1999 11 09 PC°Z Qum&
oe
CFI OF TN��
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
November 9, 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 99-078
Beginning Minute Motion 99-021
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
If. 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 the Joint Meeting with the City Council on October 26,
1999
B. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on October 26, 1999
C. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #2
Applicant.......... Century -Crowell Communities
Location........... 250-feet west of Adams Street and 110-feet north of Aurora
Way
Request............ Recommendation for approval of a one year time extension for
tract Phases 4 through 7 consisting of 77 single family lots and
private streets on 20.95 acres.
Action .............. Resolution 99-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item ............... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant ....... Century -Crowell Communities
Location ........ Tract 23773, north of Fred Waring Drive, west of Adams Street
in Starlight Dunes
Request ........ Approval of minor architectural and floor plan changes for
prototype residential plans
Action ........... Minute Motion 99-
B. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 99-482
Applicant ........ Llewellyn Enterprises, Inc.
Location ......... T-BO's of La Quinta, 78-073 Calle Barcelona
Request ......... Approval of a sign adjustment to permit an additional
monument sign
Action ...........'. Minute Motion 99-
C. Item .............. STREET VACATION 99-040
Applicant ...... KSL Land Corporation
Location ....... Rancho La Quinta Road and Paseo del Rancho within the
Greg Norman Golf Course
Request ....... General Plan consistency finding for a street vacation
Action .......... Minute Motion 99-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of October 19,1999
B. Discussion regarding City Council Public Hearing (November 19, 1999) on
recommended General Plan Land Use Map
C. Discussion regarding cancellation of December 28 meeting
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
PH #)
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #2
APPLICANT/
DEVELOPER: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
PROPERTY
OWNER: STARLIGHT DUNES, LLC
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME
EXTENSION FOR TRACT PHASES 4 THROUGH 7 CONSISTING OF
77 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND PRIVATE STREETS ON 20.95-
ACRES
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL
PLAN:
ZONING
BACKGROUND:
250-FEET WEST OF ADAMS STREET AND 1 10-FEET NORTH OF
AURORA WAY
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
96-327) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER
1, 1996. NO MAP CHANGES ARE BEING REQUESTED.
THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
Starlight Dunes, a private gated development, is located at the northwest corner of
Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street. Access to the Tract is at Galaxy Drive via Fred
Waring Drive or Adams Street.
STRTTr23773X - 37
Site History
In 1989, the City Council approved the subdivision of the 45.6-acre site into 154
single family residential and two common retention basin lots (Tentative Tract Map
23773) under Resolution 89-36. Phase 1 (54-lots on Aurora Way and Skyward Way)
of the Tract was recorded and developed in 1989 with 47 houses. The initial houses
built in Phase 1 range in size from 2,084 to over 3,332 square feet and have two- or
three -car garages. Tract Phases 2-7 were unrecorded when the Map expired in 1996.
In 1996, an application was submitted requesting approval of Phases 2-7 of Tentative
Tract Map 23773. The original Tract number was used to preserve the Tract's
continuity and permit the developers to use the previously prepared improvement
plans. On October 1, 1996, the City Council approved the new map for 101 single
family lots on 28.4-acres under Resolution 96-79. Tract Phases 2 and 3, consisting
of 24 lots, were recorded in 1997.
On January 5, 1999, the City Council approved a one year time extension for this Map
by adoption of Resolution 99-09, subject to Conditions.
The second developer, Deane Homes, built 15 dwelling units ranging in size from
2,400 to 3,650 square feet (Site Development Permit 96-589) in Phases 2 and 3.
Century -Crowell Communities has received approval from the Planning Commission to
build single story houses ranging in size from 1,950 square feet to 3,150 square feet
on the remaining lots under Site Development Permit 98-632 (Resolution 98-072).
Project Request
A one year time extension is requested to allow additional time to record Tract Phases
4-7 consisting of 77 single family lots and private streets (Attachments 1 and 2). No
Map changes are being requested.
Surrounding Land Uses
The properties to the north of Starlight Dunes are in unincorporated County area and
are vacant or developed with single family houses and landscape nurseries fronting
onto Darby Road. The properties to the west are in La Quinta and developed with
residential houses (Bella Vista) and a retention basin.
STRTTr23773X - 37
Public Notice: The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 27,
1999, as well as mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. No
negative comments have been received. Any comments received will be handed out
at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent on September 28, 1999, and
any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the
attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of a second one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 23773
(Phases 4-7), subject to the attached Findings and Conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Tract Map Exhibit (Reduced)
3. Large Map Exhibit (Planning Commission Members)
Prepared by:
Al,��,)
'Greg ousdell, Associate Planner
STRTTr23773X - 37
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
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 EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773 (PHASES 4-7)
ALLOWING 77 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
ON APPROXIMATELY 20.95-ACRES
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #2
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 9th day of November, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing
recommending approval to the City Council of a one year time extension for 77 single
family lots and private streets on 20.95-acres (Tract Phases 4-7), generally located
1 10-feet north of Aurora Way and 250-feet west of Adams Street, more particularly
described as:
Portion of the S% SE'/4 of Section 18, T5S, R7E, SBBM
(APN: 609-080-026)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 5th day of January, 1999, approve a request for a one year time extension to
subdivide 28.4 acres into 101 single family lots (Tract Phases 2-7), generally on the
north side of Fred Waring Drive and east of Adams Street under Resolution 99-09; 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 a Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 96-327) for this project on October 1, 1996. No map
changes are proposed; therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; and
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said one year time extension:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any
applicable specific plans.
The property is within a Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
District per the provisions of the General Plan. The project density is 3.6
dwellings per acre for Phases 4-7 which is under the maximum level for the LDR
District. Tentative Tract 23773 (Phases 4-7) is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2)
provided conditions are met.
RESOPC23773x - 37
Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext. #2
November 9, 1999
The site is zoned RL (Low Density Residential District) which permits single
family development on lots a least 7,200 square feet. The proposed lots
average 9,000 square feet. Future housing shall be consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning Code (e.g., Chapter 9.30.030, etc.) in effect at the
time building permits are acquired.
B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans.
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 will be private which is consistent with the Circulation Element
(Chapter 3.0). Access to the Tract will be from Galaxy Drive on Fred Waring
Drive and Adams Street. The density and design standards for the tract will
comply with the Land Use Element (Chapter 2.0) of the General Plan and the
Zoning Code.
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved
in 1989 and 1996. Mitigation fees and environmental studies (i.e.,
archaeological and noise) were completed as required prior to development of
the project in 1989. In 1996, a new Cultural Resources Report was required
for Tract Phases 2-7 because the original study was more than five years old.
The study states that no known prehistoric sites have been previously recorded
on this property, therefore, archaeological monitoring will not be required during
site development unless human remains are found during excavation work. This
project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or
wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were completed at the
time the site was disturbed or will be mitigated based on the proposed
Conditions of Approval.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
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.
RESOPC23773x - 37
Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext. #2
November 9, 1999
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.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning
Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs
of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and
environmental resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of a one year time
extension for Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Phases 4-7) for the reasons set forth
in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 91h day of November, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC23773x - 37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23773, EXTENSION #2 (PHASES 4-7)
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. Tentative Tract Map 23773 (Extension #2) 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 shall expire on October 1, 2000,
unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter
13.12.150(B)).
2. 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 County Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
- Sunline Transit
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy
of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan
checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall
submit a copy of an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan.
3. 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.
and CC TTM 23773X - 37 1
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
PROPERTY RIGHTS
4. 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. With respect to the
drainage basin located in the existing Tract 23773-1, the conferral shall include the
granting of drainage rights for all areas located within the original tentative map and
access rights, for the purpose of construction, reconstruction and maintenance of the
basin, to the homeowners association(s) for the entire original tentative map area.
5. 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.
6. The applicant shall dedicate three-foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets.
7. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common
areas.
8. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of
this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of
recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such
easements are approved by the Public Works Director. If the map was not produced
in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may
accept raster -image files of the map.
FINAL MAP(S)
9. 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 Public Works Director. The files shall
utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic
AutoCad program.
'ond CC TTM 23773X - 37 2
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
10. 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 Public Works Director. 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, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the
street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by
CVWD prior to their submittal for the Public Works Director'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 Public
Works Director.
11. In lieu of submitting new plans for any element of construction, the subdivider may
propose to use existing, approved plans developed for the original tentative map
provided the plans comply with existing requirements.
12. 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.
13. Prior to approval of the final map(s), the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files
of the approved map(s) on storage media acceptable to the Director of Public Works.
