Loading...
2000 04 11 PCPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 11, 2000 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2000-012 Beginning Minute Motion 2000-008 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on March 28, 2000 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item .................. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29702 Applicant.......... KSL Casitas Corporation Location........... East side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando, within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds. Request............ Approval to re -subdivide 3.17 acres into 30 resort residential and miscellaneous lots. Action .............. Request for continuance B. Item .................. CONTINUED - SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 Applicant.......... M & H Realty Partners Location........... Southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta. Request............ Approval of development plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial building and approximately 4,445 square foot addition to Von's Supermarket. Action .............. Resolution 2000- C. Item ................. CONTINUED - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-675 Applicant .......... World Development Location ........... The east side of Adams Street, west of Ladera Drive, north of Miles Avenue. Request ............ Approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, and three landscape lots. Approval of architectural and landscape plans for four prototype residential units. Action ............... Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- Resolution 2000- D. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 Applicant.......... Bill Hobin, c/o La Quinta - SPC, LLC. Location........... Northeast corner of Adams Street & Corporate Centre Drive. Request............ Approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a storage facility within La Quinta Corporate Centre. Action. . ............ Resolution 2000- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item .................. Applicant.......... Location........... Request............ Action .............. PC/AGENDA SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-674 T. D. Desert Development To be constructed in Rancho La Quinta Country Club. Approval of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units. Minute Motion 2000- B. Item .................. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-671 Applicant.......... Toll Brothers, Gary Lemon Location........... * To be constructed adjacent to the Greg Norman Signature Golf course, on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street. Request............ Approval of architectural plans for eight new prototype residential units. Action .............. Minute Motion 2000- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of April 4, 2000 IX. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 28, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Tom Kirk. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Saundra Hawks 78-770 Spy Glass Hill Drive, representing the La Quinta Fairways Homeowners' Association (HOA) stated she wanted to clarify why there was a deferment of the La Quinta Fairways request for exit only gate at Calle Rondo. RJT Development is in process of building out the remainder of their tract. As a favor to the HOA, of which she is the president, RJT joined their request for an exit only gate with their Parcel Map approval. For the HOA to proceed to public hearing a traffic study was required by the City. This traffic study was delayed and delayed keeping them from going forward with the public hearing. As RJT has a critical building schedule, they requested the City remove the HOA request from RJTs' to allow the developer to proceed without further delay. They now have the traffic study and the public hearing on their request for an exit only gate is scheduled for April 25, 2000. At that time they will make a formal presentation of their plan. They would like to make it understood that the City has already ruled on the subject of an entry gate on Calle Rondo, and it was emphatically no. There is no room at this location for vehicles to wait for entry and there will never be room for an entry. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. CAM), I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 14, 2000. Chairman Kirk asked that the minutes be amended on Page 9, Item 30 to state "Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe the parking issue was a fatal flaw, provided the applicant came back and addressed the issues, they may be resolved." There being no further changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued - Tentative Tract Map 29613; a request of RJT Homers, LLC for approval to subdivide 0.58 acres into one residential lot and one common lot within the boundaries of Specific Plan 83-001, between Calle Rondo and Cypress Point Drive, south of Avenida Ultimo in La Quinta Fairways. 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if it was only one large residential lot and one open space lot. Staff stated yes. 3. Chairman Kirk asked if the testimonies that had been given at previous Planning Commission meetings would be made a part of the file for the HOA request for an exit gate. Staff stated it could be done. 4. Mr. Jeff Jackson, 54-560 Avenida Vallejo, stated owns a lot at the southeast corner of Calle Guayamas and Calle Tujunga. This development that is requesting a gate consists of 250 homes; can they all exit through this gate, or just the those from the homes being built at this location? He asked how many lots were they talking about. Chairman Kirk clarified only one lot was being referenced to and there would be no changes to the access. Mr. Jackson stated he understood when he bought his lot that this was an emergency access gate only. Now, it is his understanding they want to continue the item to make the gate a short cut exit. CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 to come down and address an issue that is totally irresponsible. For RJT to even suggest this on the initial application was irresponsible. It was insensitive, ridiculous to dump their traffic into their neighborhood. You look around at other developments in this County, in this City; does anyone do this? He can not think of any other situation like this. And yet they are dragged down here four times. RJT is creating a great community feeling for the people in the Desert Club Estates. They have families and jobs; they have children playing in the streets and RJT suggests initially to dump their traffic into their neighborhood. It is ridiculous. It is a flawed concept. It is an irresponsible concept and it is costing him time, money, effort and energy. He should be home with his child doing his homework right now. They are our neighbors; how irresponsible and if the homeowners want to take up this issue, they will hear the same thing, not just from him, but everyone in the neighborhood. 9. Mr. Mike Brockman, 78-535 Avenida Ultimo, asked if the notification process is to place the notice on the windshield of his truck as he did not receive any notification except for a flyer on his windshield. Staff stated the notices are mailed by first class mail to the current property owner based upon the current Tax Rolls of Riverside County. If the house was just purchased and the new owner is not on the Tax Rolls, it will go to the previous owner. Mr. Brockman stated he was misinformed as to the content of this meeting regarding the access gate. 10. Mr. Chad Myers, Project Manager for RJT Homes, informed everyone the access request was brought by the HOA and the gate is of no interest to his company. The La Quinta Fairways HOA has been very kind and good to work with for RJT Homes. RJT own the property and the emergency gate will be built. The HOA approached RJT and asked them if the type of access could be changed. RJT agreed to make the request to the City because they own the property, but this gate is for the existing and future homeowners. RJT is only the owner of the property and riot the beneficiary of the gate. They have no intention of using the gate. They are required to build the emergency gate. This is a large community with one entrance. Lastly, in regard to the mailing list, he was instructed to include all the property owners between Washington Street and Calle Rondo, Avenida Ultimo and Calle Tampico. He did obtain labels for everyone within the 500 foot radius, but not south of Calle Tampico, unless they were within the 500 feet. CAM), Documents\Wll[)OCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 11. Mr. Gary Flanders, 51-345 Calle Paloma, asked if the developer had withdrawn his application for anything other than an emergency gate. Staff stated the application tonight is only for the parcel map. Mr. Flanders then asked if the City were to deny this gate as anything other than the emergency only gate to the HOA, would the gate then) remain emergency only. