Loading...
1999 06 22 PC°A 4�Gv Z 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quints City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California June 22, 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 99-049 Beginning Minute Motion 99-011 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 June 8, 1999 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item .................. CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #5 Applicant.......... Century -Crowell Communities Location .......... South of 5Yh Avenue, west of Washington Street along Calle Norte, east of Avenida Las Verdes within Duna La Quinta Request ........... Approval of an amendment to increase the total unit count, revise the boundaries to separate the Seasons from Duna La Quinta, and 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 Action .............. Request for continuance B. Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT 28409, EXTENSION #1 Applicant.......... Mr. Charles B. Murphy and Mr. Lynn R. Kunkle Location........... North side of Avenida Montezuma, east of Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood. Request............ Recommendation for approval of a one year time extension for a previously approved subdivision of 9.15 acres into 19 custom single family and other common or private street lots. Action .............. Resolution 99-_ C. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-652 Applicant.......... T. D. Desert Development Location .......... South of Avenue 48 and east of Dune Palms Road within Rancho La Quinta Request ........... Approval of design plans for a 13,400 square foot golf maintenance facility. Action .............. Resolution 99-_ VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 99-466 Applicant.......... Airtouch Communications Location........... 78-742 Highway 111 - 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-_ B. Item ................... CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 99-05 - JEFFERSON STREET WIDENING Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ Intersection of 52°d Avenue and Jefferson Street Request ............. Review and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding round -about at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52. Action ............... Minute Motion 99-_ PC/AGENDA C. Item .................. MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 99-005 Applicant......... Four Seasons Homes Location........... Throughout the Cove Request............ Approval of Master Design Guidelines Action .............. Minute Motion 99- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of May 15,1999 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 25, 1999 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Tyler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Tyler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman Tyler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to excuse Commissioner Robbins. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planing Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Fred Baker and Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff informed the Commission that Public Hearing Item "A" needed to be changed to Business Item "A" and the remainder of the Business Items renumbered accordingly. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to approve the Agenda as amended. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of May 25, 1999. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Abels/Kirk to adopt the Minutes as presented. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Tract Ma._p 25953; a request of Oliphant and Williams Associates, Inc. for approval of two new prototype houses and landscaping plans for the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-8-99.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1999 l . Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and withdrew from the dias. 2. 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. 3. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Betty Williams stated she respectfully requested approval of their application and she was available to answer any questions. 4. Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this project. There being no public comment, Chairman Tyler opened the case for Commission discussion. 5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 99-009 approving the two new prototype house for Tract 25953, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Butler, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. B. Master Design Guidelines 99-004; a request of Coachella Valley Housing Authority for approval of prototype plans for lots in the Cove area. 1. Chairman Tyler asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Rebeca Dennis, Housing Director, representing Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, stated she was present to answer any questions the Commission may have. 3. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. The Commissioners thanked the applicant for the revised Guidelines. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-8-99.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1999 4. Commissioner Kirk asked if the homes would, or would not have tile roofs as it was unclear in the Guidelines. Ms. Dennis stated they would all have tile roofs. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 99-010 approving Master Design Guidelines 99-004 as recommended. Unanimously approved. C. Sign Application 99-466; a request of Airtouch Communications for approval of a deviation to an approved sign program to permit corporate signs for a new business located at 78-742 Highway 111 within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. 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. Staff noted a change in the size of the logo and that the applicant had agreed with Condition #1. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked if the Commission should be considering a Zoning Ordinance change to require copyright signs comply with City standards. Staff noted the conditions required the size change as the logo is too large in proportion to the balance of the sign. 3. Commissioner Abels asked the City Attorney if the City was at risk requiring a registered trademark to be altered. Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney stated the City could require the applicant to alter the size to keep it in proportion, but not the design or colors. Staff noted the conditions were requiring only the size of the logo to be reduced. 4. Commissioner Abels asked the color of the returns. Staff noted it originally shown as white. The applicant had no objection to painting the returns black. 5. Commissioner Kirk stated that at the last meeting staff was recommending the logo be changed from a can sign to something else. Can the City do this to a logo? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the logo trademark includes the lettering as well as the logo itself, then to be in keeping with not altering the trademark, whatever the Commission recommended, whether it be to light the sign entirely or not -light the entire sign, the Commission would have to treat the entire sign the same way. 6. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether this would apply in this instance with the reduction of the sign size. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not believe Airtouch provided the City with a letter showing the City what their logo consisted of. It is therefore, hard to know whether the reduction of the arch interferes with the trademark. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC6-8-99.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1999 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jerry Murdock, Permitting Administrator for UltraNeon Signs, presented a letter from Airtouch regarding their trademark and pictures of various Airtouch locations which showed the trademark and size of the letters. In these instances the size of the logo is proportionately the same whether or not it is over the letters or next to the letters. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that what the City was saying was that if Airtouch is arguing that it is their patented trademark, the City needs to be given something that demonstrates the size is part of the trademark. Mr. Murdock stated that whether the logo is used above or beside the letters it is still proportionately the same. Discussion followed regarding the different signs. 8. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked the applicant how they felt about staff s recommendation regarding reducing the size of the logo. Mr. Mudock stated Airtouch is very adamant about having the sign at five feet and the logo is always proportionate to the letters. 9. Commissioner Butler asked if the Commission could require documentation on the trademark. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would make sense to have the applicant provide documentation that what the City it requesting is requiring a change to their trademark. Commissioner Butler stated that in light of this information he would be inclined to continue this application until such time as documentation had been provided by Airtouch regarding their trademark. 10. Commissioner Kirk stated he too is concerned about sign proliferation, but in this instance he would rather have the logo at the proposed size rather than additional letters. 11. Commissioner Butler stated he would agree with staff s recommendation, but in the future documentation should be provided as to what makes up a corporate trademark. In regard to this sign, he would agree with staff s recommendation as it would allow them to have the sign at a reduced size. 12. Commissioner Abels stated he could not agree with staff s recommendation as he believed it was altering their trademark. 13. Commissioner Butler stated they were not altering the sign, just reducing the logo size to three feet. As shown by the applicant's pictures, the signs are all different. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-8-99.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, I999 14. Chairman Tyler asked the length of the logo as proposed. Staff stated it was proposed for five feet. Mr. Murdock stated it was four feet ten inches or four feet eleven inches and staff was requesting it to be reduced by about one third. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked what the chances were of the City being sued over such minor modifications. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated there is one case that most of this is stemming from. It depends on how strong Airtouch's corporate office feels about it. If they wish to make a point, or if they feel there was an infringement on their trademark, they have the ability to sue. 16. Commissioner Kirk stated the Commission's decision should not be based on a court case. Changing the size, whether they are required to use a can or not use a can, is not going to cause the City trouble. He was not concerned with this particular sign, but in the future they should be able to have more latitude. Discussion followed regarding prior court cases on trademarks. 17. Mr. Murdock stated that if the Commission would like to continue this, he would contact Airtouch, obtain a copy of their official trademark, and if the size is proportionate he will bring it in, if it is not, he will ask them to accept staff s recommendation. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners AbelsButler to continue Sign Application 99-466 to June 22, 1999. Unanimously approved. C. Street Name Change 99-011; a request of the City for approval of a street name change from Columbine to Paseo de Santillana or Calle de Oso. 1. Chairman Tyler 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 a request had been received from Centex Homes requesting the name be changed to "Spanish Bay" to be in conformance with other street names in PGA West. 2. Chairman Tyler asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if anyone else would like to speak regarding this subject. 3. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-048, recommending approval of Street Name Change 99-011, as recommended by staff. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-8-99.wpd Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1999 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman Tyler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of May 18, 1999. B. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff would feel it appropriate to dedicate part of a Commission meeting with what can or cannot be done in regard to signs and legal precedent. Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested a joint meeting be held with the City Council to gain their direction. Discussion followed regarding how staff reaches justification for a recommendation. Commissioner Kirk stated that at the last meeting, while reviewing the sign application for Auto Zone, it did not appear staff was in agreement with legal counsel in regard to what the Commission could change. This has led to some confusion and he would suggest that someone obtain some education regarding this issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if staff is making a recommendation to reduce the size of a sign because the City has regulations that the logo will not be any greater than a certain part of the sign, then this could be reviewed by legal counsel; but if the City is uncertain as to what part of the sign is the actual "trademark" then conditions could be placed on the application that are not appropriate. Discussion followed as to what actually constitutes a trademark; is it lettering or lettering and a logo. 2. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she will review the Sign Ordinance in regard to Federal Law as it relates to trademarks. Further, she does not believe the Planning Commission is in agreement with the City Council in regard to signs and she would suggest they get direction from the City Council before going any further. 3. Commissioner Kirk moved that the City Council provide direction based on issues raised and their desire to not have sign proliferation and explore the opportunities available to staff and the Planning Commission to make sure sign proliferation does not occur. Commissioner Abels seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC6-8-99.wpd 6 PH # MEMORANDUM DATE: JUNE 22, 1999 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LESLIE MOURIQUAND, ASSOCIATE PLANNER VIA: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT 5 - CENTURY-CROWELL The applicant has not completed the plans for the proposed split-level units along the south side of Calle Norte, within Duna La Quinta. Staff requests that the item be tabled so that the applicant can have more time to prepare the plans for City review. The item will be readvertised when it is ready for consideration. C:\MyFiles\pcmemoSP83-0016-11-99.wpd PH #8 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 22, 1999 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409, EXTENSION #1 APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. CHARLES B. MURPHY AND MR. LYNN R. KUNKLE ENGINEER: FITCH ENGINEERING, INC. LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, EAST OF THE BEAR CREEK CHANNEL AND WEST OF THE YUCATAN PENINSULA RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION OF 9.15-ACRES INTO 19 CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON OR PRIVATE STREET LOTS PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-335 WAS PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FOR TTM 28409 PURSUANT TO CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 6, 1997. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST THAT WOULD TRIGGER A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THIS REQUEST. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATIONS: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) WITH 10,000 SQ. FT. LOT MINIMUM, 17' HEIGHT RESTRICTION (ONE STORY) AND 60-FOOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS SRPC TR28409x - 34 1 BACKGROUND: The site is located on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of the Yucatan Peninsula residential neighborhood (Attachment 1). The 9.15-acre parcel is vacant with prior grading of this site having occurred during construction of the Bear Creek Channel improvements in the mid-1980's by the Army Corp of Engineers and the Coachella Valley Water District. This channel takes runoff from the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the Whitewater Stormwater Channel which feeds into the Salton Sea. The Bear Creek Bike Path was completed in the early 1990's, and runs along the Avenida Montezuma frontage. On May 6, 1997, the City Council approved TTM 28409 by adoption of Resolution 97- 36, creating this subdivision of the 9.15 acre site into 19 single family lots for custom homes with private streets and common retention basin (Attachment 2). Lots are 12,000 square feet and larger. On November 18, 1997, the City Council approved changes to the lot pad elevations in order to conform with existing site topography by adoption of Resolution 97-90 (See Condition 26). Time Extension Request The applicants have applied for a one year time extension as required by Condition 2 of Resolution 97-90. A copy of their written request is attached (Attachment 3). Public Notice - This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 9, 1999. All property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. No written comments have been received. All correspondence received before the meeting will be given to the Planning Commission. Agency Comments - On May 14, 1999, the applicant's request was sent to affected public agencies for their comments. All pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. 2 STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings can be made for a recommendation of approval. They are included in the attached Resolutions along with recommended Conditions of Approval pursuant to Section 13.12.160 (Extensions of Time for Tentative Maps) of the Municipal Code. Conditions modified or added by staff for this request have been bolded (e.g., Conditions 1, 2, 54, 68, 79 and 81). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to the City Council approval of a one year time extension for Tentative Tract Map 28409, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TTM Exhibit - Reduced 3. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Only) Pre air & by: Submitted by: Lf �. Greg 'T ousdell, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning Manager 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 A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409, FOR A 19-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS LETTERED LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 (EXTENSION #1) APPLICANTS: C. B. MURPHY AND L. R. KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a one year time extension for a previously approved subdivision of 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez, more particularly described as: Portion of the SW 1 /4 of Section 1, T6E, R6E, SBBM (APN: 773-030-009 and -012) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 61h day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Tentative Tract Map 28409, and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 97-36 approving 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 18th day of November, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider changes in pad heights for the tract, and by unanimous vote adopted Resolution 97- 90, approving said changes requested by the applicant; and WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 96-335 for this project on May 6, 1997, by adoption of Resolution 97-35 stating the Resopc Tr. 28409X - 34 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on Conditions. This time extension request does not require a new environmental assessment; 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 to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28409 (Extension #1): A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance in that the property is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) per the General Plan. The project density is two dwellings per acre which is under the maximum level for the MDR District. Tentative Tract Map 28409 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element provided conditions are met. Parkland fees shall be paid to the City to develop parks within the City pursuant to the provisions contained in the General Plan (Chapter 5) and Subdivision Ordinance. The site is zoned RM and subject to special restrictions such as a one story height limit (17' maximum) and 10,000 lot sizes. The proposed lots are larger than 12,000 square feet and designed for custom single family houses in compliance with City requirements. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that all streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets are private and designed per the standards of the Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) of the General Plan. Access to the Tract will be from Street Lot "A" on Avenida Montezuma. The density and design standards for the Tract will comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure Resope.Tr. 28409X - 34 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 fish or wildlife or their habitat in that this previously graded site is vacant and suitable for development based on the environmental studies prepared for the project that are on file. Furthermore, mitigation measures and Conditions are recommended. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. 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 recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28409 (Extension #1) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to -the attached conditions. PASSED, Quinta City Planning following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Resopc.Tr. 28409X - 34 APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Commission, held on the 22"d day of June, 1999, by the Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Resopc.Tr. 23409X - 34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409, FOR A 19-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS LETTERED LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409 (EXTENSION #1) APPLICANTS: C. B. MURPHY AND L. R. KUNKLE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22"d day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a one year time extension for a previously approved subdivision of 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez, more particularly described as: Portion of the SW 1 /4 of Section 1, T6E, R6E, SBBM (APN: 773-030-009 and -012) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6`' day of May, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for Tentative Tract Map 28409, and on a 5-0 vote, adopted Resolution 97-36 approving 19 single family lots on a 9.15-acre site, generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Avenida Juarez; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 18th day of November, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider changes in pad heights for the tract, and by unanimous vote adopted Resolution 97- 90, approving said changes requested by the applicant; and WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 96-335 for this project on May 6, 1997, by adoption of Resolution 97-35 stating the Resopc.Tr. 29409X - 34 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on Conditions. This time extension request does not require a new environmental assessment; 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 to justify a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28409 (Extension #1): A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Ordinance in that the property is designated Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) per the General Plan. The project density is two dwellings per acre which is under the maximum level for the MDR District. Tentative Tract Map 28409 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element provided conditions are met. Parkland fees shall be paid to the City to develop parks within the City pursuant to the provisions contained in the General Plan (Chapter 5) and Subdivision Ordinance. The site is zoned RM and subject to special restrictions such as a one story height limit (17' maximum) and 10,000 lot sizes. The proposed lots are larger thain 12,000 square feet and designed for custom single family houses in compliance with City requirements. B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans in that all streets and improvements in the project, as conditioned, will conform to City standards as outlined in the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. All on -site streets are private and designed per the standards of the Circulation Element (Chapter 3.0) of the General Plan. Access to the Tract will be from Street Lot "A" on Avenida Montezuma. The density and design standards for the Tract will comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan. C. The design of the subdivision, or the proposed improvements, are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure Resopc.Tr. 28409X - 34 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 fish or wildlife or their habitat in that this previously graded site is vacant and suitable for development based on the environmental studies prepared for the project that are on file. Furthermore, mitigation measures and Conditions are recommended. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements. E. The design of the subdivision, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. 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 recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28409 (Extension #1) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, Quinta City Planning following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Resopc.Tr. 213409X - 34 APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Commission, held on the 22"d day of June, 1999, by the Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ TTM 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT T. TYLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Resopc.'Tr. 2E409X - 34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28409, EXTENSION #1 MURPHY/KUNKLE JUNE 22, 1999 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, a memorandum noting that City Conditions of Approval for a development application exist and are available for review at City Hall, shall be recorded against the property with the Riverside County Recorder's Office. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28409 (Extension #1) shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map expires on May 6, 2000, unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, 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 - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storrnwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance CondPC T28409CC-34 1 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Trait Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22., 1999 of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 6. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties. 7. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications required of this development include: A. Lot A - Private Entry Street - 40-foot to 46-foot width. B. Lot B - Private Street - 37-foot width. C. CVWD maintenance road along Bear Creek Channel - Adequate right of way to accommodate existing roadway as approved by the City Engineer. 8. 'The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. CondPC T28409CC-34 2 Planning Commission Resolution 99-— Tentative Tra-.t Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22., 1999 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Avenida Montezuma - 10 feet The minimum width may be used as an average if a meandering wall design is approved. For developments with public interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall be dedicated to the City. For developments with private interior streets, perimeter setback lots shall remain in private ownership. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 10. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Avenida Montezuma from lots abutting the street. Access to this street shall be restricted to access points listed hereinafter or as approved by the City. 11. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, bike paths, and common areas. 12. 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_ MAPS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 13. As part of the filing package for final map approval, 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 choices 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 including approved revisions to the plans. CondPC T28409CC-34 3 Planning Commission Resolution 99-— Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking 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, gates and entryways. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVVAJD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 15. 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. 16. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, 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 choices 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 including approved revisions to the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 17. '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 agendization of a final map or parcel map CondPC T28409CC-34 4 Planning Commission Resolution 99-— Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1995£ or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 113, 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. 18. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not The agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 19. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction ;sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 20. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 21. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with CondPC T2£3409CC-34 5 Planning Commission Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension f/1 June 22, 199SI other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 22. 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. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 23. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 24. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 25. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shalll appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. The applicant shall match building pad elevations of existing residential lots along the east boundary of the subdivision unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots within this subdivision shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots not sharing common street frontage where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance with the proposed development. The revised Grading Plan, dated October 13, 1997, is consistent with the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. CondPC T28409CC-34 6 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, 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 28. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 29. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Easements for drainage to the retention basin shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 %2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 30. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data indicating otherwise. 31. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall The sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 32. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. CondPC T28409CC-34 7 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 199SI 33. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities, i.e.: the L.a Quinta Building and Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, all areas of common retention basins shall be visible from the adjacent street(s) as deemed necessary. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 34. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 35. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 37. If any storm water or nuisance water from this development is proposed to drain to off -site locations, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil/water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. Drainage to off -site locations and methods of treatment or screening shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. If the applicant utilizes direct drainage of stormwater to the Bear Creek Channel, the Homeowners' Association for this development shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the direct discharge of the development's stormwater to the channel. The Tract CC ,& R's shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 38. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. CondPC T28409CC-34 8 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 39. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 40. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. 41. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SACS 1) Lot A (Entry Drive) - 40- to 46-feet (curb face to curb face) with 2-foot median. The applicant shall modify the vertical and horizontal alignment of the existing Avenida Montezuma bike path at the entry drive as required by the City Engineer. 2) Lot B - 36 feet wide. 3) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. CondPC T28409CC-34 9 Planning Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 42. Vehicular access shall be restricted to the entry drive, the centerline of which is located approximately 300 feet westerly of the southeast corner of the subdivision, and to any approved emergency access. 43. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 44. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 45. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance With the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 46. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shalll conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 47. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 48. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). CondPC T28409CC-34 10 Planning Commission Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 49. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. LANDSCAPING 50. 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. 51. 'The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots along Avenida Montezuma. 52. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 LQMC. The CondPC T28409CC-34 11 Planning Conunission Resolution 99- Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 perimeter wall and landscaping improvements shall be approved by the Planning Commission. After approval from the Planning Commission, landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 53. Slopes in landscape areas shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 outside the right of way. 54. 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 5-feet 18-inches of curbs along public streets. 55. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 56. "The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 57. The perimeter landscaping and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the (Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance for the houses within the Tract. Palm trees installed along Avenida Montezuma shall have a minimum (brown trunk height of 8-feet, and no less than 80 percent of the trees along Avenida Montezuma shall be 24"- or 36"-box specimen trees (e.g., minimum 1.75" to 3" diameter trunk width per tree type) with remaining trees 15 gallon in size with 1 " trunks. Ground mounted lighting shall be used periodically to accent the parkway trees. Shrub spacing shall be 3'-0" on center unless plant types are clustered to form distinctive design themes. The parkway landscaping shall be installed either during construction of the Tract improvements or prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy for any house. CondPC T28409CCC-34 12 Planning Commission Resolution 99-— Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 199SI The developer shall work with the Public Works Department to insure that the planned landscaping improvements along Avenida Montezuma are consistent with the City's plans under the Urban Forestry project. 