The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved
into a basic AutoCad program. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file
format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image
files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a
secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by
the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a Certificate
of Compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided,
and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 13, LQMC.
Cond CC TTM 23773X - 37 3
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
15. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of
improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the Schedule of Unit Costs adopted
by City Resolution or Ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates
shall meet the approval of the Public Works Director.
Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside
agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone,
gas, or television cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be
agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone
authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots
within the development.
16. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the
Conditions of Approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public
Works Director.
The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth
in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase
shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of
permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that
phase is approved by the Public Works Director.
17. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(site development permits, 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 Public Works Director.
18. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
applicant's required share of improvements which have been or will be constructed by
others (participatory improvements).
Participatory improvements for this development include:
A. One half of a raised, landscaped median on Fred Waring Street from Adams
Street to the west boundary of Tract 23773-1 .
'ond CC TTM 23773X - 37 4
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may,
at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement
program if this development becomes subject to such a program.
GRADING
19. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand
nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other
wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
20. 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.
21. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
22. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the
approval of the Public Works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. The
grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report produced for
the original tentative map and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an
engineering geologist. A statement shall 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.
23. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet
except for lots within this development, but 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
and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development.
24. 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
C'ond CC TTM 23773X - 37 5
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed
cumu6atively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
25. Stormwater falling on the site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall
be retained in the retention basin located in Tract 23773-1. The tributary drainage area
shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets.
26. The applicant shall complete improvements to the retention basin located in Tract
23773-1.
27. Fences or walls will not be allowed around the retention basin except as approved by
the Community Development and Public Works Directors.
28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
29. 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.
30. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the Public Works
Director.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
31. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
Circulation Element of the General Plan (Chapter 3.0):
PRIVATE STREETS AND CUL DE SACS
1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (buildings on both sides), 32 feet
if single loaded.
2) Cul de sac curb radius - 45'
'ond CC TTM 23773X - 37 6
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
32. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be limited to those approved for
the original tentative tract map.
33. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox
clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the Public Works
Director. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
34. Street improvement plans 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 Public Works Director.
35. Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805
respectively unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
36. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed
and constructed with 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.
37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and
shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building
construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.511/6.00"
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 which 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.
and CC TTM 23773X - 37 7
Planning Commission Resolution 99-_
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
38. 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.
LANDSCAPING
39. 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.
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 Public Works Director. The
plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by
the Public Works Director, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioner.
40. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right-of-way.
41. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the Public Works Director. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no
lawn or spray irrigation within 18-inches of curbs along public streets.
42. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, common basins and park
areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard
tractor -mounted equipment.
43. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
44. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the Public Works Director.
45. 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.
46. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all plans which were signed by the Public Works Director. Each
Cond CC TTM 23773X - 37 8
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer
or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the
AutoCad plan files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed
condition.
47. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage,
landscaping and on -site street improvements.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
48. 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.
50. Parkland fees shall be paid prior to final map approval as required by Chapter 13.48
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
51. Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat mitigation fees shall be prior to site grading or issuance of
a building permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
52. 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 2-hour duration at 20 psi.
53. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review 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."
54. 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.
and CC TTM 23773X - 37 9
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Tentative Tract Map 23773, Ext.#2
November 9, 1999
55. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of
the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the
Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
56. If buried cultural materials are discovered during construction, work in that area shall
be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of
the finds.
MISCELLANEOUS
57. The residence layout shall comply with all the RL Zoning Code requirements.
58. The City Attorney shall approve the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC and
R's) for the tract prior to approval of the final map(s) by the City Council.
59. If -connected, con bistituted
with . Pisces "Way", Orion -"Way," and Morningstar "Way" shall be
deleted and replaced with "Court".
Cond CC TTM 23773X - 37 10
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
COW DI I^Ur I A #JC
FRED W,4R/NG DRIVE
q
zi
PHASE f ACT NO.
C2
23773-2
3
23773-3
4
23773-4
5
23773-5
6
23773-6
7
23773
(NOTE!
MiAe-a.,* vs,'
71GAMS
LOTS Attachment 2
�7 7/ Recorded
20 JN 85-01-00
24 �---
20
13 .3-31-94
101 TOTAL
SiKEZ-1-
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
7.8-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
October 26, 1999
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This reconvened meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04
P.M. by Chairman Kirk.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman
Tom Kirk. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Robbins/Butler to excuse
Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff present: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of October 12,
1999. Commissioner Robbins asked that Page 5, Item #17 be corrected to note who
moved and seconded the motion; Page 6, Item 4 be corrected to read, "With regard
to paying their fair share of the signal cost, it is their belief the fee should not be
based on land mass."; and in addition he asked that verbiage be added that staff stated
the misalignment of the streets was done intentionally. Commissioner Tyler noted
this was already on Page 12, Item #25. Commissioner Robbins suggested it be
elaborated on. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 3, Item 3 be amended to state
that he asked "which lots on the south side would be allowed to have the split units"
and "if the top floor level of the home would be at the top of the berm" and under #4,
"one or two units across from the existing community pool area will have a two foot
retaining wall"; Page 9, Item 2 be amended to state "50 mph"; Page 10, Item 6 be
changed to read, "Commissioner Tyler stated that the only restriction placed on this
turning movement when previously approved by the City Council on February 156,
1993, was that' it be reviewed on year later. Las Vistas Drive is a unique street
because it is a collector street, as defined by the General Plan. It is the only
north/south street that directly (or indirectly) connects Fred Waring Drive and Miles
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC-10-26-99.wpd I
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1999
Avenue, between Washington Street and Adams Street. There is no straight through
collector street connecting Washington Street and Adams Street, so if the left turn-
out movement is prohibited from Las Vistas Drive onto Fred Waring Drive, local
residents would have no where to go, except to divert to narrow, crowded residential
streets. Thus, the turning movements from Las Vistas Drive onto Fred Waring Drive
should remain full access, as it has been for the past ten years or so." There being no
further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 99-382 Conditional Use Permit 99-044. Site
Development Permit 99-655 and Tentative Parcel Map 29288; a request of Mark and
Dorothy Hastings, First School of the Desert, for certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, approval of the preschool use within
the Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning District; approval of development plans
for a single story preschool, and approval to subdivide 4.22 acres into two parcels
and one lettered lot.
1. Chairman Kirk opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner
Tyler asked how high above grade the concrete wall on the east side would
be. Staff stated it was a six foot wall. She was uncertain as to the height on
the school side.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the houses backing up to the wall were one or
two story homes. Staff stated one story. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if
the issues raised in the letter submitted had been mitigated. Staff stated they
had. Commissioner Tyler asked about the amount of light that would be
coming from the lights. Staff stated the lights would be recessed with a flush
lens. Commissioner Tyler stated that even though they were recessed, the
houses to the east would still have glare. His concern was during the winter
months when the lights would be on early, what time would they be turned
off. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated there would be security
lighting on the building and there shouldn't be much spillage as they are
shielded. Commissioner Tyler stated that if no one is to be there. the lights
could be turned out and the security lighting should be closer to the building
and not the shoebox lighting and the lighting should be mitigated further.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-10-26-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1999
4. Commissioner Butler asked what the dotted lines were on the Parcel. Staff
stated it was an existing CVWD easement.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if staff had received any comments from
CVWD. Staff stated a letter was received, but no specific comment were
made. Commissioner Robins stated that if there were actual facilities at this
location there are problems, but if they are only planned, there is no problem.
The problem of the easement needs to be resolved to make the process go
smoother.
6. Commissioner Robbins asked where the project would drain. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the drainage will be directed to the Quinterra
tract retention basin.
7. Commissioner Butler asked is there was a lot of dirt to be exported off this
project. Staff stated it depends on how it is conditioned. Commissioner
Butler asked what it would be in regard to the height of the wall. Staff stated
they have set the grade, but have not calculated how much dirt will have to
be removed.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked if a street had been cut off. Staff stated they
are anticipating Parcel 2 will be subdivided and will have lots for single
family homes with a cul-de-sac at the north end. The applicant was
proposing to subdivide it for single family dwellings and has since made it
a simpler application. The access would extend the street coming out of the
Quinterra tract. This will allow the applicant to reduce his freeboard to one-
half foot rather than having a mini -school retention basin.
9. Commissioner Tyler stated the level of the street in the Quinterra tract is
below the proposed site and may require some clever street designing.
10. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Ms. Margo Williams, Mainiero Smith and Associates, representing the
applicant, stated they were in agreement with all the Conditions of Approval.