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated the access gate part of the application has been withdrawn and the Commission is only acting on the parcel map. The HOA has submitted a separate application regarding a request to change the emergency gate for the purpose of exiting onto Calle Rondo. Mr. Flanders asked if the issue was now between the Desert Club property owners and the La Quinta Fairways HOA. Staff stated that was true. 12. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Avenida Tujunga, stated he lived directly in front of the proposed gate. He did not intend to address the Commission on this issue, but is doing so only because it has turned into an agenda on the proposed exit. Chairman Kirk stated that is not the intent. Mr. Hooper stated the Commission can see the number of people who are concerned about that application and the way they have been played in regard to the handling of this project. The representatives from RJT can make; their apologies, but this is an absolutely arrogant proposal in the first place and will continue to be so. How can the HOA go ahead and propose to dump their 250 residents into their neighborhood of 98 homes? If they lose numbers because of all the delays and continuances, the HOA is going to be facing a very angry crowd. 13. Mr. Peter Rodholm, 50-640 Calle Paloma, explained that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, they were told this meeting was to be the last and a decision would be made on the gate. Now, RJT and the HOA have sidestepped that decision because they have withdrawn their request for the entrance gate, which was a part of the original Conditions of Approval for this project, for this to be an exit and entrance for emergency vehicles only. They took the residents of Desert Club for a ride for the first three meetings; they have now sidestepped it and the HOA plan on taking it back to the Commission for decision on whether or not this can be used for an exit only. We are now fighting the HOA over this issue. If they go on and continue to fight this, when will this stop and when can they have a final decision on this gate. How many times can they bring this before the Commission? Staff stated an application can be made for a full access gate as (':\Mv I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 many times as someone wants to pay the filing fees. Chairman Kirk stated the Commission is also tired of seeing the same application come forward multiply time. They have limited patience and have other items on the Agenda to resolve. 14. Ms. Joann Shirley, 50-860 Calle Paloma asked why the Commission was even considering this request. The property owners of the Fairways knew this was to be a emergency exit only. This is a residential area and why can't the City just say no. 15. Mr. Dillon Steiner, 78-725 Avenida La Jarita, stated that as long as they put forth an application more and more residents will be here to oppose it. In regard to RJT, they are not good neighbors because anyone who has driven down Calle Rondo will notice that the wall has no landscaping. Not only do they want to dump their traffic into their neighborhood, but they do not have the courtesy to landscape that portion of the wall that borders their neighborhood. 16. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. 17. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition #10 be revised -to add the word "emergency". 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000-01 1 approving Tentative Parcel Map 29613, as amended. a. Condition #10: "Gated emergency access on Calle Rondo...." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. B. Environmental Assessment 99-382 Tentative Tract Map 2962.4 Site Development Permit 99-675, a request of World Development for approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, three landscape lots, and approval of architectural and landscape plans for four prototype residential units. C:AMv Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted corrections in the options; there is no Plan 3C and it should be deleted; Plan 4B has front loaded garages. Street Lot A to be named Ladera Drive. 2. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the difference between what is proposed and what is existing. Staff stated Plan 1 is 2,100 square feet including the garage and 1,700 square feet without the garage; Plan A is 2,200 square feet of livable area and 695 of garage; Option B is 2,200 square feet and is the same plan. Plan 4 is 2,500 square feet of livable area with a 688 square foot garage. Staff displayed the building elevations. 3. Commissioner Robbins stated this project may not be reviewed under the Compatibility Ordinance, but how do the house sizes compare to the adjoining tract. Staff stated they could look at the tract map for a comparison. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated the First School of the Desert appealed the requirement to underground the utilities to the City Council and that appeal applies to this tract as well. Staff stated the Council approved their request to not underground the utilities and will apply to this tract and the conditions have been changed to reflect Council's action. Commissioner Tyler asked who would be maintaining the common areas as well as the setback along Adams Street. Staff stated it would be maintained by HOA for this tract. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the inconsistencies with regard to street widths. This is a private street with a width of 37-feet as opposed to the 33-feet noted on the tentative map. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant changed from s public street to private street on short notice and the language regarding the HOA taking care of the common area lots needs to be added. He explained the HOA will be responsible for the landscape setback lot adjacent to Adams Street and the three on - site common area lots. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated the tentative map shows this, street lining up with the existing Ladera Drive and asked the width, of the existing street. Staff stated the existing street is 36 feet between the curbs. The new street will be conditioned to be 36 feet between the curbs. They will be the same width. CAMv Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 7. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone would like to address the Commission on this project. Mr. Ken Stittsworth, representing World Development, stated they are utilizing a product that is currently being built at Wildflower. In regard to the letters received in opposition to their project, he would like to state the houses would be an upgrade to the Quinterra tract. Their smallest unit, Plan 1 will be 1,704 square feet and will be unique in that it will have two master bedrooms and baths and only one will be built on Lot 5. The remainder of the units are 2,100 to 2,510 square feet. There will be upgrades to meet the market demand. They are a community developer. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roll up garage doors. Mr. Stittsworth stated he would never use a wooden door in this climate condition. Commissioner Tyler asked about block walls. Mr. Stittsworth stated the units will have block walls. They will raise the wall by two courses and cap it. The wall will be decorative and will have a meandering walkway with landscaping that will be maintained by the HOA. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission. Mr. Alex Londos, 79-090 Ladera Drive, stated his concern was regarding this street coming through onto Ladera Drive. When they purchased their home, they called the City as there was an odd block wall at the end of the street aind he assumed if the street was to be continue they would have installed a block wall up to the point of the street and then maybe a rail or something to indicate the street would be continued. He was also told at that time a church was going in and the road would not continue. He understands that things can change, but it has always been his understanding the road would not be completed. In addition, he also has several concerns with the architecture and how it will blend in with the existing landscape. He saw the elevations and thought it odd they would just take the plans from another tract and drop them here. They should not take a cookie cutter plan from one tract to another. They should be required to blend in with the existing neighborhood. He requested the Commission require further research of the Ladera Drive extension as it does impact their neighborhood. He cannot understand why they cannot come off Adams Street. CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 10. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera Drive, stated he lives right next to the wall. When they bought their home they checked into what was going in on the other side of the wall and they were told a church. They were assured by the developer and the City it would be a church and no other homes would be developed in this location so they purchased their home. They have two small children and enjoy letting them play in the cul-de-sac and not deal with traffic. This is not the first issue they have had with the; City. He and his neighbors lobbied until the City adopted a Compatibility Ordinance to require any development within an existing tract to be compatible with the existing tract. By continuing Ladera Drive you are continuing the Quinterra development. Therefore, there has to be harmonious elevations and congruent with the other homes in the area and not deviate more than 10% fronn the existing smallest home. Based on this, the smallest home that could be buPt in this area is 1,900 square feet. For them to propose a 1,700 square foot house is in violation of this requirement. Second, to bring a Wildflower elevation in is also an opposition to this requirement. If they were to enter off Adams Street and be a completely separate project that would be a different project. As it is proposed it is a continuation of their neighborhood. He then asked what the proposed retaining wall was to hold. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the pad will be raised slightly over the adjacent pad so a separate retaining wall will be required to protect the adjacent wall. Mr. Mercer asked if this would cause their water to drain to his lot. Staff stated this pad will graded to drain to the street at the front of the new lot. Mr. Mercer stated compatibility was an issue before and they sent 1 1,000 letters to the City Council and fought very hard to have the compatibility requirement so no one could step into a development and shrink the size of the homes and change the contours and elevations. 11. Ms. Shellie Stiver, 44-960 Malia Circle, stated they are part of the original Quinterra development and have put a lot of time and money into getting these laws in place for North La Quinta. Why does this developer need to use the Quinterra name. How does it benefit them. Their tract of homes are the original Windsor houses. They have small children playing along Ladera Drive and do not want their children playing outside with the additional traffic. Drainage is another issue. They already have problems with their retention basin. They do not need any more aggravation. Why can't they come off Adams Street and have C:\M\, Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 their own separate development. 12. Mr. Bob Tette, 44-930 Malia Circle, stated their homes have two or three car garages and one of their plans has only a two car garage. Also, he purchased his home because it is not a through street. It gives them the privacy and security they wanted with little, or no traffic. He would also like to see this development take its access off Adams Street. They purchased their home under the conditions at that time and now the conditions are being changed and he doesn't understand how that can happen. They fought Mr. Snellenberger originally regarding the compatibility issues. Some of the homes were built so close to the street the cars are hanging into the sidewalk. This is only one example of the issues they are faced with. 13. Mr. Kim Job, 79-100 Ladera Drive, stated he too was one of the originally homeowners. He reminded the Commission that the City also spent $100,000 supporting this ordinance. If this developer is allowed to call his tract Quinterra, there should not be any two car garages and it should be required to meet the compatibility rule. The developer misinformed them regarding the size of the homes by including the size of the garages as part of the house suze. In regard to the developer's statement that this tract would have upgrades, if you look at the original 18 homes they have steel window frames steel doors and a lot of additional upgrades. The newer units use plastic. They do not want Ladera Drive extended. If they are going to have their own HOA to maintain the landscaping they should be their own tract. In regard to the drainage problems, many times they have stagnate water that doesn't drain off. 14. Mr. NO Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated he agreed with everything that had been stated. In addition, he thanked everyone for their help in winning the first "Quinterra Wars". His issue is covenants. This project is proposed to extend his street. When Quinterra was built out, no one was told there were covenants on the land. People who moved in were surprised to learn they could not park their RV. It is important to him that if this project is approved as proposed, they should be required to have as strong a covenant as they have on their street; especially in regard to RV's. In regard to elevations, the proposed garages seem to be so narrow you cannot get in or out of them. The garages should be built usable. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 Another issue is the details of the houses. The outside look's like the existing except the Windsor homes, but missed some of the significant points of the Quinterra architecture. The Windsor homes were a dramatic square zig-zag architecture. Almost Native American. There were no curves, or colonial treatments. Now, if you drove through the development you will see curved window treatments and rather astounding sudo-Colonial brass carriage lamps which does not go with the original American Indian motif the original designers constructed. He requested that if the street is built out, the builder should be required to follow the original American Indian architecture. The houses from Wildflower are not acceptable. He would not object to a crash gate for safety sake as long as it was aesthetic and RV were not visible. 15. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated she agreed with what had already been stated. Her issue is that she did check with the City before purchasing their home and were told a church was to be built and the street would not go through. When she saw the World Development sign going up she contacted the City and she was told that because they were not a part of the original Quinterra development, they could not be required to meet the Compatibility Ordinance requirements. The plans look nothing like the adjoining homes. She is against the road being constructed. If they want to be a private HOA, turn them around and let: them gain access to their development from Adams Street. If they want to build here, they should use the original blueprints to be compatible with their neighborhood. 