
`C
0
N
u_.
J
w
z
m
J
Z5
tL �m
!o
LO N
g
w c a.
tZ
LU
w
z
z
S N
U Lo o
otr
o w uj
41 Q
o � �
m WW n
J z
� z
0
Q0N.o
CO
°
E
f d O
� a:
a
w
tn0�% o n a:
�[ Cl NLLI
� O o Q
0 in
W u o+ o n vw1
J E mol
J y M n M C
w o 08 ��
Z [ S) UI
< F-. :z LUll- L
OEx
U Z d) u.
O
p Z a n
Q ~ N 2
z p
In LU } W W! W V
w U F: Q n
J Q V U C� to C
a
a < O a
N
O Ou. I N a (D W
w c
LL�� o G U c
a
w J 0
t� W _ O, i
wW Wp O~ Z gu `a
O m p[ u W w u
= O O > o,
p LL
Z ~ Q JZ o
p r W
LLJlS) > W . J
Z r- W < N =, ¢ °� (n C C
Ki z w �N �Oaa
= Z v J J m Z J) i C a u
W � aQ� �nap.,,O s
M U w L1t/)UZWaOC
LL � U Q fw-WOZZ�f�0 o
t6 o WCOp]zCAzA w�
U¢inOaQU�
h
w
H
�
I
Q
Q
-wJ
m
V
3
� (�-
1
W
a
=
�
�
?
E'-
W Q W
F-
H
a,
w
�
�
�Z
Q
0
i
= 0ZZ
H
Cl
w
a[
�
Q
v INC
ix
w
0
Z
O Z
.o
N
O
TJ
_�. W
1-4Q
F-1
H o 0
iy
Z
NZ
V
In
n
Q
Lu w
U) aw
J w
0
O
°L f~+ p f-
z
w
H
m
m
0
p
w
o
O Z Q X
W
:+
Z
w
F-
O
0 n_
m
-1
W
F-- 000
U V co
Q
LL.
O
Om
w
0
Z H
OC Q
Of
LU
H �
CL
�2 =
J H
Q
WV
Q
in m
J
H
F_-
w
0
W
J
W
Z
Q
LIE
m
o`m�jNC
c+pp coo
O c 'a N
Ja F Mg
CL ui rn
waLL
f
O ^ M
W ^ n O
d000^
zl
of
Z
or
l
ui -j
dcn
w
!p
U
o
N
W
I
O
Nj
I
li
w �
y l
I��b III
Ln
:s
1gZ'
Ir
O
O
I ►—
p
CD
rn
M<
V
0
aa.. O M.,
in
pJ,Mao
cnUZ W�Q
�fngzZm
�-�000zo
UQufWLQU:
iijun Wz
BI #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
REQUEST: INTERPRETATION OF USE WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT (VC)
LOCATION: THE VILLAGE AREA
According to Section 9.65.040(C) Village Use Permit Review Process, of the Zoning Code, the
Community Development Director shall make interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code,
or, defer interpretations to the Planning Commission.
The interpretation before the Planning Commission is a request to identify "auto parts sales" as an
other related retail use within the Village Commercial (VC) District. Under Section 9.65.020(10)
Permitted Uses, includes: "Retail merchandise sales of limited goods (goods that can be carried out
and hauled by the customer), such as antiques, appliances, bicycles, wholesale and/or retail foods,
newspaper and magazines, tobacco products, kitchen and bath shops, video and audio equipment,
clothing, pets and pet supplies, office equipment and supplies, parry and/or costume rentals, sporting
goods, home furnishings, hardware and home improvement, and other related uses."
A Village Use Permit is required when a use changes by 50% or more of the building floor area, new
construction, and additions of more than 25% of the net floor area. In instances where it is not
clearly defined that a change, per these specifications is to be made, the Community Development
Director is allowed to make an interpretation, or defer his decision to the Planning Commission.
Therefore, this interpretation is before the Planning Commission for discussion and preliminary
direction as to whether or not this use is suitable in the Village. If the Commission agrees, an
applicant in the future will be submitting a request for the development of an auto parts sales store.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 99-. adopt the following interpretation:
"An auto parts store is a use permitted within the Village Commercial Zoning District"
Respectfully submitted,
F
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pcstfrpt-use interpretation. wpd
MAY-13-1999 17:25 FROM NAPA PALM DESERT TO
97?71233 P.01
NAPA AUTO PARS°
:'+„SAG'.r•'L^.'i'T^�7',^.�-.a-^^�•.^x ::w :^G?!TT-rT•'.�z�:T+.,. .-. �« - %'.:iG'Icr^ar^�T?"P".-"-cfi .�A-r',is'
May 13, 1999
City of 1.3 Quinta
Community Development Department
74-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
Re- Request for preliminary approval of village use permit at 51-230 Eisenhower Dr.
Please place on the agenda of the May 25, 1999 planning commission meeting a request for
preliminary approval of a NAPA auto parts store to be located at 51-230 Eisenhower Dr.
Our request is for the use only, we will not be doing any exterior modifications to the building
and will use the existing sign location. We do not allow any repair work on the premises.