In regard to the issues raised, the height of the wall on the school side,
adjacent to miles will be six feet going up to almost seven feet as you go
north. They are trying to keep it at six feet height. They will be moving dirt
easterly to balance on site. With respect to the lights, it is an architectural
element and can be better addressed by applicant. The easement exists and
when they conducted site investigation they found no facilities. They did
receive a preliminary approval to relocate from CVWD.
11. Mr. Mark Hastings, owner of the preschool, stated he was available to answer
any questions. As to the night time lights, they do not have any night time
CAMy Documents\WPI)OCS\PC-10-26-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1999
uses for the playground. They will have recessed lights in the soffits which
would have some indirect lighting coming off the building. The driveway is
a concern as parents will be picking up their children. Therefore, the street
lights will be on during pickup, but they would have no objection to having
the lights turned off at a designated time. Chairman Kirk suggested 9:00 p.m.
12. Ms. Elizabeth Lucas, P. O. Box 416, La Quinta, stated she was a concerned
neighbor and asked if federal or public funds would be used. If so, it could
change the neighborhood. She is also concerned that 126 kids seems like a
lot of kids with a lot of noise. The neighborhood already has a small day care
within the neighborhood and it is already noisy. She asked what the ages of
the students would be and has any of staff been to any of the other schools
and has it worked out in those communities.
13. Mr. John 44-625 Lago Drive, stated his concern was the amount of traffic.
Since there are two additional middle schools planned on Dune Palms Road
and the High School is directly down Adams Street there will be a lot of
traffic coming onto Adams Street which could be hazardous to the neighbors
as well as the kids. He would also object to the noise.
14. There being no further discussion, Chairman Kirk closed the public hearing
and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
15. Chairman Kirk asked Mr. Hastings to respond to the issues raised and added
that the question of federal funding is not an issue of this Commission. Mr.
Hastings stated they have done their best to mitigate all the concerns. As to
the noise, 126 children sounds like a lot, but they are an academic facility that
has classrooms with 12 students in each classroom. The concept of 126
playing on the playground cannot happen due to the curriculum. They will
never have a large number of students on the playground at any one time.
They have completed a noise study and found it to be compatible with the
neighborhood. They are a private facility and do not receive funds from
anyone.- They have been in located in the City of Palm Springs for 12 years
and Cathedral City for 10 years. Both schools function under a conditional
use permit and neither have had any problems. They have never had to be
called back in for review.
16. Chairman Kirk asked about expansion. Mr. Hastings, stated they are licensed
by the State of California and are built according to ratios. It would be
impossible to expand based on State requirements. The age of the children
starts at 18-months and goes to kindergarten. They operate five days a week
with no weekend use. In Palm Springs a developer built a subdivision around
their facility because of their school. They have done their homework to be
sure they fit into the neighborhood.
CAM), I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC-10-26-99.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1999
17. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that when the City adopts a General Plan,
the streets are designed to handle the traffic that the area is zoned for. This
project does not overdo what the street is able to handle. Traffic is directed
to be away from the intersection.
18. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was to be a left turn. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated it has a full turn access. Associate Planner Leslie
Mouriquand stated there was a noise study prepared and it did not
recommend any mitigation measures except during the construction period.
The noise study analyzed existing schools along with General Plan policies
and they recommended no mitigation measures.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated he personally visited the other two facilities and
found them to blend well with neighborhood as well as being extremely
attractive. This choice of locations is also excellent. On Page 22 of the
checklist, the hours should be according to the building code. Page 25,
Condition #4 of the staff report should be corrected. Page 30, Item 6(d)
needs additional language added.
20. Commissioner Butler asked if a daycare was allowed in the neighborhood.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the State allows anyone to have
a day care of 0-8 children with no City approvals required.
21. Commissioner Robbins stated his only concern would have been noise, but
as no one who will be directly affected by this project was in attendance, he
is in favor of the project.
22. Chairman Kirk stated it is a nice project and would be a welcome neighbor.
23. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
074 recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Environmental Assessment 99-382) for Conditional Use Permit 99-044 and
Site Development Permit 99-655, and Tentative Parcel Map 29288, subject
to all mitigation measures.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk.
NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
24. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-075 approving Conditional Use Permit
99-044, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as modified.
a. Condition #4: "...Be used means beginning of substantial construction
toward structures as allowed by this approval."
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-10-26-99.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 26, 1999
b. Condition #7: Parking lighting shall be turned off at 9:00 p.m..
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk.
NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
25. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-076 approving Site Development
Permit 99-655, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as
amended.
a. Condition #4: "...Be used means beginning of substantial construction
toward structures as allowed by this approval."
b. Condition #6.d.: "...down to 30 inches."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk.
NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 99-077 approving Tentative Parcel Map
29288 subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk.
NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of October 19, 1999.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held November 9, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 7:54 P.M. on October 26, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-10-26-99.wpd 6
LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1999
Special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order
at the hour of 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pena, followed by the pledge of allegiance.
Council Roll Call:
PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission Roll Call:
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners Butler, Robbins, Tyler, Chairman Kirk
ABSENT: Commissioner Abels
PUBLIC COMMENT - None
CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - Confirmed
WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE - None
BUSINESS SESSION - None
STUDY SESSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING GENERAL LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE INCLUDING POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman introduced Principal Planner Fred
Baker who introduced General Plan Consultant Nicole Criste of Terra Nova Planning and
Research, Inc. Ms. Criste gave a summary of the proposed land use changes to the General
Plan and Land Use Map. She explained this was a frame of reference to go by for the
ultimate buildout of the City. In regard to the status of the General Plan Update, they are
drafting the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and each of the Elements for the
General Plan text. That document is still missing the Land Use, Traffic and Circulation, and
Noise Elements. In order to proceed with the Traffic and Noise Elements they need to
finalize the Land Use Element. It is anticipated that public hearings before the Planning
Commission will be held in May, 2000 and the City Council in June, 2000 for final adoption.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC90-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 2
October 26, 1999
Ms. Criste went on to explain that the existing Land Use Map is as the City operates with the
current land use designation as well as the current land use designations for the Riverside
County areas that are within the Planning Areas. The Preferred Alternative Map shows
proposed City land use designations for all lands within the Planing Areas. Ms. Criste noted
a correction: the Existing Map correctly shows the Palm Royale Country Club site, whereas
the Preferred Alternative should be changed to include the golf area and medium designation.
Ms. Criste went over the major changes as listed numerically on the map:
1. East side of Washington Street north of Whitewater Channel
Change: HDR to 10 acres of Park, 10 acres of TC, and 30 acres of MDR
2. East side of Washington, between 481 Avenue and 47'' Avenue
Change: RC to CC
3. Northeast corner of 48' Avenue and Jefferson Street
Change: RC to MDR
4. Northeast corner of Adams Street and 48th Avenue
Change: RC to HDR
5. West side of Eisenhower Street, north of La Quinta Hotel
Change; LDR to TC
6. The Ranch: west of Jefferson Street north and south of 52"d Avenue
Change: LDR to TC
7. Northeast corner of Madison Street and 541 Avenue
Change: VLD to TC
8. Thermal portion of Planning Area
All agriculturally zoned land proposed for LDR (2-4 units per acre)
The balance of the area within both the Planning Areas, Bermuda Dunes and Thermal, were given
City land use designations equivalent to their designations within the County.
The Preferred Alternative and the existing General Plan generate different numbers as shown in
Tables 3 and 4. The potential population based on the existing General Plan designation for buildout
of the City and Planning Area would be 83,450 people living in 40,719 dwelling units. The total
commercial square footage that is estimated for the Planning Area and City limits under the existing
General Plan is just over 17 million square feet with an estimated 14,800,000 square feet of
industrial land, currently designated within County property. Under the Preferred Alternative,
converting the agriculture lands to Low Density Residential, the City would have a buildout
population of 156,525 people living in 77,627 dwelling units with 22 million square feet of
commercial and 14,800,000 -square feet of industrial space. Tables 1 and 2 gross acreage
calculations are provided for each of the land uses. Currently, within the City there are 9,700 acres
of residential land and 1,270 acres of commercial. With the proposed changes there would be 9,100
acres of residential and 1,740 of commercially designated land.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 3 October 26, 1999
Council Member Sniff stated the City appears to be working with a lot of land that is not currently
annexed in the City and the zoning designations would be contingent upon the City annexing this
land. Ms. Criste stated the text of the General Plan separates out the City limits from the Planning
Area. It is not required that the City annex the property as part of the General Plan process. It is part
of the City's long range planning efforts.