16. Mr. Tom Hanes, 79-180 Ladera, stated he too agrees with what has been stated and asked if the extension of Ladera Drive a dead end or attached to Adams Street. Chairman Kirk stated it is, a cul- de-sac. Mr. Hanes asked if the construction trucks would come down Ladera Drive; if so can the construction entrance be moved. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff would work with the developer to take the trucks down Adams Street. Mr. Hanes asked that if their drainage is to come into their existing retention basin, is the retention basin big enough. Staff stated it was. 17. Mr. Richard Santo, 79-095 Arbola Circle, stated he was concerned about the value of the property within Quinterra. Will these units C':\My, I)ocuments\WPI)OCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 hurt their values. 18. Mr. Jim Hanson, 79-130 Ladera Drive, stated he was present when the retention basin filled to about six feet in depth and it was open to all the children in the area. This is poor drainage and to add this tract's drainage will make it worse. The drainage should be looked at. 19. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera, stated they are proposing to use their entrance, their street, their flood control and drainage area, and are proposing to use their name, but yet they have no control over the size, elevations, etc., they are proposing to build because it is not a continuation of their product. What is it? It is a part of Quinterra and will be governed by those rules, it seems iit is a contradiction to that. 20. Mr. Jim Snellenberger, representing World Development, stated that what they are proposing is that since this is a private street, private community they will place a gate at the entrance so the homes will not even be seen. The existing homeowners will not be driving into this gated community. The values of the homes will be starting at $230,000 which is upper end for this community. 21. Mr. (Veil Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated that if it is to be a gated community, then do not make it a part of Quinterra. 22. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated the retention basin is owned by the City of La Quinta. What will happen when we get a six foot flood and a child drowns? Chairman Kirk stated staff would answer questions regarding the drainage later on. 23. Mr. Stitsworth stated this product, whether or not it is Wildflower or what, this home will be built all over the desert, and are compatible with what is being built throughout the entire `Valley. Some of the people present are from the prior product. When Mr. Snellenberger built they were required to be compatible. In regard to the smaller unit, there is only one with a two car garage, and it is set back and not seen from the other homes. In his opinion, these homes will only increase the property values. 24. Commissioner Butler asked if the houses would start at $23O,000. C:AMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 Mr. Stitworth stated yes. 25. Mr. John Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera, asked if it was impossible to have the tract come off Adams Street. 26. Ms. Karen Job, 79-100 Ladera, stated her concern was that she did not know there would be a gate, will there be signage and will she have to be concerned about the safety of the gate. They have children who could be hurt by this gate. 27. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. 28. Chairman Kirk asked staff regarding the compatibility issue. Planing Manager Christine di lorio explained that it was a new tract, not associated under the old tract number and therefore, under our Zoning Code there is a requirement that there be a review of the homes for architecture, but not compatibility because it is not a part of the existing tract. 29. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address the flood drainage issue and access off of Adams Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to the drainage, the retention basin for the Quinterra project accepts water from 40 acres and this tract is less than five acres. When the parcel map was prepared for the First School the land was divided into two parcels and the City asked the applicant of the parcel map to review what it would do to the retention basin if they added the drainage water from these homes, they indicated that during a 100 year storm, it would raise the level of the water six inches at the maximum. At that time, the City anticipated this project would have a public street draining to it and since it was publically funded for maintenance, the City determined they could do this. The applicant's change to a private street does create some opportunity to reconsider sending private water into a public retention basin. In regard to the depth of the retention basin, it is standard practice in the desert to use retention basins, with La Quinta having one of the more restrictive retention basin requirements, we size the basins to be five feet deep when the 100 year flood occurs. We allow a maximum slope of 3:1. This is how the City addresses the safety issues. The City realizes that any body of water does raise a potential for hazards C':\My Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 to people. In regard to taking access off Adams Street, staff stated that if the traffic were to exit onto Adams Street, it would need to be moved away from the First School of the Desert access and mindful of the street entering into Quinterra. Staff indicated one area where access could be made onto Adams Street. It could create design problems as Adams Street is higher than the existing ground so the street would have to dive down rapidly to come down into the tract and avoid building up the pads any more than what is already proposed. Both stormwater and sewer drainage would tie into the existing line in Ladera Drive and/or create its own retention basin. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the height of the original compatibility issue he was involved and it does not apply to every houses to be built in North La Quinta. It only applies to houses within a given tract. He too, shares the concern of added traffic, but how much traffic can come from ten houses. Streets were built for traffic and not intended as a playground for children. In regard to the compatibility, these houses are different than the ones that are existing, but the ones Mr. Snellenberger built are different than those built by Windsor. That is a natural progression and they are around the corner and not in plain site. He was surprised to hear there would be private streets and a gate and he takes offense to new things being added during a public hearing by the developer. 31. Commissioner Robbins stated he too was appalled to see Wildflower plans submitted for this development and if the developer cannot take the time to put together a set of plans that are for a specific piece of property, they he does not want to waste his time reviewing it for approval. He then asked what the minimum lot size was for this area. Staff stated 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Robbins stated he doubted Lot 5 would meet that requirement as the cul-de-sac has been changed. Because they have private streets and the setback is measured from the property line, these houses will be closer to the street even with the 20 foot setback because the 20 feet is measured from a different place. If he were to approve the project, he would want whatever the setback is from the curb at the Quinterra tract to apply to this project so they are in fact an equivalent setback. If this property is going to get by without providing for its own drainage retention, then there should be some tradeoffs. Some of CAMN, Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 those trade offs, even though not bound by the compatibility requirements, if they are going to gain an extra lot because they are taking advantage of something that has taken place in Quinterra, then the trade offs are that they have to meet some additional compatibility requirements and more closely fit with the existing development. He understands the problem with elevation differences and how it would be difficult to come off Adams Street. He does not believe the ten lots create a great traffic issue. He too, does not like to have items added at the last moment. The gating should have been thought of earlier and presented as an option. 