We are the nations largest Auto Parts Suppliers with over 7, 000 Iocations nationwide, this will
be our sixth location in the valley. We feel this store will benefit the community in several ways.
One is convenience, with over 200.000 parts available the community will not have to take their
tax dollars out of the city to find what they need. With local ownership the profits stay in the
valley as opposed to all other companies that are corporate owned. We also hire from within the
c0111uiunity.
We are purchasing this building as we have in all of our other locations in the valley. Being the
landowner as opposed to a tenant we take a great deal of pride in our appearance and upkeep.
jTJJ.
- y
yai
NAPA Auto Parts
75-150 St. Charles Pi.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92211
(760)776-5790
r .
05-13-99 17:18
RECEIVED FROM:619 340 5785
T4ht 4 4 Q"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) lj
.i
DATE: MAY 25, 1999
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STREET NAME CHANGE
Staff has received a letter from Centrex Homes requesting the Planning Commission
initiate a street name change to eliminate Columbine Street as one of their streets.
They have submitted two names as possible alternatives. Based on Municipal Code
Section 14.08.110, the Commission has the right to instruct staff to initiate a street
name change. Should the Commission determine they want to initiate the street
name, they would need to instruct staff to place the item on next agenda for
consideration as a Business Item and make a recommendation to the City Council or
the Planning Commission can instruct Centrex to process the request through the
petition method as provided by the Code.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\memojh-pc street name chg.wpd
14.08.010
Chapter 14.08
STREET NAME CHANGES
Sections:
14.08.010
Petition for initiation of street name change.
14.08.020
Initiation of petition.
14.08.030
Application fee.
14.08.040
Manager's examination.
14.08.050
Adoption of resolution of intention.
14.08.060
Publication.
14.08.070
Posting.
14.08.080
Commission hearing.
14.08.090
Commission recommendation.
14.08.100
Council action.
14.08.110
Commission recommendation without petition and hearing.
14.08.010 Petition for initiation of street name change.
Any person may initiate a street name change for any reason consistent with law, by complying with
the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.08.020 Initiation of petition.
A proposed change of street name may be initiated by filing with the planning commission an
application in the form prescribed by the city manager and signed by the owners of at least sixty percent
of the lineal frontage abutting the street to be affected. (Ord. 10 § I (part), 1982)
14.08.030 Application fee.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the city
council, in order to defray the costs of publishing, post ing and processing, as hereinafter prescribed.. (Ord.
10 § 1(part), 1982)
14.08.040 Manager's examination.
The city manager shall examine the application and determine the sufficiency of same as to the
percentage requirement of Section 14.08.020. (Ord. 10 § 1(part), 1982)
14.08.050 Adoption of resolution of intention.
Upon determination of the sufficiency of the petition, the commission shall adopt a resolution of
intention to change name and set a date for public hearing not less than thirty days from the date of
adoption of the resolution. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.08.060 Publication.
The city manager shall provide for at least one publication of the resolution of intention in a
newspaper of general circulation within the city at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date. (Ord. 10 §
1 (part), 1982)
14.08.070 Posting.
The city manager shall provide for posting copies of the resolution of intention in at least three public
places along the street proposed to be affected. The posting shall be completed at least ten days prior to
the hearing date. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.08.080 Commission hearing.
At the time set for hearing, or at any time to which the hearing may be continued, the commission
536
' shall hear and consider proposals to adjust, alter or change the name(s) of the street(s) mentioned in the
resolution, and objections to the proposals. (Ord.10 § 1 (part), 1982)
i
0
14.08.090 Commission recommendation.
At or after the conclusion of the hearing, the commission may make any recommendation to the city
council which the commission deems appropriate. In its deliberations the commission shall consider any
applicable speck plans in effect. (Ord.10 § I (part), 1982)
14.08.100 Council action.
The city council may, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34091.1, take such action as
it deems appropriate upon the recommendation of the commission, and failure to take action within sixty
days after submission of the commission's recommendation shall be deemed denial of the application.
(Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.08.110 Commission recommendation without petition and hearing.
Notwithstanding any other parts of this code, the commission may, for any reason it deems in the
public interest and necessity, recommend to the city council that a street name be changed. The
recommendation may be made without complying with the requirements of Sections 14.08.020 through
14.08.080. The recommendation shall be in the form of a resolution of the commission directed to the
city council. Thereafter the city council shall take such action as it deems appropriate. (Ord.10 § 1(part),
1982)
537
2280 Wardlow Circles
Sulte 150
Corona. Calltornla 91720
Phore:909-279-4000
Fax:909-273-2100
May 13, 1999
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253-1504
Re: Request for Initiation of Street Name Change — Tract 28960
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
In light of the recent events at Columbine High School, Colorado, Centex Homes
would like to request that the Planning Commission initiate a street name change per
Section 14.08.110 of the Municipal Code, regarding our Tract 28960. The following are
a few suggestions that we have:
1) Paseo de Santillana ("de Santillana" is our project name)
2) Calle de Oso
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate calling me
at (909) 279-4000 extension 233.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
John H. Fong
Project Manager
7HF/mt
I =&?GA/stn=e