Mayor Pena stated the land shown that is not currently within the City limits is basically the same
designation as it is currently zoned. Ms. Criste stated that was true.
Council Member Henderson asked if the Planning Area that is shown is the same Planning Area that
existed before and isn't it legal for the City to have a Planing Area outside its City limits or Sphere
of Influence to enable the City to plan for what it would like to see in that area. Ms. Criste stated
that was true. Council Member Henderson asked if any part of this Planning Area overlapped with
any other city. Ms. Criste stated it did not encroach into any other city's Sphere of Influence. She
did not know if anyone else had included this area in their Planning Area. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated that the City of Coachella had included most of the area to the south
in their Planning Area.
Council Member Sniff stated that if the City was planning beyond its City limits, or Sphere of
Influence, it would seem that the City was getting into tenuous territory where other city's may have
plans for that area and we may have competing General Plan areas. Ms. Criste stated that in terms
of development of the two areas, that was possible. Council Member Sniff stated he was concerned
about the vast area between 56' Avenue and 64th Avenue and potentially the new configuration of
861h Avenue as it is currently agricultural; does the City have any realistic expectations that
agriculture is going to disappear from that area and if we do what is it based upon. Ms. Criste stated
that agriculture is already beginning to disappear in that area as evidenced by the two existing
specific plans, Coral Mountain and Kohl Ranch, and both propose Medium or Low Density
development for long range development. Urbanization is heading eastward. Agriculture may not
disappear, but the concentration of agriculture in this area for the long term is less likely.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent of the General Plan is to recognize
the agriculture land use and allow it to exist until such time as they want to change. The underlying
designation will be Low Density Residential so that if they want to change their designation it can
be done without much effort. There is no compulsion to require the change at this time. Council
Member Sniff stated his concern that some of the farmers will not be comfortable with this. He
recognizes that a lot of the farming industry has disappeared, but a large portion has actually just
moved southeastward.
Council Member Adolph asked if this would include the Travertine project. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated this project was already within the City limits and zoned
residential. The grape vineyard is able to continue farming until it is ready to transfer over to Low
Density Residential as development takes place.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 4 October 26, 1999
Council Member Perkins stated he was a strong supporter of annexation of this area, but he also was
a strong supporter that the City not force the agricultural interest out of there. As he looks at the
Preferred Land Use Map, unless it is explained properly to the residents of that area, it appears the
City is going to eliminate the agriculture and go for Low Density zoning, and he could not support
that. Ms. Criste stated policies would be included in the text of the General Plan to support the
continued preservation of agricultural lands as long as they wish to be agricultural. Council Member
Perkins stated this needs to be emphasized at the public hearings. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated staff could make a designation on the Land Use Map to denote the
agricultural use will be allowed to remain and see that it is distributed in that way. The Land Use
text will clearly state that it remains, but has a residential overlay. Council Member Perkins stated
the success of any annexation eastward will depend on the cooperation of the agricultural interests.
The diversity of the land uses adds to the beauty of this City. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated it was staffs intent to help the farmers realize that if they want to get out of the
agricultural business they have an opportunity to develop their property with single family
development and sell it as such so they can increase the value of their property. They have the right
to continue farming and they have the right to develop in the future, without much process, or review
by the City.
Council Member Henderson stated they would not be required to process a General Plan
Amendment when they were ready to sell their land. Staff stated that was correct and it would make
the annexation process easier.
Council Member Perkins stated he thought the process should be the reverse. The map seems to say
we will have residential and maybe permit agriculture. It needs to be reversed. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated this could be taken care of with an overlay.
Council Member Sniff stated it was important to have prominent, definite language to make it
explicit that the City is protecting the farming interest and has no intent on forcing them out of
business, or even to encourage them to go out of business. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that if someone is wanting to annex into the City it is usually because they want to
obtain a return on their land.
Council Member Adolph stated he too believes we are losing our agriculture land. In regard to the
exhibits, Existing and Preferred, who determined the "Preferred". Ms. Criste stated the Preferred
Map was based on some housekeeping changes and requests by staff and the consultants. Council
Member Adolph asked if there was any other way of using more distinguishing colors; not so many
reds, but maybe dots or something else. Ms. Criste stated they continue to work on the color
separation. Council Member Adolph stated he had a concern about Area #5 as the citizens who live
in that area are going to be interested in what is going to happen if their area is rezoned to Tourist
Commercial, especially up against the mountains. He is not sure what is proposed by KSL for this
area; whether it will be low profile residential type casitas units, or what. The designation of Tourist
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes $ October 26, 1999
Commercial will allow a multitude of things to be developed and this area needs to be looked at
carefully as to what will be allowed to be developed. The City could be criticized if KSL moves
forward with high-rise units and they are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated staff is processing an Environmental Impact
Report for the development of Club Real which has a Specific Plan for commercial uses. It will have
two-story, timeshare type of units. KSL is processing the EIR and doing their application and staff
is placing it on the Land Use Map so it can be included in the traffic calculations. The zoning has
been changed from Residential to Tourist Commercial and the Preferred Map reflects what is
proposed. Staff is intending to address the concerns through the application process through height
limits and other ways.
Planning Commissioner Robert Tyler stated he assumes the County area between Miles Avenue and
Fred Waring Drive, west of Washington will be annexed by the City of Indian Wells and that is why
it is not addressed on the map. Staff stated that was correct. Planning Commissioner Tyler stated
the proposed changes for the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street from its
current zoning to an even lower density is a step in the wrong designation. This is a very important
corner with all the development across the street, the Tennis Complex and hotels planned for this
area, and with the abundance of noise from the current traffic as well as what will be generated by
the proposed development, will make it less than desirable for high quality low density residential.
Some portion of this corner should have commercial zoning to capitalize on the commercial activity.
He shares the concern about the takeover of the agriculture land and would hope that whatever the
City does will not be for the sake of urban sprawl, but will focus on what the City currently has and
also factor into the General Plan various State provisions that provide the means for those who want
to stay in agricultural to do so.
Commissioner Butler stated the City Council members have stated his concerns in regard to the farm
lands. The abundance of Tourist Commercial zoning hopefully will start to show some revenue
generation for the City. He believes the Land Use Map has been planned well. The issues brought
up by Planning Commissioner Tyler in regard to the property at the northeast corner of Washington
Street and Miles Avenue can be mitigated as that property is developed.
Commissioner Robbins stated he was pleased to see the northeast corner of Washington Street and
Miles Avenue was rezoned to Low Density Residential as there are several developers considering
this property for development of residential units; therefore, he believes this is the proper
designation. He agrees with the agriculture designation and the need to be sure the property owners
do not believe the City is trying to eliminate agriculture. The other minor issue he has is with the
southwest corner of the City that is behind the stormwater dike, a large portion of land that is owned
by the Bureau of Reclamation and he finds it odd that the area is zoned Low Density Residential as
he doubts it would ever happen.
Chairman Kirk stated he too focused on the potential annexation. The question he has is on the new
alignment for Highway 86; are there any proposed interchanges for the area shown as the eastern
boundary of the annexation area? Ms. Criste stated that without looking up that information, she is
not sure. Chairman Kirk then asked if the City is going to plan this area, or will the City mimic the
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 26, 1999
current County designations. There are good reasons for doing either. On Table 4 under the Sphere
and Planning Area under Low Density Residential, it shows 13,000 developed acres, and he
interpreted that as being 13,060 acres of agriculture land that falls now within the Low Density
Residential on the Preferred Plan. Ms. Criste stated that includes the conversion of 11,000 acres of
agriculture to a low density use. Chairman Kirk stated it appears to be misleading to suggest that
it is currently developed as Low Density Residential when it is agriculture. Ms. Criste stated that
was correct. Chairman Kirk stated that in regard to the area to the south and east that has been
changed from Agriculture to Low Density Residential, the City has two choices: 1) to look at the
annexation area and actually plan it. How this future part of the City can be incorporated into the
City and look at how the land uses could be developed; look at interchanges and think about major
circulation, and what effects would take place with the incorporation of this area. We either go all
the way and considered it developed whether it is ten years or 100 years from now, and incorporate
those changes into the General Plan. The second option is to mimic the County's General Plan
designation and create a new designation for the City, an agriculture land use designation and mirror
what is in the current General Plan for the County and our study area for the time being. We either
do it right and plan for the future urbanization, or do it right and mimic the County designations.
What we are doing now is somewhere in between and does not make a lot of sense to him. It
overestimates impacts and might draw a lot of concerns. If we are going to annex the area, then they
need to look at the entire area and think about how, in particular, the airport can be incorporated into
the fabric of the entire City .