32. Community Development Director Jerry Herman, stated that taking access off Adams Street with the height differential, has the potential of raising the lots adjacent to Quinterra on the east to a pad elevation of three feet difference. These pads would i be a minimum of three feet higher than those in Quinterra. Currently, they are only about one and a half foot different. 33. Chairman Kirk asked if these houses were reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC). Staff stated no as they were approved elevations under Wildflower and the ALRC was reviewing them for design and not compatibility. 34. Commissioner Butler stated he likes the Wildflower houses so he does not have an issue with the elevations, but has this ever been done in the City where a private community with ten lots and gated were created. Staff stated it has been done in PGA West by The Woodard Group and the Medalist units at the Norman Course. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that here is an established community and all of a sudden within this community we put a gated community in the center of it and ignore some of the surrounding environment because it is a gated community; so therefore, the compatibility issue is not valid and the traffic generated from this is also mute because it is only ten lots. Is the Commission doing the right thing from a planning standpoint? 35. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioner Butler and he understands the homeowners concern that the identify of the Quinterra tract will be continued. He also, is not too happy with the project. 36. Chairman Kirk stated the entire Commission is sensitive to the City Laws, the Zoning Code, General Plan, etc. and try not to be hap- CANly I)ocuments\WI'DOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 hazard in regard to decision making issues, and the law in this instance states compatibility review should not apply. It appears however, that the intent of the Compatibility Ordinance does apply to this development. As stated by Commissioner Robbins, we may not be able to use compatibility review, at the same time this developer is looking for some favors of the existing development. They are looking for access, drainage, and even the name. Maybe we could use these issues to improve this development resolve some of the issues. The CC&R may be one issue whereby the developer could add the CC&R's to this development. Maybe the developer would want to prohibit any signs on the gate. These are suggestions that could be used to make it a better project. 37. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed that some of these issues could be resolved with the developer. 38. Commissioner Tyler stated that typically the citizens of La Quinta have a misconception of CC&R's. The CC&R's on any property, in essence, have no legal force and affect unless there is a HOA to enforce it. The existing Quinterra homeowners do not have an HOA and therefore, they are looking at a piece of paper that does not mean anything and you have to look to the City's regulations to have them enforced by the City. This small group will have an HOA who will enforce their CC&R's and may have more power to enforce the CC&R's than the rest of the community. 39. Chairman Kirk stated some suggestions have been made that could be negotiated at this time, or the applicant may want to ask for a continuance. Staff stated that they had found the square footage for Plans 1-4 and it was Mr. Snellenberger's first Quinterra project and the Plan 1 is 1968 square feet and there proposal at this time is 1,700 square feet and the compatibility review allows a fluctuation of ten percent. 40. Commissioner Robbins stated that if you have used the compatibility issue once to get to 1900 square feet from the original proposal, you would have to go back to the original house plans to determine the ten percent. Mr. Snellenberger stated the original was 2,025 square feet. He further stated the gate is an option he was offering and it did not have to be built. He would prefer to resolve the issues at this meeting rather than continue it. In regard to the garages, more than half of the houses are the side loaded garages which have a very large driveway so the parking C:AMv Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 issue is resolved. 41. Commissioner Tyler stated he was surprised to see the name Quinterra being used and asked if the name could be changed. Mr. Snellenberger stated it was not an issue to them. It was only to identify the location of the tract to draw people to the location. If they had a different name they would need signage and they did not want to go through that. 42. Commissioner Abels asked that the developer if the project could be called Quinterra II? Mr. Snellenberger stated it did not matter what it was called. The problem was to get the people back to the development. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the project should be continued to allow the developer time to resolve the issues raised. Mr. Snellenberger stated the issue was the sign. 43. Chairman Kirk stated signage was one issue, but it was not compatibility related as lot sizes, setbacks, drainage, access, etc. Mr. Snellenberger stated he could put a smaller house on the lot and have it set back further. They can put a public street in with the smaller house and sell it and make the same profit, but it is not what they want to do. 44. Commissioner Abels stated he is not in favor of continuing projects, but in this case there are too many issues to be resolved at this meeting. 45. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to deny the project as submitted. 46. Chairman Kirk stated that as the developer has offered the Commission little choice. He asked the applicant if he would prefer the Commission vote on the denial motion or continue the project. Mr. Snellenberger stated he would prefer the continuance. 47. Commissioners Abels/Robbins withdrew their motion. 48. Discussion followed regarding meeting dates. Staff suggested the Commission stay with their regular meeting dates of April 1 1 th or 25th 49. Chairman Kirk stated the issues for the developer to address were C:AMv Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 17 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 setbacks, unit sizes, garage doors and their location, name, gated or not, compatibility with the existing units, how the elevations are sequenced on the lots, and whether Lot B could be a retention basin. Mr. Snellenberger stated Lot B is used for a turn around area at the gate. 50. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to April 11, .2000, with the developer addressing the following issues: a. House sequence on lots b. Retention area C. Garage doors d. Name e. Gated or not f. Compatibility g. Size of houses h. Setbacks L Construction entrance j. Private vs. public street k. Drainage I. Lot sizes Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission there would be two joint meetings with the City Council. One in April and one in September. Commissioners suggested May 9, 2000 and September 26, 2000, be submitted to the City Council for their consideration. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of March 21, 2000. IX. ADJOURNMENT: C:AM-,Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 18 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 11, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:09 P.M. on March 28, 2000. Respectfully submitted, BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California CAMy I)ocuments\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 19 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11,2000 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 29702 APPLICANT: KSL CASITAS CORPORATION REQUEST: APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE 3.17 ACRES INTO 30 RESORT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB GROUNDS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97-343 FOR WHICH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS CERTIFIED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1997. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CHANGES PROPOSED WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Tourist Commercial (RSP) ZONING: TC (Tourist Commercial) BACKGROUND: This request is being continued to the meeting of April 25, 2000, because the proposed map eliminates required parking spaces for the resort homes. A Parcel Map and a Site Development Permit to provide the required parking will be submitted and considered at the next Planning Commission meeting along with this request. pAstan\tt 29702 pc rpt cont.wpd PROJECT REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for 30 residential lots and miscellaneous lots to accommodate 30 resort homes (Attachment 2). The previous subdivision (TT 28545) provided 29 residential lots on this site. This revised layout of this map opens the interior common areas to create larger spaces and adds one carriage resort home over the parking area (proposed Lot 21) adjacent to Avenida Obregon. RECOMMENDATION: Continue request to the meeting of April 25, 2000. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map Exhibit (8.5" x 11 ") Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager p:\stan\tt 29702 pc rpt cont.wpd nm�om n49w D as to TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29702 ATTACH LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB..,.,,,.. cnry Ow LA Ql UWA oaswmma"V - - - an Q tr tr t tr tr L r (.mta mama owe) u• Ds Ds ss OaeN rrtrmm Dmir) mwrr 0aear OR t r• aDaa an TYPICAL CROSS BECTLON xu VN' m M91P wv to» rr D tusttDre ar taa e m o 0 ov r. mmat, m as mtam ttmwa,mttatmtmtmImeonn I.w ayi�e m w tar a M twp team or rtemx tmtNew t l- t mw 4u 3.17 AC. LOT TAOLL&MM LOT NO" E I= t tract a - MOW tas IMAM 1wD.r,trmD -cum M im on w c puss" a ou Doc to D - In" tar Dal Dm0 My zm mr LAM TABLLA7fON UNIT S.E. NUMBER OF UMRS In t tYt r Uw toes tea lam ms 3 atm a ow In D sm a tmm tcma 3D tams SILUM owf Dtn aor trDerer tart DewoaDtstmmmtnwm DwMr t' rrmx awiaaa ra eam amiar°a°�tD aN0°Oiertat a ca9—owm am NOW z Dz maarat au m mva® as s a tmrw® m urataatm tma Du mr rates m traatos, w tm wwcmt m Im my mML am som y WORD to mm own collm v ® tm tva WAN aa 0 to 30 so 120 PREPARED: MARCH 3, 2000 REVISED: MARCH 9. 2000 REVISED: MARCH 24. 2000 rua1°6 r ® DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 88-920 PGA Houlevnrd (780) 884-8000 La 4ufata. CA VM3 FAX (780) 884-8005 I .0ONI Y �_Lfi�M�C r.tr a ® as m�u rr' w msa Nmi mms tommwm NT 2 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11, 2000, CONTINUED FROM MARCH 14, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: M&H REALTY PARTNERS ARCHITECT: DAVID GEISER, AIA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: URBAN ARENA REQUEST: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 6,600 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL PAD BUILDING AND ADDITION TO VON'S SUPERMARKET LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN PLAZA LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: CC ('COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NOW RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) ZONING: CC gCOMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NOW RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY) SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: CC / VACANT COMMERCIAL LAND SOUTH: CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA EAST: CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA WEST: CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303, CLASS 3C, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT IT IS FOR A STRUCTURE IN AN URBAN AREA WHERE ALL NECESSARY PUBLIC SERVICES p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 4-11 pc rpt.wpd AND FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IS NECESSARY. PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: This request within the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission at the March 14, 2000, meeting (Attachment 1). The Commission continued the application and directed the applicant to address a number of issues (Attachment 2). These include the building designs compatibility with the center, the revised sign program for the building, proposed uses, tenant parking, and customer parking adequacy. Several tenants in the center voiced concerns that parking use for the proposed building would overtax the easterly half of the parking lot which is heavily used during the winter season. The applicant was directed to address the following issues: 1. Building design compatibility with the center; 2. Maximizing parking and providing an employee parking program; 3. Submission of Von's Supermarket expansion plans for approval; and, 4. Signs for the proposed building. The applicant has submitted revised building plans for the proposed pad building, an employee parking program, a plan showing a net 11 additional spaces south of the Beer Hunter on Pad 7, five net spaces adjacent to the new building on the east side, and a computer generated rendering of a portion of the front of Von's with their proposed addition. BACKGROUND: The building site is part of Plaza La Quinta, a 131,040 square foot commercial shopping center originally developed in the early 1980's. Two turfed vacant pad sites remain, one south of the Beer Hunter and the subject site, immediately east of Downey Savings adjacent to Highway 111. Major tenants in the center include Von's Supermarket, The Beer Hunter, and Downey Savings. The center is primarily designed in an early California architectural style utilizing beige plaster walls, decorative tile accents and paving, wood framed multi -pane windows and doors, and mudded red clay tile roofs. Between Downey Savings and the site is a two way driveway connecting the center to Highway 111. A number of Date Palm and California Pepper trees exist along the p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 4-11 pc rpt.wpd west and north perimeter of the site. In -season art shows have been held on this site for a number of years. REQUEST: Revised Design: The pad building design has been revised to incorporate additional tile: roof (Attachment 3). The two parapet towers at the southeast and southwest corners of the building have been modified to have a intersecting tile gable roof. Decorative quadrafoils are shown in the eave of each gable end. The arches in these towers has been eliminated. A column has been added in the middle of each opening. A portion of the back of each roof will be cutout to allow installation of a roof top air conditioner. Facing Highway 111, a tile overhang which is an extension of the adjoining roof will be provided above the false windows attached to the parapet wall. Two pilasters have been added on this elevation of the building. The height of the building will remain at 22 feet. The potential multiple tenant commercial building still proposes 6,600 square feet of floor area. The building is set back 50 feet from Highway 111, as required. The building will utilize exterior plaster walls in two light colors to match that used in the center and a accent tile trim around the windows and several wall areas. The parapet walls will be topped with a decorative cornice treatment. Multi -paned doors and windows on a stucco ledge are used. Proposed exterior lighting will match that used in the shopping center. No revised landscaping plan has been submitted. With the previous plan the existing trees along the west perimeter will be removed, while