58. The screen wall along Avenida Montezuma shall be decorative and include pilasters at 50-foot intervals (Chapter 9.60 of LQMC). Wall openings are encouraged. The wall shall vary in height either by grade elevation changes at 100--foot intervals or fluctuations in height, but not exceed six feet in overall height. If additional height is determined by an applicant prepared acoustic study, it shall be provided by berming beneath the wall. The design and location of the screen wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission during review of the parkway landscaping. The perimeter Tract wall, excluding Avenida Montezuma, shall be constructed using tan slumpstone masonry blocks or other decorative material(s) which is compatible with the project entry wall design. QUALITY ASSURANCE 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 60. `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. 61. '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. 62. 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 CondPC T28409CC-34 13 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22, 1999 shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 63. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, common and perimeter landscaping and on -site street improvements by a Homeowners Association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain off -site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the HOA. 64. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against ,the iproperty and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 67. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 13.48). 68. 'Two checks made out to the County of Riverside in the amounts of $1,250.00 and $78.00 for the project's environmental assessment {Negative Declaration) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24-hours after review of the map by the City Council. CondPC M 409CC-34 14 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-— Tentative Tract Map 28409, Extension #11 June 22, 1999 FIRE DEPARTMENT 69. Schedule (A) fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2'/2 " X 2 %2 ") will be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 g.p.m. for a two-hour duration at 20 psi. 70. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be approved and signed by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 71. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 72. crates 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, Public Works and Community Development Departments for review/approval prior to installation. MISCELLANEOUS 73. All houses constructed shall comply with the Uniform Building Code in effect when the plans are submitted for plan check to the Building and Safety Department. 74. The Tract layout shall comply with all Zoning Code requirements. CondPC T28409CC-34 15 Planning; Commission Resolution 99-_ Tentative Trait Map 28409, Extension #1 June 22., 1999 75. Prior to final map approval, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and R's) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and comment. The CC and R's shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and a recorded copy shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 76. All rnitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 96-335 shall be met. 77. Permanent signing for the Tract shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for said structure(s) pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance. 78. All single family houses shall be single -story and not exceed 17-feet in overall height. 79. All lots, which do not front onto a cul-de-sac, shall have a minimum lot frontage width of 60-feet as required by the RC 60-RM-10,000/17 Zoning District standards. 80. Twelve -foot wide landscape lots shall be created along each side of Street Lot "A" on Lots 15 and 16. The length of the landscaping lots shall be 60-feet as measured from the right-of-way line of Avenida Montezuma. 81. Developer and/or property agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this time extension request. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. CondPC T28409CC-34 16 ATTACHMENTS 5. THIS MAP IS NOT IN A SPECIFIC PLAN. 6. TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE: C&C AERIAL MAPPING CO. HIGHWAY SITE*�, M ONTEZUM A z ``tV l tr t7 rj ¢ �_� M O 2 call DURANGO 0 Z a 0 Z w a 0 > a a > a o > a z ui N w _VICINITY MAP N.T.S. H to z O f- z 3 Attachment 1 FITCHmENSINSERS INC. ENGINEERS — SURVEYORS — PLANNERS P.O. BOX 455, PALM DESERT, CA 92261 PHONE: (619) 345-7667 s .• Land Development Kunkle Construction General Contractor Lic # 555653 Attachment 3 zo b t-u.- Reoidential Construction —\I-w VWA `tom \ N P.O. Box 3121 • Del Mar, CA 92014 • Phone: (619) 793-2425 • Fax: (619) 350-9438 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE:: JUNE 22,1999 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-652 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 13,400 SQUARE FOOT GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 48 AND EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT L.P. REPRESENTATIVE: McFADDEN McINTOSH ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-652 IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 AMENDMENT NO. 3 (RANCHO LA QUINTA). THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457(A). AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #79020846) WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 6,1984 (RESOLUTION 84- 77) FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004. NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES EXISTS WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE PREPARATION OF ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY. PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 21166. ZONING: GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SOUTH: GOLF COURSE/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: GOLF COURSE\ LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: GOLF COURSE/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UTU The site is part of Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 3 which is south of Avenue 48 between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. The Specific Plan permits the proposed use of a maintenance facility and employee parking lot at the proposed locations. The parking lot site is located south of Avenue 48 at the Dunes Palms Road entrance; the maintenance facility is located east of the parking lot site across the Storm Water Evacuation Channel with vehicular access taken from Avenue 48, 730 feet east of Dunes Palms Road. The project consists of a 13,400 square foot maintenance facility and a 60 space employee parking facility on 2.93 acres. The facility proposes to house equipment and parts, a locker room and lunch facility, an irrigation control room, and offices. The maintenance yard will be paved asphalt with street access at Avenue 48 having 6' high painted metal rolling gate. Equipment and maintenance vehicles access the golf courses and country club grounds to the east and southwest of the site. The yard will provide for material storage in five separate walled cubicles on a concrete slab; an equipment wash area; a fuel storage tank and dispenser; a chemical (fertilizer) storage container; and trash and roll -off dumpsters. Sixty employee parking spaces are provided at the Dunes Palms Road entrance across the Storm Water Evacuation Channel. The metal roof is pitched at one quarter on twelve and has a continuous ridge vent. The 13,400 square foot L-shaped maintenance facility is 15 '/2 feet in height and made of pre-engineered steel with white textured exterior stucco 12 foot high wall paneling on five sides. The south wall is a common wall with a CVWD well site composed of a 6 foot concrete block wall and a 6 foot textured exterior stucco wall paneling above the concrete block. The front elevation has a 14 x 10 metal roll up door, five bronze colored aluminum framed windows, and man doors to the equipment storage area, reception area and lunch room. The right side elevation has three 14 x 10 roll up doors, two 14 x 12 roll up doors and three bronze colored aluminum framed windows. All elevations are trimrned with sandalwood colored metal panels. The Landscape Planting Plan for the employee parking lot and maintenance facility is consistent with the "Plant Material Palette" in the Specific Plan. Sweet Acacia , Blue Palo Verde, Thornless Mesquite, and African Sumac trees and a diverse variety of shrubs unique to desert soil and climate conditions are provided. The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on May 26, 1999, requesting comments to be returned by October 8, 1998. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on June 8,1999. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee unanimously approved the architectural and landscape plans as submitted on June 2,1999. (Attachment 1, Excerpts from Minutes) ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: General Plan Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as Golf Course/Open Space. Open Space Element (Policy 4-1.2.3) allows accessory uses as proposed and is consistent with the General Plan. The project is consistent with the surrounding planned and existing land uses: golf course, proposed CVWD well site, and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 3, Zoning & Development Regulations allows the proposed use. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 3 General Architectural and Siting Guidelines including building height, scale and massing. The architectural design of the facility lacks a residential character consistent with the architectural guidelines for the project area. The facility is not compatible with the architectural style in Rancho La Quinta in that the roof line (i.e. the roof pitch), exterior metal materials, architectural detail, and colors of the facility are not consistent with the architectural guidelines for residential or commercial buildings in the project area. However, the site is fairly isolated within the project area and is surrounded by the storm water channel, a CVWD well site, Avenue 48, and 65 feet from residential and golf course uses. Based on the site line study, views of the facility are buffered by golf course mounding, the CVWD storm water channel and well site, and trees within the landscape setback area to screen the facility. Therefore staff is not recommending any design modifications. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed to create a visual variety and textural interest. Project landscaping promotes a feeling of oasis and uses drought tolerant plant material to further aid in the conservation of water. Landscape elements including walkways, walls and trees provide separation of traffic and golfers and guests. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 84-004 Amendment No. 3 in that the type and size of plant material, and landscape architectural elements are in compliance with the established theme in Rancho La Quinta. Adopt: Planning Commission Resolution 99- , approving Site Development Permit 99-652 to allow construction of a 13,400 square foot maintenance facility and employee parking facility, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1 . Excerpts from the June 2, 1999 minutes of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee 2. Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan, Illustrative Land Use Plan 3. Plan Exhibits for the Maintenance Facility and Employee parking Prepared by: `-Pred Baker, AICP Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-652 APPROVING THE DESIGN PLANS OF A 13,400 SQUARE FOOT MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT ON 2.93 ACRES CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-652 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT L.P. (RANCHO LA QUINTA) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of June, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and , for a 2.93 acre site with a 13,400 square foot Maintenance facility and employee parking lot generally south of Avenue 48 and east of Dune Palms Road within Rancho La Quinta, more particularly described as: Parcel 18, Parcel map 20469, PMB 14095-100 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee, at its meeting of June 2ND , 1999, did review the architecture and landscape plans for the proposed project and recommended approval, subject to conditions. WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #79020846) was certified by the City Council on November 6,1984 (Resolution 84-77) for Specific Plan 84-004. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per public resources code section 65457(a). No substantive changes exists which would require the preparation of additional environmental documentation. Therefore, no further Environmental Assessment is necessary pursuant to Public Resources code 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Comrnission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Site Development Permit 99-652: A. Site Development Permit 99-633 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment No. 3 provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences RESOPC.SDP 99-652 Planning Commission Resolution 99- pursuant to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 90 (addendum). The project is a Golf Course accessory use as identified in the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) and Open Space Element (Chapter 6) shall be met. Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment No. 3 designates the site as Golf Course which permits the proposed use. B. The design and development of the golf club house and cart storage facility will be consistent with the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan and the City's Zoning Code provided conditions are met. C. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development quality in the area accommodates site generated traffic, and is isolated and screened by the surrounding uses: CVWD well site, La Quinta Evacuation Channel and Avenue 48 and the street landscape setback. D. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and golf course mounding, and uses a high quality of plant materials. E. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that is a similar scale, massing and building height of other development in the area; it is not compatible with the Specific Plan Residential Design Criteria; the building materials will be durable and low maintenance, provided conditions are met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 99-652 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 22nd day of June, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RESOPC.SDP 99-652 Planning Commission Resolution 99- ABSTAIN; Robert T. Tyler, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOF'C.S[)P 99-652 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99- CONDITIIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-652 JUNE 22, 1999 GENERAL 1. Upon Planning Commission 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. 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 permit. 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. 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 • 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. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received frorn 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. 4. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. A:\SDP 99652-c.ofa.wpd 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. 5. 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, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, iandscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City En(�ineer. GRADING 6. This project shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). The project shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill at building foundations are above the level of the project (100-year) flood. If the property on which buildings are to be constructed was below the project flood elevation on the date of the then -current Flood Insurance Rate Map, all fill under proposed building pads shall be compacted to 95% Proctor Density (44 CFR §65.5(a) (6)) and the applicant shall submit a completed elevation certificate for the property or for individual buildings on the property prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the buildings. 7. 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. 8. 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. A:\SDP 99652-c.ofa.wpd 9. 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. Y 10. Stormwater water handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for the Rancho La Quinta development. Nuisance water shall be disposed of with no flow to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 11. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant 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. TILITI S 12. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all above -ground utility structures located in areas visible from adjacent public streets 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. 13. 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. 14. 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 15. Prior to final inspection and issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building within the project area, and prior to the opening of the entry to the maintenance facility parking lot, the applicant shall modify the traffic signal at the Ave 48/Dune Palms IRoad intersection as required by the City Engineer to accommodate the parking lot entry as the fourth leg of the intersection. This improvement is eligible for 50% cost participation by the City which will be issued as a credit against the applicant's remaining obligations for reimbursement of the cost of Avenue 48 improvements. A:\SDP 99652-c.ofa.wpd 16. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Maintenance Facility Parking Lot - This drive shall align with Dune Palms Road. Full -turn access is allowed once signal modifications are complete. B. Maintenance Facility Entrance - Right-in/right-out only. 17. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid - block street lighting is not required. 18. 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 parking areas and on -site circulation routes shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 19. The applicant shall design 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" LANDS ;AENG 20. The applicant shall provide landscaping and a six-foot meandering sidewalk in the perimeter setback along Ave 48. The portion west of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel shall be completed with the adjacent landscaping to the west. The portion within the channel and abutting the maintenance facility shall be an obligation of the first residential, resort or recreational approval abutting Avenue 48 east of the Channel and constructed with the perimeter landscaping for that approval or when directed by the City Engineer, whichever is earlier. 21. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. A:\SDP 99652--cc.ofa.wpd 22. 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. PUBLIC SERVICES 23. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City. QUALIT,� ASSURANCE 24. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and regulations. MAINTENA 4CE 26. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of the perimeter landscaping. FEES AND DEPOSITS 27. 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. FIRE MARSHALL 28. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,000 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 29. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 21/2" x 2112") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 30. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the waiter company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing waiter system is capable of delivering 2,000 gpm fire flow for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. A:\SDP 99652-c.ofa.wpd 31. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 33. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 34. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. 35. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 36. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 37. Ins -tall a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 38. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 39. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. • 40. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 41. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system, the lock boxes will require "tamper" monitoring. A:\SDP 99652-c.ofa.wpd 42. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data sheets) the Knox Haz Mat Data and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper switches shall be used. 43. Install Knox key operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 44. Operation of the Knox key switch shall simultaneously open and control the gates for both directions of travel. 45. Gate 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. MISCELLANEOUS 46. The landscape planting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department for consistency with the existing planting in the landscape setback on Avenue 48; landscape planting plan shall provide a six foot wide pedestrian on -site sidewalk connecting the employee parking lot to the maintenance facility; the landscape planting plan is required to identify all tree calipers and provide adequate site screening of the facility. ATTACHMENT # Architectural & Landscape Review Committee June 2, 1999 3� Committee Member Bobbitt concurred with Committee Member Cunningham and stated the project was an attractive tracf.-Het en a ed if the issue with La Quinta Palms regarding blocking of view was r olved. Staff stated it was not an issue as the developeZunee ord e with the plans that had been approved by the City Cittee Member Bobbitt commented that when a new developosed it should be understood that a view will be blocked if not opment, the trees and plant material which are required will fothe view when it reached maturity. He did not think it was reasoy a project due to the project blocking a view. 4. Committee Member Cunninghamated La Quinta Palms was originally approved under Riverside Coun"d basically had no reason for raising an objection. The City reviewsll projects as to their impact on surrounding tracts and this tract was Allproved based on its ability to compliment the surrounding homes. S;a: f stated the Sonrisa tract had a condition placed on it to require one sto6units adjacent to La Quinta Palms. 5. CommitteeXember Bobbitt stated the landscaping and plant pallette were fine as 6. Tre being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee embers Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-014 recommending approval of Tract 25953-,-subj-ecti6con rtions as submitted. Z--e�ously- approved. B. Site Development Permit 99-652; a request of T. D. Desert Development for approval of a 13,400 square foot golf maintenance facility located south of Avenue 48 and east of Dune Palms Road. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the maintenance facility could be seen from public view. Staff stated the peak of the building will be seen while driving east. When driving west, very little if any will be seen. The views that will see it are from the golf course and the future Casitas units proposed for that area. 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated there are two views, public and interior. His concern is only for the general public view as the interior will be mitigated by the developer. CAMy'Docurnents\WPDOCS\ALRC6-2-99.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee June 2, 1999 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the CVWD well site was proposed or existing. Staff stated it was proposed. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that while driving down 48t' Avenue it did not appear that it would be possible to hide the building and as this building is right on 48th Avenue. His concern was that it is flat and appears to bring a commercial building to the area that does not blend with the architecture of this area. It is too close to 48t' Avenue and needs to be dressed up so it does not look like a maintenance yard. 6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that a metal prefabricated building is easier to fix it compared to a plastered house with tile roofs. This is due to not being maintained and becoming a problem. The simpler the building the easier to maintain, but it should not be seen from the general public view. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if he were a homeowner he would want the building hidden by at least plant material. As Avenue 48 is fairly heavily traveled, he does not want it to look commercialized. As long as the facility is hidden from the street he is not concerned with the looks of the building. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked when the building would be constructed. Mr. Art Gardner, Watson and Christiansen stated the lowest point of the site is 14 feet below the pad. The building is on the east side of the wash and they have to keep a minimum 50 foot pad elevation per CVWD. Committee Member Bobbit asked if the applicant was being required to line the wash with concrete. Mr. Gardner no. They can shape and mold it as they please. He then reviewed the elevations with the Committee and showed how the Casitas units would be blocked by landscaping. He noted that due to the setback of the maintenance facility and part of the proposed wall, very little of the facility would be seen. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the construction material would be for the roof. Mr. Chuck McBride, Design Build Associates, displayed the roof material and colors and discussion followed. 10. Mr. Chuck Shepardson, landscape architect, stated they are trying to screen the interior and will help the view from 48th Avenue with mounding and plant material. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the Imperial Irrigation power poles and/or substation would be removed or hidden. Mr. Mike Hulme, project manager for Rancho La Quinta, stated they will be landscaping the electrical substation to make it disappear as much as possible. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC6-2-99.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee June 2, 1999 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 99-015, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 99-652, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None VI. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it wes moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adjourn th' regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee to the next regular 70ding to be held on July 7, 1999. This meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m. on June 2, 1999.,i' Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\ALRC6-2-99.wpd 4 B 1 #A MEMORANDUM DATE: JUNE 18, 1999 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LESLIE MOURIQUAND, ASSOCIATE PLANNER VIA: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 99466 - AIRTOUCH COMMUNICATIONS The applicant has not submitted the additional information regarding their registered trademark as requested at the June 8, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Staff requests that the item be continued until the July 13, 1999 meeting so that the applicant can have additional time to submit this information. C:\Mydata\pcmemoSA99-466AirTouch6-18-99.wpd BI # STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: June 22, 1999 CASE NO.: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 99-05 - JEFFERSON STREET WIDENING APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF 52ND AVENUE AND JEFFERSON STREET REQUEST: REVIEW AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A ROUNDABOUT AT THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 52ND AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-378. BACKGROUND: On March 18, 1997, the City Council approved the original Reimbursement Agreement and MOU between CVAG, La Quinta, Indio, and the County of Riverside for Jefferson Street Ultimate Improvements from Indio Boulevard to Avenue 54. The MOU identifies the City of La Quinta as the lead agency and the City of I Indio and County of Riverside as the cooperating agencies. On April 29, 1997, the CVAG Executive Committee approved the original Reimbursement Agreement and MOU between the City of La Quinta, City of Indio, County of Riverside, and CVAG. On March 16, 1999, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the CVAG MOU. Amendment No. 1 provides a 75%/25% split between CVAG and the affected jurisdictions for the funding of this project. This amendment was approved by the CVAG Executive Committee on February 22, 1999. The proposed Jefferson Street Improvements will be constructed in two phases. Phase: I improvements begin at State Highway 1 1 1 and end at Avenue 54. Phase II improverents begin at Indio Boulevard and end at State Highway 1 1 1. This project has been on an accelerated pace in order to capture 1.3 million dollars of additional funding. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC rpt CIP99-05.wpd 1 On April 28, 1999, the City of La Quinta formally requested that CVAG issue Amendment No. 2 to the CVAG MOU. Amendment No. 2 addresses reimbursement for final engineering ($665,178), City administration costs ($33,259) and includes reimbursement for estimated construction costs for Phase 1 Jefferson Street Improvements from Avenue 54 to State Route 1 1 1. On May 14, 1999, the CVAG Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approved Amendment No. 2 to the CVAG MOU, and Amendment No. 1 to the consultant contract for final design. In subsequent communications, CVAG staff has indicated that this item will be considered for approval by the Executive Committee during its meeting of June 7, 1999. On May 18, 1999, the City Council took the following actions in relation to this project: 1. Adopted a Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-378; 2. Approved Amendment No. 2 in concept and authorized the City Manager to execute the amendment to the CVAG Reimbursement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for project final design and construction of Jefferson Street from Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1 when it becomes available from CVAG to the City of La Quinta, City of Indio, and County of Riverside; 3. Approved Amendment No. 1 amending the Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) contract in the Amount of $665,178 to prepare Plans, Specifications and Engineer's Estimate (PS&E) for Project 99-05, Jefferson Street Improvements, Avenue 54 to State Highway 1 1 1; and 4. Approved the PS&E and authorized staff to advertise and receive bids for Project 99-05, Jefferson Street Improvements, Avenue 54 to State Highway 111. The PS&E approval stipulated that the potential roundabout proposed for the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 be bid as an additive alternate and that a traditional signalized intersection be designed and included within the base bid project. During the May 18, 1999 City Council Meeting, the City Council requested additional information regarding the advantages and disadvantages of constructing a roundabout in lieu of a traditional signalized intersection on Jefferson Street at Avenue 52; as well as, additional information regarding the landscaping for Jefferson Street. This project has been on an accelerated pace in order to secure approximately 1.3 million dollars of additional funding for this project. The two remaining issues of (1) construction of a traditional signal or roundabout for the intersection and (2) the potential landscaping for Jefferson Street are addressed below. A bid award prior to June 30, 1999 will allover us to secure said funding. Any outstanding right-of-way issue(s) will be discussed as the project moves forward. CAMy Documents\WPDOCSTC rpt CIP99-05.wpd 2 Roundabouts Modern roundabouts follow design principles that are different from those of traffic circles built in the United States in the first half of the 201h century. The old circles often gave priority to entering traffic and were designed with the weaving movement as a prime consideration. The circles became fairly large, with long distances between consecutive entrances and exits and experienced relatively high speeds. In contrast, the modern roundabout is designed for lower speeds, and its dimensions are determined by the number of branches, required capacity, and the turning radii of larger vehicles. Deflection of the vehicle path through the roundabout is a critical design element affecting the safety of the roundabout. Entering traffic has to yield to circulating traffic. At low traffic loads, vehicles enter without stopping; at higher loads, entering traffic has to wait for a gap in the circulating stream. To increase roundabout capacity, entries are flared to provide more than one entry lane, and the circulatory roadway is widened. Although there are fewer than 50 roundabouts in use in the United States, they represent a variety of designs and applications. Roundabouts have been built in urban, suburban, and rural environments, and on arterial roads, collectors, and local streets. About two-thirds are single -lane roundabouts and one-third are multi -lane. Three diamond freeway interchanges operate with two roundabouts each. The town of Avon, Colorado built a string of five high -capacity roundabouts along a commercial arterial, tying them together with a cultural theme in the central island treatment. Locations appropriate for roundabouts include areas where there is not enough room for an acceptable outside diameter or where it would be difficult to provide a flat plateau (maximum three to five percent grade) for roundabout construction. Intersections with heavy flows on the major road and low volumes on the minor road may also not be appropriate, because of the undue delays imposed on the major flows. In the City's General Plan, Jefferson Street is designated as a six lane major arterial. Avenue 52 is designated as a six lane major arterial west of Jefferson Street and a four lane primary arterial east of Jefferson Street. The projected average daily traffic at "buildout" for Jefferson Street exceeds 45,000 vehicles per day. The projected average daily traffic at "buildout" on Avenue 52 is approximately 34,000 per day west of Jefferson Street, and 14,000 vehicles per day east of Jefferson Street. Therefore, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 is considered an intersection with heavy flows on all legs. Although roundabouts may have a traffic calming effect, their purpose is to enhance the efficiency of an intersection. Traffic on all legs are able to continually move without the stopping and starting patterns necessitated by a traffic signal. The constant circulation of a roundabout increases capacity at busy intersections. C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC rpt CIP99-05.wpd 3 At conventional signalized intersections, pedestrians cross on marked crosswalks in front of stopped vehicles. They cross with the aid of pedestrian activation indicators that are located on traffic signals. Conflicts have arisen when motorists, attempting to turn right on red, look over their left shoulder and do not focus on pedestrians that may be within the crosswalk. In the case of a roundabout, the pedestrians are crossing approximately 40' (2 car lengths) behind the merge line. Motorists attempting to enter into the roundabout are looking over their left shoulder; however, the vehicles that are stacked and not attempting to merge have their full attention in front of them where the pedestrians are crossing. These crosswalks begin at the handicap ramps and are not marked. The reason for the lack of crosswalk markings is so that the pedestrians do not have a false sense of security. During times of low flow, there is no vehicle stack at the merging lane of the roundabout. A striped crosswalk would encourage residents to step out into traffic thinking the traffic will stop. For this reason, it is recommended not to stripe