Mayor Pena stated he too shares the concerns that have already been articulated. There appears to
be a consensus on the issue of the agriculture land. In regard to Chairman Kirk's point, it does raise
the question as to whether the City wants to adopt the County's designation. The City has adopted
the County's designation for planning purposes to not make any dramatic changes in the current
uses. Maybe the City should look at some alternative uses for the future. He then asked staff to
explain the designation on the property that is located opposite 641" Avenue and Madison Street as
it appears to be a small portion of Neighborhood Commercial on both maps. Ms. Criste stated it has
a Tourist Commercial designation.
Council Member Henderson stated it was never assumed that the City was looking towards
interfering with the current agriculture zoning, but rather to provide the property owners with the
option to change their zoning designation if they chose to. It is critical to place safeguards for these
changes. This community has so many things happening. Annexation and the desire of the City
Council to move forward with some boundaries that haven't even been set yet, is happening on one
hand while the General Plan process is happening. In fact when the decision is made whether or not
it is appropriate to annex and whether or not the property owners in this area support annexation, it
is critical that the City Council sit down with the property owners to master plan the area at that time
and not now. The City cannot plan an area without the input from the property owners in that area.
Community Development Director .Terry Herman stated that is correct. In order to do an annexation
you have to prezone the property and in order to prezone the property you have to have a land use
designation to be compatible with the zoning that you want to attach to the property. It is staff"s
attempt to let the property owners know that the City recognizes the current zoning and will allow
the Low Density Residential. If the annexation is processed first the land would be prezoned as part
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 26, 1999
of that process. If the City's desire is to annex the property with the Low Density Residential
zoning, which is two to four units per acre, which is what staff understands the property owners in
the area support, it will depend on what process takes place first. If the annexation is processed first,
the area would be prezoned as part of the annexation and the General Plan would reflect that zoning.
If we complete the General Plan Update first, the City would designate the area and the property
owners, through public hearings, can determine the zoning. Council Member Henderson stated that
somewhere in the future if we adopted the General Plan as presented, it is nothing more than a
Planning Area. Therefore, when this area is annexed, the City could bring this area back and prepare
a master plan to meet all the needs of the property owners. Community Development Jerry Herman
stated the City could also consider annexing only a part of the area and deal with only that portion
and leave the remainder.
Mayor Pena asked if the City does move toward annexation in that area, at what point do we
consider buffers to the airport. As it exists on the Preferred Map, there is Low Density Residential
abutting the airport.
Council Member Henderson stated the airport also has a master plan for the adjoining areas.
Mayor Pena stated those are some of the concerns he sees on the Preferred Plan. The City is adding
a significant amount of Tourist Commercial designation that abuts the Low Density Residential.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the reason for the Tourist Commercial
designations is to allow the timeshares or single family units with hotel and golf components. It is
not intended to be all hotel or retail. Mayor Pena stated there is a Village designation, is it
appropriate to extend that Village commercial to other areas in the City. Staff stated the thought of
having more than one village in the City was never considered.
Council Member Henderson stated that property owners from Thermal had stated that if we were
looking to annex Thermal, they would want the City to consider having a Thermal Village.
Council Member Perkins stated there seems to be a lot of time spent on what to him is simple. He
concurs with the ultimate goal, but right now the City should leave that portion of land the City is
looking at for annexation alone and not change any of the designations. If, and when it is annexed
it will be up to the property owners to determine their zoning. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated the intent of creating the Planning Area is to reduce the amount of time it would
take to annex an area. We would have it zoned and designated and ready to take to LAFCO with the
annexation request, without having to conduct separate public hearings. Council Member Perkins
stated he could agree with this process so long as the City can assure the property owners that the
City is not out to change the zoning of the agriculture area. It would be up to the individual property
owners to make the zone changes.
Council Member Henderson asked if this could be done with an overlay. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated yes, as there are other ways to map the area to be sure the agricultural
use is allowed both on the Map as well as the text.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Councit/Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 26, 1999
Mayor Pena stated there are significant changes that are being proposed in the Preferred Plan.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent behind this presentation is to
enable staff to do the traffic analysis. If the area is designated agriculture, and the traffic analysis is
based on that designation, the City will have two lane facilities. Therefore, when a developer comes
in with a tract map, the City will not have the designation in the General Plan to handle the traffic.
Staff is trying to consider the most intensive land use that we believe should happen in this area,
create the road designation and design standards for that circulation, and make sure it is capable of
handling that traffic in the future.
Council Member Perkins stated that currently the City has areas with two lane roads and if a
developer wants to develop the land, we require the developer to widen the road. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated that was correct, except that the developer only has to
develop the road to the extent it is classified in the General Plan. This is why we are doing a traffic
analysis. If the area calls for a four lane facility and there is only a two lane facility, then we require
the developer to build it to a four lane facility. This is why we have proposed designations.
Everyone understands that if they want to develop in this area, this is the type of road and circulation
that will be required. The traffic analysis is needed so it can be included in the Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan Update.
Council 'Member Sniff stated that in regard to Planning Commissioner Tyler's comments, he
believes they are very good. He is particularly interested in what may, or may not happen with the
Tennis Complex facility. The City of Indian Wells has not stated they will be annexing this area.
He believes they have major concerns about what they will be required to do in conjunction with the
annexation, and maybe the City should not eliminate this area. If Indian Wells decides not to annex,
the City should be prepared to make an effort if we decide to do so. Next, the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Miles Avenue; it seems the City should maximize commercial uses wherever
there is the greatest opportunity for success. This intersection is extremely important and the traffic
will be enormous and the City should not preclude this opportunity. Chairman Kirk's comments are
excellent, but a total plan for a total area is a tall order. The City should keep it simple to minimize
the concern of property owners that the City will annex with the agriculture designation and the
potential residential overlay. In regard to the airport, there should be some thought to some
commercialization around the perimeter of the airport. That airport may become a major commercial
venture with commerce both import/export and the City needs to think about what can be done
around the perimeter to accommodate the eventual major importance of the airport. No one has the
wisdom to master plan the entire area. We need to keep the potential annexees as unconcerned as
possible and assure them that this is an advantage to them with safeguards. In regard to streets, the
City needs to think boldly. The City will need major thoroughfares to handle the bulk of the traffic.
If the City does annex this area, we will need several major east west streets to handle the traffic.
We need to plan our streets adequately plus. A city without sufficient streets is doomed. Lastly, he
would prefer the word "recommended" be used on the maps.
Planning Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about discussions that changes within the City
limits are being made to accommodate a development that is being proposed. It seems the General
Plan should be done independently of what is being planned and not accommodate developers, but
look at the overall benefit for the entire City. We should not be concentrating on near term events.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 26, 1999
Mayor Pena stated that is the purpose of the Planning Commission to take those things as they come
up on a case by case basis.
Planning Commissioner Tyler stated that was true, but they should not be included in the General
Plan process.
Chairman Kirk stated we do not want to master plan to the infinite detail knowing that we do not
know enough. At the same time, we should look at major thoroughfares, planning around the
airport, and planning streets adequately. Right now we are just moving colors on a map. Is this
enough, or not? In his opinion, staff should look at going one way or the other; either mimic the
current County General flan, or take a hard look at the long range traffic and circulation issues and
not react on a project to project basis.
Mayor Pena stated that in the future it may be wise to break the City down by segments and look at
each segment in detail. On an overall basis it is easy to blend things in, but if we focus on the areas
independently, there may be some other issues to be addressed.
Planning Commissioner Butler asked when they would be reviewing the General Plan again. Is there
a preset date for another General Plan review. Ms. Criste stated the Housing Element is mandated
by law for review every five years. The General Plan by law, is to be reviewed as the need arises
and conditions change in the City. Commissioner Butler stated that what was being discussed might
be a mute point because the ideas for the southeastern portion of the Valley are such that within five
years we could have a completely different idea for this area and doing a traffic circulation based on
what this zoning would do for this area seems to be somewhat of a waste of money as we are planing
for an area that in five years we would have a better idea of what will be happening.
Council Member Henderson asked staff to explain the process of annexation before it is submitted
to LAFCO. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated LAFCO will not consider an
annexation request by a city unless the property is prezoned. In order to prezone the property the
City has to conduct public hearings on the land use designation, the zoning, create petitions with
those designations for each parcel within the annexation area, the property owners either do, or do
not support the annexation. If the City gets a majority of the property owners supporting the
annexation, it will be submitted to LAFCO through the petition process. Without a Low Density
Residential Overlay, it could take four to five months, the petition process another month, and
LAFCO can take up to a year. With the prezoning we would create the application for LAFCO, go
to the property owners with the petitions and it could cut out five months or so of processing time
Planning Commissioner Tyler asked what the next step was in this process.
Ms. Criste stated they will incorporate the changes, as discussed, into a final Recommended
Alternative and transmit that to the traffic engineer for the traffic modeling which is the crucial
Element of any General Plan. After that report and the Noise Study are completed, they will prepare
final draft documents for screen check review by staff and then transmit the Master Environmental
Assessment and General Plan policy document for public comments. Public hearings would be held
at the end of the public comment period which should be in May, 2000.
CAW Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 10 October 26, 1999
Council Member Sniff stated it would be useful to have staff prepare a summary of what was
discussed at this meeting for everyone to review.
Mayor Pena stated they had not gone over the major issues presented by the consultant and the
Council needed to give some direction to staff.
Council Member Adolph stated his concern was the Tourist Commercial zoning at 52"d Avenue and
Jefferson Street from residential to golf course and he is pleased to see that this is as it should be
(Item #6).
Council Member Henderson stated she had no issues with any of the proposed changes.
Council Member Adolph asked if Madison Street was intended to go north of 54t' Avenue and if so,
where will it end? Ms. Criste state the current extension is to 50t" Avenue. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated there is no intention to extend Madison Street north of
50' Avenue. It is envisioned to go from 50' Avenue to 64" Avenue.
Council Member Sniff asked when the General Plan will again come before the City Council. Ms.
Criste stated at the hearings which will be held in May and June, 2000 when the whole package will
be before the City Council.
Mayor Pena stated they would like to see the draft before it goes through the public hearing process.
Perhaps in late February/January. Ms. Criste stated that if they are to bring a draft version back to
the City Council/Planning Commission, they would prefer it be prior to initiation of the traffic work.
Community Development Jerry Herman stated staff wants to start traffic work now. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the concern on timing is that the consultants needs to obtain all the general
information first so they can have the environmental analysis done. If the Council wants it brought
back in a short time, the consultants need all major input now. Mayor Pena asked that staff and the
consultant prepare a summary of this meeting for Council review and bring it back in a month or so.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the concern is that in order to continue on,
staff needs to complete the traffic and noise analysis based on a recommended map. That map will
be part of the environmental review process. If we delay that, we delay the whole process because
we cannot start the traffic analysis. Mayor Pena asked if delaying the process for one month was a
problem. Ms. Criste stated the traffic analysis takes 45 days from the time they get their final map.
Council Member Sniff stated that the Council could make a determination based on the summary
of this meeting, whether or not they want the document brought back in two weeks or so.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if it was the intent of the City
Council/Planning Commission to understand how staff perceives the comments made and direction
that will be taken based on Council/Commission comments.
Council Member Perkins asked that staff also give Council a time frame as to when these things will
happen.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
City Council/Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 26, 1999
MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS - None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Council Members Sniff/Adolph to
adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Kirk recessed the Planning Commission to its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC-CC10-26-99.wpd
B1 V
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT AND
PROPERTY
OWNER: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
ARCHITECT: BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF MINOR ARCHITECTURAL AND FLOOR
PLAN CHANGES FOR PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL PLANS
LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT 23773 IN STARLIGHT
DUNES, NORTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE, WEST OF
ADAMS STREET
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 2-4 D.U./ACRE)
ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
BACKGROUND:
On October 27, 1998, the Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Abels
absent), adopted Resolution 98-072 approving four new residential prototype plans
(Plans 2, 3, 4 and 5) for Tract 23773 (Compatibility Review) within Starlight Dunes
in north La Quinta (Attachments 1 and 2). The prototype floor plans vary in size from
1,950 to 3,150 square feet. All plans are one story in height with Plan 5 having a loft
(Attachment 3).
The units are Spanish/Mediterranean in nature, utilizing exterior plaster walls, wood
fascias, and flat and "S"shaped concrete the roofing. Colors of the exterior plaster are
white to light tan, with wood colors light tans to light brown, and roof tiles red blends.
Roof structures are primarily gable or clipped gable running the width of the residence
with smaller gable or hip roofs coming off the main roof. Each plan includes two
different facades, with building sides and rears being the same within each plan.
Garage doors are sectional roll -up doors with lites.
SRPC SDP 632 - 37
Sixty dwelling units have been built by the first two developers. The original developer
constructed 47 units, while the second constructed 13 units. 94 lots remain to be
developed in the Starlight Dunes project.
Project Request
The applicant has made architectural and floor plan changes to their prototype house
plans (Attachment 4). Facade changes proposed by the applicant include removal of
columns and wood shutters, revised plant -on locations, window size changes, and
other design deviations. The roof structure for the loft area of Plan 4L (previously Plan
5) has been increased in height and projects six feet above the main roof. Floor plan
changes consist of the removal of projecting building elements from sides of each plan
type (i.e., media, etc.) and internal reorganization of room areas.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
No issues are identified per Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning
Code. Therefore, the proposed design modifications are compatible with existing
Starlight Dunes houses, subject to the attached conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 99-_, approving Site Development Permit
98-632 (Amendment #1), subject to Conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Planning Commission Minutes for the meeting of October 27, 1998
3. Approved Plan Exhibits (Reduced)
4. Revised Large Exhibits (Commission only)
APOar'!CA by:
TL-g- f 1 i dusdell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
SRPC SDP (332 - 37
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632, AMENDMENT #1
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
GENERAL, CONDITIONS
1 . This approval is for prototype units of the following approximate sizes:
A. Plan 2 - 2,023 square feet (previously 1,950 square feet)
B. Plan 3 - 2,165 square feet (previously 2,200 square feet)
C. Plan 3F - 2,165 square feet (previously 2,325 square feet, Plan 4)
D. Plan 4 - 2,400 + square feet (previously 2,460 + square feet, Plan 5)
E. Plan 4L - 2,788 + square feet (previously 2,460 + square feet, Plan 5)
Any proposed plan options (i.e., exercise rooms, offices, etc.) shall be counted
as bedrooms and are subject to the requirements of Chapter 9.150 of the
Zoning Code (Parking).
2. The preliminary landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee and Planning Commission, as
a business item, prior to issuance of any building permits issued for units
authorized by this approval.
3. The landscaping and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District, Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner before they will be considered final. Each residential
lot shall include at least one 24-inch box size tree, with other trees,
groundcover, and shrubs similar to those existing in the tract.
4. Lawn areas shall be either hybrid Bermuda (summer) or hybrid Bermuda/Rye
(winter) depending on the season installed. All trees shall be double staked to
prevent wind damage.
5. The perimeter walls around the tract and residences visible to the street shall
match the decorative concrete block or stucco walls used in the tract. Gates
shall be constructed out of metal pickets.
6. Popout window and door surrounds shall be provided on all side and rear
elevations of all prototype plans.
7. The exterior elevations shall be revised as follows:
A. The entry tower on both facades of Plan 3F shall be a minimum of one
foot higher than the main roof ridge.
CondPC sdp 98-632 - 37
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 99-
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 98-632, AMENDMENT #1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
B. One of the plans shall be revised so that both facades have clipped gable
ends.
C. All prototype roofs shall vary in height from 18 to 22 feet.
8. All two car garages shall be a minimum 20 feet by 20 feet inside with all
required three car garages a minimum 30 feet wide by 20 deep, or its equivalent
per Zoning Code requirements.
9. All existing unused curb cuts shall be removed and replaced with full curb when
the lot is developed.
10. Plan 5 shaft have a full three car garage space, since any of the two available
options will create a four bedroom unit.
1 1 . Plan 4L shall not be built on Lot 18 of Phase 4.
12. A maximum of 15 Plan 2 (smallest plan) units shall be built within the project.
13. Exterior house lighting shall use shielded, downshining fixtures similar and
compatible to those used in the phase one (original) construction in Starlight
Dunes.
CondPCSDF' 98-632X - 37
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
STARL1GhT LANE
DARBY RW
,FRED WARING ORIW
CASE No.
CASE MAP
SDP 98-632
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
V
Attachment 2
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1998
6. Commissioner Kirk stated he is concerned that an applicant is not aware of
the flexibility that is available to him regarding parking.
7. Chairman Tyler stated he felt the building needed to be refurbished just due
to the time it had been sitting vacant. Staff stated the applicant is intending
to do this.
8. The architect for the project, stated he intended to meet all the conditions as
well as the additional architectural details requested of staff. He went on to
explain the operation of the business.
9. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of
the hearing was closed and open for commission discussion.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked how Condition # 18 would be met as there were
no water improvements plans for this project. Planning Manager Christine
di Iorio stated this was a condition of the Fire Department and would be
worked out with them during their plan checking process.