a crosswalk. According to the consultant, Ourston & Doctors, studies have indicated that roundabouts are safer for pedestrian traffic as compared to conventional signalized intersections; however, data differs from location to location. The consultant also stated that studies have indicated that roundabouts are less safe for cyclists than conventional signalized intersections. Most adult cyclists are familiar with the vehicle code and ride bicycles in the direction of traffic, obeying all traffic laws. However, children on bicycles tend to utilize the crosswalks and pedestrian safe zones; and therefore, are not riding in the direction of traffic. Advantages A survey was conducted of all state departments of transportation in the United States, the Canadian provinces, and 26 U.S. municipalities and counties to gain an understanding of the general perceptions and current use of modern roundabouts. The main reasons survey respondents gave for building or considering roundabouts are: 1) greater safety, 2) shorter delays, 3) lower costs, and 4) aesthetic and urban design reasons. In addition to the design, operational and safety features, roundabouts appear to have positive impacts on driver behavior and attitude. Slower speeds make drivers more aware of their environment and of the other users. Yielding to traffic in the circle induces a higher level of responsibility by the driver as compared to the "go" message perceived with a green light. Disadva itages Problems that may occur with roundabouts are: 1) the advantage given to the low - volume :street, may sometimes cause undue delays to the major street; 2) the difference in right-of-way control for pedestrians may confuse pedestrians; 3) unusual CAMy :DocurmentORDOCS\PC rpt CIP99-05.wpd 4 or new maintenance procedures; 4) high construction costs in some instances; and 5) right--of-way required for a roundabout is greater when compared to right-of-way required for a conventional signalized intersection. The roundabout consultant will complete a short presentation including slides and video tape if the City Council so desires. Respectfully submitted, �ohn M. Freeland Senior Engineer Attachments: Approved for Submission by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager 1. CalTrans Design Information Bulletin 80 - Roundabouts CAMy DocurnentAWPDOCSTC rpt CIP99-05.wpd 5 db80.htm at www.dot.ca.gov Pagel of 8 ATTACHMENT # act W Design Information Bulletin Number 80 (DIB 80) - Roundabouts - The purpose of this DIB is to provide guidance on appropriate applications, site requirements, geometric elements and traffic analysis for use of roundabouts on the State highway system. it —ate of California Business, Transportation and Housing A enc Memorandum o: Dist:rict Directors Date: September 8, 1998 District Division Chiefs for File No.: Tanning, Design and raffic Operations rom: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION Design and Local Programs Mail Station 28 Subject:FDesi,E Information Bulletin 80 - Roundabouts The attached Design Information Bulletin (DIB 80 supersedes the memorandum dated November 18, 1993 regarding the use of roundabouts on the State highway system. The purpose of DIB 80 is to provide guidance on appropriate applications, site requirements, geometric elements, and traffic analysis. Neither Caltrans nor ASSHTO currently maintains standards for the design of roundabouts. Until design standards are adopted by Caltrans, all proposals for roundabouts on the State highway system shall be conceptually approved by the Project Development Coordinator prior to the approval of the Project Study Report or other project initiation document. The conceptual approval will be based on whether the proposal conforms with the general concepts contained in DEB 80. It is recommended that copies of DEB 80 be distributed to all Project Engineers. A copy is also available through the Design Program internet homepage (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd) under the DEB website. If you have any comments or require additional information, please contact your Project Development Coordinator or Geometric Reviewer. ROBERT L. BUCKLEY Program Manager Design and Local Programs http://wwNy.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/ 17/ 1999 db80.htrrt at www.dot.ca.gov Page 2 of 8 DESIGN INFORMATION BULLETIN NUMBER 80 California Department of Transportation Design and Local Programs Office of State Geometric Design Standards ROUNDABOUTS Approved By: ROBERTL. BUCKLEY Program Manager Design and Local Programs September 8, 1998 I. BACKGR UND i trans The modern roundabout is a type of circular intersection that has been successfully implemented in Europe and Australia over the past few decades. Despite the approximately 35,000 roundabouts in operation around the world, there are fewer than 50 that exist in the United States. Until recently, roundabouts have been slow to gain support in this country. The lack of acceptance can generally be attributed to the negative experience with traffic circles or rotaries built in the earlier half of the twentieth century. Severe safety and operational problems caused these traffic circles to fall out of favor by the 1950's. However, substantial progress has been achieved in the subsequent design of circular intersections, and a modern roundabout should not be confused with the traffic circles of the past. The modern roundabout is defined by two basic principles that distinguish it from a nonconforming traffic circle. 1. Roundabouts follow the "yield -at -entry" rule in which approaching vehicles must wait for a gap in the circulating flow before entering the circle, whereas traffic circles require circulating vehicles to grant the right of way to entering vehicles. 2. Roundabouts involve low speeds for entering and circulating traffic, as governed by small diameters and deflected entrances. In contrast, traffic circles emphasize high-speed merging and weaving, made possible by larger diameters and tangential entrances. In giving priority to entering vehicles, a traffic circle tends to lock up at higher volumes. The operation of a traffic circle is further compromised by the high speed environment in which large gaps are required fbr proper merging. These deficiencies have been corrected with the modern roundabout. The number of roundabouts constructed in the U.S. is relatively small, but those that are currently in operation have been reported to be performing favorably in terms of shorter delays, increased capacity, improved safety, and improved aesthetics. The roundabouts have resulted in an overall reduction in the number and severity of accidents, despite the initial concern that lack of familiarity with this type of intersection would lead to driver confusion. http://wwiv.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db8O.htm 06/ 17/ 1999 db80.htm at www.dot.ca.gov Page 3 of 8 H. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL Neither Caltrans nor AASHTO has maintained current guidelines for the design of roundabouts. Until design standards for roundabouts are adopted by Caltrans, all proposals for roundabouts on the State highway system shall be conceptually approved by the Project Development Coordinator prior to the approval of the Project Study Report or other project initiation document. The conceptual approval will be based on whether the proposal conforms with the general concepts contained in this Design Information Bulletin. The purpose of this document is to provide a basis for evaluating roundabout proposals, and it is not intended to contain the comprehensive information needed to complete a design. Proposed roundabouts should be discussed with the Project Development Coordinator, Geometric Reviewer and Traffic Liaison Engineer throughout the conceptual and design stages of the project. After a number of roundabouts of variable capacities have been constructed statewide, a study will be conducted by the Office of State Geometric Design Standards to evaluate the effectiveness of the roundabout designs and to gather any information needed to adopt design standards. To assist in this effort, the district should notify the Project Development Coordinator as soon as any issue is raised regarding the; safety and operation of an intersection at which a roundabout has been installed. III. APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONS Roundabouts may be constructed on the State highway system for the primary purpose of improving safety and operations at intersections. They should not be considered for reasons of traffic calming or aesthetics, although such applications may be acceptable on facilities under other jurisdictions. Examples of appropriate uses for roundabouts on State facilities are as follows: • Improvement of Intersection Capacity When considering methods to increase the capacity of an intersection, the use of a roundabout may be analyzed as an alternative to stop signs or traffic signals. With conventional types of traffic controls, only alternating streams of vehicles are permitted to proceed through the intersection at one time, causing a loss of capacity to occur when the intersection clears between phases. In contrast, the only restriction on entering a roundabout is the availability of gaps in the circulating flow. The slow speeds within the circle allow drivers to safely select a gap that is relatively small. By allowing vehicles to enter simultaneously from multiple approaches using short headways, a possible advantage in capacity can be achieved with a roundabout. This advantage becomes more prominent when the volumes of left or right turning movements are relatively high. • Reduction of Queue Storage Requirements Roundabouts can produce operational improvements in locations where the space available for queuing is limited. Roads are often widened to create storage for vehicles waiting at red lights, but the reduced delays and continuous flows at roundabouts allow the use of fewer lanes between intersections. Possible applications may be found at existing diamond interchanges, where high left turn volumes can cause signals to fail. By constructing a pair of roundabouts at the ramp intersections, capacity improvements to the interchange can be accomplished without the costly requirement of widening the structure to carry additional lanes over or under the freeway. http://www.de,t.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/17/1999 db80.htrn at www.dot.ca.gov Page 4 of 8 - Accommodation of Unusual Intersection Geometries Conventional forms of traffic control are often less efficient at intersections with a difficult skew angle, a significant offset, an odd number of approaches, or close spacing. Roundabouts may be better suited for such intersections, because they do not require complicated signing or signal phasing. Their ability to accommodate high turning volumes make them especially effective at "Y" or "T" junctions. Roundabout's may also be useful in eliminating a pair of closely spaced intersections by combining them to form a multi -legged roundabout. - Reduction of Accidents At some: locations, a roundabouts can provide a possible solution for high accident rates by reducing the number of conflict points at which the paths of opposing vehicles intersect. For example, over half of the accidents at conventional intersections occur when a driver either (1) misjudges the distance or speed of' approaching vehicles while making a left turn, or (2) causes a right angle collision after violating; a read light or stop sign. Such accidents would be eliminated with a roundabout, where left turns and crossing movements are prohibited. Furthermore, collisions at roundabouts would involve low speeds and low angles of impact, and therefore, would be less likely to result in serious injury. IV. SITE REQUIREMENTS The following requirements should be considered when determining whether a proposed site is suitable for a roundabout: - Geometric :Design Roundabouts should be considered only in areas that can accommodate an acceptable outside diameter and other appropriate geometric design elements (see Section V). To provide adequate sight distance for approaching drivers to perceive the layout of the intersection, the roundabout should be preferably located either on level terrain or at the bottom of a sag vertical curve. The topography should also allow the circle of the roundabout to be constructed on a flat plateau to provide visibility within the intersection. - Capacity Limitations For proposed roundabout sites, an analysis of traffic volumes and turning movements should be conducted to determine whether the roundabout would carry more capacity than another form of traffic control or operational improvement (see Section VI). Because roundabouts have only begun to appear in the U.S., there is a lack of empirical data regarding the volume at which a roundabout begins to break down. Until further data is available, roundabouts on the State highway system should be considered only at intersections where volumes generally do not exceed 5000 vehicles per hour. Regardless ofwhether the proposal involves a new facility or an operational improvement, the design of a roundabout should be based on estimated traffic 20 years after the completion of construction. - Adjacent Intersections Consideration should be given to the interactive effects between a proposed roundabout and the adjacent intersections. Roundabouts are not suitable in areas with a coordinated traffic signal system, because such systems break down when the progression of platoons is disrupted by the unregulated movement of a roundabout. Conversely, a roundabout should not be constructed at a location where the flow of vehicles leaving the intersection would be obstructed by queues from downstream traffic http://www.do,t.