11. Therek.being no further discussion, it was moved and' seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt Planning
6mmission Resolution 98-
071 approving Village Use Permit 98-001, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES;
None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
C ;` Oa request of Century -Crowell Communities for
compatibility review of architectural plans for four new prototype residential units.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff introduced letters that had been received from two
homeowners and noted changes they were proposing to the Conditions of
Approval: Condition #1, the size for Plan 5 should be 2,460 square feet up to
3,150 square feet with both options; Condition #5, additional wording to
require the walls be decorative concrete block in those areas visible to the
street; Condition #7.A., add the word "foot" behind the word "one"; and the
addition of Condition #10, to read, "Plan 5 shall have a full three car garage
space since any of the two options available will create a four bedroom unit."
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-27-98.wpd 4
A,
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1998
2. Chairman Tyler asked staff to indicate which plans were the revised drawings
for Models 3 and 4. Staff did so. Chairman Tyler asked staff if the changes
were sufficiently permanent and irreversible so that the owner could not re-
establish them as bedrooms. Staff stated this was possible, but as far as staff
was concerned, what the builder was building and selling was a three
bedroom unit.
3. Commissioner Butler asked what would stop the developer from offering this
as an option. Is it possible to catch this upon final inspection. Staff stated
that if the change was found during inspections, the Building Department
would inform the builder he would have to convert it back to the approved
plan. Commissioner Butler asked if this could be made a condition. Staff
stated it could be.
4. Commissioner Butler asked to see the plan which contained the loft. Staff
stated the loft and the fitness room option could both be conceived as
bedrooms and this is why staff imposed the condition that this plan be
required to have a three car garage. Commissioner Butler asked if the plan
containing the loft could be considered a two story unit. Staff stated all
buildings are proposed to be 18-feet in height and the applicant designed the
loft unit to fit in the 18-foot area.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if there was anything in the Compatibility
Ordinance that limited the number of smaller units that could be built. Could
the builder construct 1,900 square foot houses on the remaining lots? Staff
stated there is nothing in the Code to prevent them.
6. Commissioner Kirk questioned staff as to why the loft would be considered
a bedroom. Staff stated that under the Uniform Building Code (UBC) there
are only certain rooms such as baths, kitchens, living rooms, and hallways
that are considered non -sleeping rooms. Commissioner Kirk asked if a
bedroom was required to have a window. Staff stated one may be required
for emergency exit; however, the UBC states that any other room can be
considered a bedroom if it is not a living room, bathroom, hallway, kitchen,
or dining room.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the existing units within the entire tract had two
or three car garages. Staff stated they have both. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio stated the last phase was by Deane Homes and they fell
within the City's current ordinance which requires the three car garage. The
homes built in Phase I, prior to the ordinance did not, but some of those units
also have three car garages.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-27-98.wpd 5
11
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1998
8. Commissioner Robbins asked how far out of range were the dimensions on
the garages. If the wall that separated the wash area from the garage were
removed then it would be acceptable. Staff stated that was correct.
Discussion followed as to the dimensions of the garage.
9. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Tyler asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Kent Armstrong,
representing Century Crowell Communities, stated that in regard to the letter
from Mr. & Mrs. Cosgrove regarding the lighting on Lot 18, they have no
problem with enhancing the frontyard landscaping with lighting and they will
guarantee there will be no loft on two story units on this lot. In regard to the
mix, they have been working with the Homeowners' Association (HOA) and
have agreed to limit the number of Plan 2's. They have also agreed with them
to provide all homes with an average of about 2,500 square feet. He further
stated they were working with the HOA to add additional architectural detail
and they would request that an additional condition be added that once they
have reached a decision with the HOA, these architectural details could be
approved by staff.
10. Commissioner Robbins asked Mr. Armstrong if he would have any objection
to a condition being added limiting the number of Plan 2 units to 16 with an
average square footage of 2,500. Mr. Armstrong stated he had no objection
to either being added as a condition. Staff stated 2,500 square feet could be
a plan checking problem.
11. Chairman Tyler asked if the project would maximize the existing topography
or would the site be flattened. Mr. Armstrong stated the slopes are already
a part of the approved grading plan.
12. Chairman Tyler asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Carl
Thompson, 78-935 Skyward Way, stated he was the president of the HOA
and wanted to state they had come to an agreement with Century Crowell on
all areas with the exception of the exterior elevations. They have been very
pleased with their willingness to work with them. They would ask that this
project be continued or conditioned to assure agreement on the exterior
elevations. They have discussed the ratio of the smaller homes and agreed
to 15 and have also agreed to the average size of 2,500 square feet. Chairman
Tyler stated that for clarification, the relationship between the HOA and the
developer is between them. The City is not a party to that. The City is only
concerned that the developer meet the requirements the City places on it at
the time of approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City, as a practice does not get between
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-27-98.wpd 6
t"
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1998
the developers and HOA's. This is viewed as a private contractual
relationship. The City's responsibility is to apply the City's Compatibility
Ordinance to the plans that are submitted by the developer.
13. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of
the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
14. Commissioner Robbins asked that two conditions be added. One that on Lot
18 a Plan 5 would not be allowed with a loft; second, that the Plan 2 be
limited to 15 and an average square foot house size be 2,500 throughout the
tract.
15. Commissioner Kirk asked that the lighting referred to in Mr. Cosgrove's
letter be required.
16. Commissioner Butler asked that if during construction, the rooms that are
classified as "open space" are converted, or offered, as a bedroom, the three
car garage be required. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated this would
be a part of the plan check review. When the precise plan and unit types are
received, staff will review them at that time for compatibility as well as the
building inspectors will be inspecting the units in accordance with the precise
plan which identifies the unit type. Commissioner Butler asked if this should
be a condition. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they will not be
allowed to make any changes from the plans that are approved at this time.
17. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked how the Commission wanted staff
to enforce the 2,500 square foot average; if this was per phase, or how.
Chairman Tyler stated this should be similar to the agreement with the HOA.
Mr. Armstrong stated this would be on a phase by phase basis. Following
discussion it was determined that a condition would be added only requiring
15 Plan 2 units in the total project.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
072 approving Site Development Permit 98-632, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended:
a. Condition #1, the size for Plan 5 should be 2,460 square feet up to
3,150 square feet with both options.
b. Condition #5, additional wording to require the walls be decorative
concrete block in those areas visible to the street.
C. Condition #7.A., add the word "foot" behind the word "one".
d. Condition # 10, Plan 5 shall have a three car garage space since any
of the two options available will create a four bedroom unit.
CAMy Docurnents\WPDOCS\PCIO-27-98.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting
October 27, 1998
e. Condition #11, Lot 18 shall not have a Plan 5 with a loft option.
f. Condition #12, no more than 15 Plan 2 units be allowed throughout
the entire project.
g. Condition #13, the house lighting shall match that of the first phase
which is shielded and directed downward.
ROLL CALL: AXES: Commissioners Butler, ]Kirk, Robbins, and Chairman Tyler. NOES;
None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None.
D. Site Development Permit 98-633; a request of T.D. Desert Development L.P., for
approval of a 17,802 square foot golf club house and a 4,218 square foot cart storage
facility.
1. Chairman Tyler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Senior Engineer Steve Speer asked that a modification be made to the
following condition:
a. Condition #10, amended to delete "and subsequently, the HOA" and
also delete the last sentence.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to define the "Mediterranean Period".
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained it was a combination of styles
over a period of time being the Spanish Colonial, the Italianace Age, and the
Mission style that has evolved over the years to now include anything with
a tile roof. Rather than giving it a definite period or definite style, it is an
interpretation combining all different period of that architectural style.
4. Chairman Tyler asked the maximum height of the tower. Principal Planner
Fred Baker stated it was 30-feet 10-inches.
5. There being no public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
073, approving Site Development Permit 98-633, subject to the conditions as
modified.
a. Condition #10: delete "and subsequently, the HOA" and delete the
last sentence.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC10-27-98.wpd 8
Attachment 3
I� BATH 0
MASTER SURE
DINING GREAT ROOM Iq.X I'lu
s4tnl1y 0
TBEDt-ROOA"EN1v
T'iI�
1-01"
ov
HALL JK
O MASTER SURE +2
IUr 14
I
2 CAR GARAGE
1950 S.F.
PLAN 2
o
CENTURY/CROWELL COMMUNITIES
z
0
o
N
Starlight Dunes by The Country Club
H
GREAT ROOM
MASTER SUITE
11914
BATH 101
BEDROOM I SPORTS OAR 2 CAR GARAGE
I-xR
m .1 2200 S.F.
PLAN 3
CENTURY/CROWELL COMMUNITIES
p
Starlight Dunes by The Country Club
PLAN 4
PLAN 5
c jao5 r'tl v,,,
r ----
,.
:ti �' !_
anio AHimno3 MU A8 Mnu .MnHV1S • .
z°
S311Nnwwoo Ti3MQHo/Awujao
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NOVEMBER 9, 1999
SIGN APPLICATION 99-482
LLEWELLYN ENTERPRISES, INC.
T-BO'S OF LA QUINTA, 78-073 CALLE BARCELONA
APPROVAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO PERMIT AN
ADDITIONAL MONUMENT SIGN
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS SIGN
APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
ZONING DESIGNATION: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)
NORTH:
VC, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
SOUTH:
VC, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL
WEST:
MDR, EXISTING AND VACANT RESIDENTIAL;
MC, POST OFFICE
EAST:
VC, EXISTING AND VACANT COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL
T-Bo's of La Quinta is located in the Village Commercial area, across the street from the
Post Office and old Chamber of Commerce office on Avenida Bermudas (Attachment 1).
The restaurant takes access from Calle Barcelona. Per Table 1603: Permanent Signs
Permitted in Nonresidential Districts with a Sign Permit of the Zoning Code only one free
standing sign is allowed. In conformance with this standard, the existing sign, approved
in 1998, faces Calle Barcelona.
C. \Mydata\perptSA99-482T-Bo's 11-9-99.wpd
SIGN REQUEST:
The request is for a Sign Adjustment to allow for a second free-standing sign that would
be visible to both north and south bound traffic along Avenida Bermudas. The sign will be
located immediately behind the existing 3-foot high garden wall.
The sign well be 4 feet in width by 4 feet in height. The proposed overall height of the sign
will be 8 feet. The sign copy reads "T-Bo's of La Quinta" "Restaurant and Lounge." The
letters will be 6- to 18-inches in height painted brown (Attachment 2). The sign face and
pedestal is of white painted plywood. The sign is to be indirectly illuminated with existing
landscape lighting.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE:
Issue 1 -Acceptability
The finding under Section 9.160.090 (E)(2) of the Zoning Code can be made to allow a
second freestanding sign so as to overcome the disadvantage of the existing trees
blocking the view of the existing sign from Avenida Bermudas, therefore a second
freestanding sign is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Minute Motion 99-
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Sign Exhibits
Prepared by:
, approving the requested sign.
Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
C: \Myd ata\perptSA99-482T-B&s 11-9-99.wpd
ATTACHMENT
9),c,e m Po.4s
Pao poseo
,T
i.iS3'7`s€'r8 `3
z
ATTACHMENT #�
r
W660
."CDP
i
.w
X0
of
L �vi
1�ta�w��A�T � Lo vas 1.
&-CASE f��• �� �'-
w w s w. w• or or aw w
Prop
,61/sP pi 050
PfA
�LOc �c WALL
S79A
sicw sasisE
Proo�RTy w A L L
w
7"r
oA T..
-o,.
♦ qm .
air • OVA)
�I"♦iy e 4
pe A i �L
liyAloov* w.1/ 6e 1�oirs cT)
EX / f r/I1/& A Il NO SGM p s�
BI #C
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999
CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 99-040
REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY OF
THE PROPOSED VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS
LOCATION: PORTIONS OF AVENUE 55, RANCHO LA QUINTA ROAD PASEO DEL
RANCHO AND OTHER UNNAMED STREETS WITHIN THE GREG
NORMAN GOLF COURSE (SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015) PREVIOUSLY
VACATED UNDER STREET VACATION 90-016
APPLICANT: KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to State law', prior to street right of way or public easements being vacated by the City
Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is consistent with the
City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning
Commission.
The area to be vacated is generally located north of Airport Avenue and east of Madison Street, as
shown on attachment 1. The area contains lots A and B of Parcel Map 14286; and Lots E, F, G, H and
60 feet of road easement as shown on Parcel Map 14791.
The street right-of-way was originally dedicated when Parcel Maps 14286 and 14791 were approved
in 1980, street improvements were never installed. This area was annexed to the City in 1991 and then
incorporated into Specific Plan 90-015. The area is now known as the Greg Norman Golf Course of
PGA West.
The vacation area currently under consideration is identical to the area previously vacated as Street
Vacation 90-016. However, for unknown reasons, a public utility easement was retained over the entire
vacation parcel. Street Vacation 99-040 will remove, or reduce the public utility easement currently on
this property. All public agencies and utility companies will again be notified, and easements will only
be retained if existing facilities are present.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION•
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Government Code Section 65402
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV99_040.WPD
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On November 8, 1999, staff mailed notices to potentially affected public agencies, informing them of the
proposed vacation. It is possible that some utility companies may responded with requests for easements
to operate and maintain existing public utilities. Other then possible easement reservations, no negative
comments are expected.
FINDINGS:
The proposed street vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impacts the
human population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segment is currently unused
by the public and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will
have no physical environmental effect.
2. The segment of street right of way proposed for vacation meets the definition of a local
residential street, which by definition is intended to provide access to abutting properties, with
movement of traffic given secondary importance. This portion of the street right of way is not
needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties,
and is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan.
The street vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for
the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion adopt the finding that the vacation of portions of the Avenue 55, Rancho La Quinta
Road, Paseo Del Rancho, and other unnamed segments of street right-of-way are consistent with the
adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan.
Prepared by:
% 11
ROMANO VE ] NGIA, Assistant Engineer II
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
RJV/rjv
Attachments:
1. Case Map
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV99_040.WPD
ATTACHMENT 1
Lots A and B of Parcel Map 14286
Lots E, F, G, and H and 60 feet of
Parcel Map 14791
road easements as shown on
The project boundary begins ±2,564 feet north of the intersection
of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard and runs easterly ±3,614 feet,
turns southerly ±640 feet and then again turns easterly ±285 feet,
then it turns southerly for +1,939 feet,then easterly ±3,899 feet '
running parallel to Airport Boulevard back'to its point of origin. J
CASE MAP
NORTH
CASE NO- Street vacation 91-016
Landmark Land ccimpany SCALE:
EXH1B _ .r..■. ��.���.
CASE NO. &i0a./4 too W o
T-af 4 44 Q"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR `)))j
DATE: NOVEMBER 9 ,1999
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON RECOMMENDED
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
At the City Council meeting of November 2,1999, Council requested a Public Hearing
for the City Councll to discuss the Recommended Land Use Map. Please find
enclosed the same marked -up version of the Recommended Land Use Map which will
be reviewed and discussed by the City Council at this Public Hearing on November
16, 1999. This Public Hearing is not a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission;
the City Council did urge the Planning Commission to be in attendance.
CITY OF LA Q UINTA
-¢� PLANNING COMMISSION
�bOF411f�
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC
HEARING on November 23, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78-
495 Calle Tampico, on the following item:
ITEM: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29147 - REVISION
NO. 2
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL RECREATION CORPORATION
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET
AND AVENUE 58
REQUESTS: APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE IN NUMBER
OF -SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FROM 133 TO 152
ON 172.88 ACRES IN SPECIFIC PLAN 83-
002 AND 90-017.
LEGAL: PARCELS 4 AND 5 OF LOT LINE
Sled
AVWX
Sled
AV=
50
AVV
TRACT NO. 29147
50 AVM
VICNTY MAP
Nor TO SCALE
ADJUSTMENT 95-208 AND PARCELS 4 AND
5 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 98-286 (APN 761-140-015, 761-170-036 THROUGH
-039) .
Tentative Tract Map 29147 is within Specific Plan 90-017 (PGA West). The project is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Public Resources Code Section
65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports (State Clearinghouse # 83062922) for Specific Plan 83-
002 and (State Clearinghouse # 90020727) for Specific Plan. 90-017 were certified by the City
Council in 1991. No changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the
preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166.
Any person may submit written comments on this case to the Community Development
Department prior to the Hearing and/or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to
the project at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this case in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public
Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department at,
or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed file(s) may be viewed by the public Monday
through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, La Quinta
City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. The public comment period starts from
the date of this notice and continues through the Public Hearing on November 23, 1999.
In the City's efforts to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, the Community Development Department requires that any person in need of any
type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) in order to communicate at a City
public meeting, must inform the Community Development Department a minimum of 72 hours
prior to the scheduled meeting.
----------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH ONCE ON NOVEMBER 12. 1999