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/17/1999 db80.htm at www.dot.ca.gov Page 5 of 8 controls. • Balanced Entry Volumes Roundabouts may not be effective at intersections where entry flows are unbalanced. When the volume on the major road is much heavier than that on the minor road, the equal treatment of approaches may cause undue delay to the major road. Also, if the major road carries a heavy stream of through -traffic, the lack of adequate gaps in the dominant flow may prevent the minor flow from entering the roundabout. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic Additional assessment is warranted prior to constructing roundabouts in areas where pedestrian or bicycle activity is expected. With the absence of conventional crossing controls, many pedestrians do not perceive roundabouts to be safe. Despite this perception, accident records indicate that with the use of proper design elements, a pedestrian is at least as safe at a roundabout as at a conventional intersection. However, the safety record for bicyclists appears to be more problematic. Multi -lane roundabouts should not be considered at locations with existing bicycle activity unless an acceptable alternative can be provided for routing bicycle traffic through the area. The safety of bicyclists begin to deteriorate as roundabouts increase in size and speed. V. GEOME'I RIC DESIGN ELEMENTS There is no uniform design guidance in the U.S. for modern roundabouts. However, the Federal Highway Administration is planning to develop guidelines within the next two years, and information on roundabouts will also be introduced in the next edition of AASHTO's Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The design practices currently used in this country are generally based on either the; British or the Australian guidelines. The basic; principle of roundabout design is to restrict the operating speed within the intersection by deflecting; the paths of entering and circulating vehicles. Safety and capacity benefits can be fully achieved only if vehicles are physically unable to traverse the roundabout at speeds higher than approximately 40 km/h. The major elements of a roundabout are shown in Figure A and are described as follows: Inscribed Circle: The diameter of the inscribed circle may range between 15 m and 100 m. A minimum diameter of 37 m is required for roundabouts on the State highway system, because smaller circles do not adequately accommodate truck movements. However, the safety advantages of a roundabout may begin to diminish when the diameter of the inscribed circle exceeds75 m. Circulatory Roadway: The width of the circulatory roadway depends mainly on the number of enttry lanes and the radius of vehicle paths. The roadway must be at least as wide as the maximum entry width, and lane lines within the circle should not delineated. The pavement may be either crowned or sloped to one side, depending on the need to facilitate drainage or minimize adverse crossfalls for vehicle paths. • Central Island: The central island is usually delineated by a raised curb, and its size is determined by the width of the circulatory roadway and the diameter of the inscribed circle. http://www.do-t.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/17/1999 db80.htm at Aww.dot.ca.gov Page 6 of 8 • Truck Apron: A truck apron may be needed on smaller roundabouts to accommodate the wheel path of oversized vehicles. The apron is usually designed as a mountable portion of the central island. • Splitter Island: This splitter island is placed within the leg of a roundabout to separate entering and exiting traffic. It is usually designed with raised curb to deflect entering traffic and to provide a refuge for pedestrian crossings. • Bypass Lane: A bypass lane may be warranted for heavy right turn volumes. • Pedestrian Crossing: The location of pedestrian crossing is generally recommended to be one to three vehicle lengths behind the yield line. Bringing crossings closer to the circle would reduce roundabout capacity, while placing them further away would expose pedestrians to higher speeds. • Approach Width: This approach width refers to the half of the roadway that is approaching the roundabout. • Departure Width:. This departure width refers to the half of the roadway that is departing the roundabout. • Entry Width: The entry width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the entry to the 'intersection of the left edge line and the inscribed circle. • Exit Width: The exit width is the perpendicular distance from the right curb line of the exit to the intersection of the left edge line and the inscribed circle. • Flare: A flare may be used to increase the capacity of a roundabout by providing additional lanes at the entry. Because flared entries tend to increase the potential for accidents, they should be used only when required by traffic volumes. • EntryAngle: To provide the optimum deflection for entering vehicles, the angle of entry should be approximately 30 degrees. Smaller angles reduce visibility to the driver's left, while larger angles cause excessive braking on entry and a resulting decrease in capacity. • Entry Radius: The entry radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at entry. The practical entry radius is approximately 20 in. Smaller radii may decrease capacity, while larger radii may cause inadequate entry deflection. • Exit Radius: The exit radius is the minimum radius of curvature measured along the right curb at exit. The desirable exit radius is approximately 40 in. VI. CAPACITY ANALYSIS There are two approaches to calculating the capacity of a roundabout. The British method involves an empirical formula based on measurements at saturated roundabouts, whereas the Australian method uses an analysis based on gap acceptance. A draft update of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) includes a procedure for determining the capacity of single -lane roundabouts using the gap acceptance approach. For analyzing multi -lane roundabouts, the draft HCM suggests the use of software programs, but no specific program is mentioned. It is recognized that there are advantages to using empirical models to develop relationships between geometric design characteristics and http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/ 17/ 1999 db80.htm at www.dot.ca.gov Page 7 of 8 roundabout performance. However, given the current lack of field data in the United States, the draft HCM recommends using the analytical approach. Although both approaches are currently acceptable, the fundamental differences between the empirical and analytical methods may sometimes produce inconsistent results. The two methods are described as follows: • Empirical (British) Method In the British method, the capacity formula is based on the relationship between entry capacity and various geometric parameters. For example, the capacity of each approach to a roundabout decreases linearly as the entry angle increases. Other parameters include entry width, approach width, entry radius, and inscribed circle diameter. Two computer software packages commonly used to calculate capacities, queues, and delays in accordance with the British formula are ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout CApacity and DelaY) and RODEL (ROundabout DELay). Statistical tests have been performed to confirm the suitability of the geometric parameters used to predict capacity, and the output of both computer programs have been verified through direct field observations. - Analytical (Australian) Method In the Australian method, the capacity of a roundabout is calculated using a traditional gap acceptance approach that is similar to the process described in the HCM for analyzing two-way stop -controlled intersections. It is assumed that drivers need a minimum "critical gap" in the circulating flow before entering the roundabout. As the available gaps become larger, more than one driver can enter with subsequent headways equal to the "follow-up time". The capacity formula calculates the capacity of each approach as a function of the circulating flow, the critical gap, and the follow-up time. SIDRA (Signalized and unsignalized Intersection Design and Research Aid) is a the computer software package commonly used for predicting the performance of roundabouts by applying the gap -acceptance methodology. VH. REFERENCES A recommended reference for general information on roundabouts is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis 264, "Modern Roundabout Practice in the United States". Additional reference material is available through the Geometric Reviewer, and information on ordering the appropriate capacity analysis software can be obtained from the Traffic Liaison Engineer. http://wv,iv.dot.ca.gov/llq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/17/1999 db80.htm, at v✓ww.dot.ca.gov Page 8 of 8 Dwass lane Entry Ra dins ° � 1 Ek"Angie Exit Ra dims r� 1+ � r r DepartnreWidth rr r � r� �f I Splitterisland i ExitWrdth Truck Apron - Central Island �>�ftdmtri,, Crossing Circulatory Boa dway Insuibed0rde E MryWidth 1 � � +J Flare FIGURE A I i ROUNDABOUT f NO SCALE I Approach Width I 1 Return to AIDesign Information Bulletin Table of Contents This web site last modified September 23, 1998 http://wwm.dot.ca.gov/l,iq/oppd/dib/db80.htm 06/ 17/ 1999 BI A Twf oF 4QuMrw MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR-� DATE:: JUNE 22, 1999 RE: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR FOUR SEASONS HOME, INC. (MDG 99-005) 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. Four Seasons Homes seeks building permit approval for his sixth plus house. They are 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, and roof tile colors. Applicant is proposing two floor plans with three separate design elevation options; design package includes landscape plans and wall detail. Staff has reviewed the guidelines and has determined the applicant has generally provided adequate design deviations with the exception of the "Gardenia" Plan "A" and "B". 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. The only architectural design variation between the prototype options is the roof style. Therefore, staff is recommending each option have a different entry column design. Lastly, the "Gardena" is designed for a corner lot and as proposed the left elevation also having street visibility is devoid of architectural detail. Staff is therefore recommending window(s) with stucco surround(s) on the garage will. RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission accept the Master Design Guidelines (MDG 99-005) as presented. P:\MDG 99-005.wpd