those next to Highway 111 will be retained along with most of the turf. Plants materials include some of those used in the center, as well as others compatible in growth patterns, water needs, and appearance. Some berming will occur adjacent to the building facing Highway 111. Although 9,287 square feet of floor area are proposed for Von's Supermarket, only 4,444 square feet is new construction. The balance is conversion of existing shop space to market use. 17 parking spaces will be removed for this construction. This lost of spaces has been accounted for in the overall parking count. A computer modified photograph of the front of Von's Supermarket showing the tower portion of the building where "VON'S is installed has been submitted indicating the tower will be extended over the proposed expansion area (Attachment 4). This is the only information submitted on the expansion. Revised Parkins The revised plans include new parking spaces on the east side of the new building. A net of five new spaces will be provided adjacent to the new building after losing two p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 4-11 pc rpt.wpd existing spaces south of the new building. A plan showing parking next to the Beer Hunter on Pad 7 has been submitted showing 14 spaces (Attachment 5). However, three spaces are to be eliminated to provide access to the new spaces. Therefore, a net of 11 spaces is provided. The applicant has submitted a draft employee parking plan requiring they park behind the center to the south (Attachment 6). Once this fills up, some alternate spaces are proposed adjacent to Highway 111. Additional lighting at the rear is proposed to increase security. This program includes employee sticker or pass use and "20 minute parking" for those spaces adjacent to the multi tenant portion of the center. A revised calculation of the parking required per Section 9.150.060 (Table 1502) for the center after the new building and Von's addition indicates the center requires 578 stalls. Existing parking totals 597 spaces. This includes the five new spaces adjacent to the proposed building, 11 new stalls next to the Beer Hunter and striping for seven stalls behind Von's not presently used. Sign Program Modification The applicant has not submitted an amended sign program for the revised elevation plans. Therefore, the existing program applies. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 1, 2000, and discussed Staffs recommendations to revise the south facade, add a tile roof mansard element, modify the storefront windows and doors to provide multi -paned windows with, wood mullions, muntins, and frames on a stucco ledge, and match the centers colors, textures, materials, and construction techniques so as to provide design compatibility with the multi -tenant buildings within the center. The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2000-005, recommending approval, subject to conditions (Attachment 7). PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 3, 2000, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the center boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. A second notice was mailed to all tenants and property owners within 500 feet of the center boundaries. FINDINGS: The findings as required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Code can be made for the revised plans for the new building, as noted in the p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 4-11 pc rpt.wpd attached Resolution. With regard to the Von's expansion, there is not adequate information to approve this request at this time. A separate application for approval is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- ,Site Development Permit 2000- 667, approving development plans, subject to findings and the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of March 14, 2000 3. Revised plan exhibits 4. Von' Supermarket expansion photograph 5. Plan for new parking spaces next to Beer Hunter 6. Parking Plan for employees 7. ALRC minutes for the meeting of March 1, 2000 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 4-11 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN PLAZA LA QUINTA, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 APPLICANT: M&H REALTY PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 141h day of March, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued hearing on the 11 to day of April, 2000, to consider the request of M&H REALTY PARTNERS to approve the construction plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building and addition to Von's market, west of the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111, within Plaza La Quinta more particularly described as: APN: 604-050-016, 009, 010, AND 013 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on March 1, 2000, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2000-005, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for the new building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan- The General Plan designates the project area as Community Commercial (with a Non -Residential Overlay). The proposed commercial building and addition is consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code- The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to the 50 foot setback from Highway 111, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and sign size. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3c, of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act in that it is for a structure(s) each not exceeding p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc res 4-11.wpd Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-667 April 11, 2000 10,000 square feet in an urban area where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. 4. Architectural Design- With the minor recommended changes, the design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the building uses styles, colors, and materials matching those used in the center. 5. Site Design- With the recommended changes, the site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the site design complies with applicable site design requirements and is designed to be compatible with the center and surrounding neighborhood. The plan includes provisions for 16 new parking spaces in the most impacted area of the center. 6. Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. 7. Sign Program- With use of the existing sign program, the building will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and be in harmony and visually related to the proposed building and surrounding Plaza La Quinta shopping center. 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; p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc res 4-11.wpd Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-667 April 11, 2000 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2000-667 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit: "A", attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 11 t' day of April, 2000, 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 p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc res 4-11.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 M&H REALTY PARTNERS APRIL 11, 2000 EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2000-667, with the exception of the Von's Supermarket expansion, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit for the commercial pad building shall be used within one year of the date of approval; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in the La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.200.080. 3. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in sellecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Final architectural working drawings for the buildings, substantially conforming to this approval, including all revisions required by the permit shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit by the Building and Safety Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc coa 4-11.Wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 M&H REALTY PARTNERS APRIL 11, 2000 plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 6. All letters from utility or service agencies on file in the Community Development Department shall be complied with. FIRE MARSHAL 7. Provide or show there exists a water system for the residential units capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 8. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4-" x 2- 1 /2" x 2-1 /2") located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 9. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the folllowing certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 11. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant and a minimum of 25 feet from the building. 12. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Standard 72. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc coa 4-11.Wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 M&H REALTY PARTNERS APRIL 11, 2000 should contact the fire department Planning and Engineering office for requirements. 14. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 15. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months of approval. 16. Final conditions will be addressed when the architectural building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. FEES 17. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the Development Impact Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. PUBLIC WORKS 18. The applicant/developer shall remove the existing asphalt handicapped ramp from the parking area on east side of the proposed building, and if necessary to maintain required handicap spaces, replace the ramp with an approved concrete structure. MISCELLANEOUS 19. Preliminary landscaping and final landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation plans, substantially conforming to this approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit by the Building and Safety Department. Plans shall include a minimum of two 24" box (minimum 2 inch caliper) on the east side of new building. 20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following revisions or notes on the plans shall be made to the building plans, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director: A. The roof tile shall be "mudded" to match that used in the center. B. Walkways around the building shall match that used in the center. p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc coa 4-11.Wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-667 M&H REALTY PARTNERS APRIL 11, 2000 C. Storefront windows shall use brown wood or similar composite frames, be multi -paned, and utilize a plaster wall and ledge along the bottom, similar to that used in the center. 21. Materials, colors and plaster finish shall match those used in the multi -tenant portion of the center. 22. The building shall use the existing sign program to identify the tenants. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the new parking area (1 1 spaces) shown on the plan next to the Beer Hunter shall be installed. Final design of entry to spaces shall be approved by Public Works Department and Community Development Department to ensure safe ingress and egress. p:\stan\sdp 2000-667 pc coa 4-11.Wpd � A 0s AW.`. 5T FRANCIS OF ASSIST CHURCH CASE MAP ATTACHMENT 1 Rico Hoge: avj ORTH cnse No. � SDP 2000-667 SCALE: M&H REALTY PARTNERS I NTS ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 b. Condition #19: 1 elete the last part of the sentence: "Prior to the openin the applicant would be required to pay a license fee off780." Unanimously apprred. r 6. It was moved ad seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Minute 11lotion 2000-006, approving Minor Use Permit 2000-195, sulect to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as amended. w a. Condition #18: Add, "Commercial food and beverage ventin rs that are not selling prepacked food items, shall obt a permit from the Riverside County Health De artment and all commercial vendors will be required to otain a City business license." b. /Condition #19: Delete the last part of the sentence: "Prior to the opening, the applicant would be required to pay a license fee of $780." VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: � A. Site Development Permit 2000-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners for approval of development plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained on 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 Abels stated the site plan on display was not the same as what had been submitted to the Commission. The parking stalls on the east side are not indicated on their site. Staff stated parking stalls will be added to the east elevation. Commissioner Abels asked if the total number of stalls noted in the staff report was correct. Staff pointed out the additional stalls on the site plan. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 3. Commissioner Tyler noted his site plan denotes parking spaces next to Highway 111 and asked how many parking stalls were being added. Staff stated three parking spaces were being added. 4. Commissioner Butler asked if the 50-foot landscape setback could be used for additional parking. Staff stated it could not. 5. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty Partners, asked if he could speak after the public comment period. 6. Mr. .dames Elmer, 78-477 Highway .1 1 1, representing the Beachside Cafe, stated he is allowed 15 parking spaces according to the parking study. He seats 60 patrons outside and 115 inside and has 22 employees per shift. There are not enough parking spaces even for his restaurant. Then, the Beer Hunter utilizes parking spaces all the way to Downey Savings and his customers are complaining about how far away they have to park. To add this building with additional parking demands to an already bad situation, is something he does not want to see happen. 7. Ms. Freddie Hall, Broker Associate of Fred Sands Realty, stated she has been at this Center since 1974, and the best use of this site would be a parking lot. She requested this item be continued to allow time to notify all the tenants of the Center. One of the problems is that the restaurant parking starts before the businesses are closed. She asked if the parking requirements were the same requirements used when approving similar projects. There are parking spaces behind the buildings for the employees, but they do not feel safe and do not use them. She went on to note the number of parking spaces allotted to each of the tenants. 8. Chairman Kirk asked if this project met the current parking standards. Staff stated that based on the current requirements, it does. With regards to shopping center requirements, if the shopping center contains 50,000 square feet or more, the requirement would be one space per 250 square feet. As this is a mixed use site shared parking standards apply. Staff went on to explain how the parking requirements are determined. 9. Ms. Holly Escobedo, the Book Rack, 78329 Highway 1 1 1, stated her concerns about the parking. She is allowed five parking spaces and has four employees. She does park in the rear of the CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 building and even there she has a hard time finding a parking space. She is a retail business and if she has to look in the back, where are her customers parking. Customers have stated they will not come in because they will not carry their books from across the parking lot. She asked if anyone had checked to see how many of the parking spaces are currently being used and why wasn't underground parking considered. 10. Ms. Kathy Smith, TL Millers and Associates, 78-451 Highway 1 1 1, stated she works two doors down from the Beachside Cafe and would like to request the Commission come to the site and review the parking. There is no parking. When her job required her to go to court she is concerned there will not be a parking space available when she gets back. In the back, the parking is limited. There has been vandalism and cars stolen, so it is not safe. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission at this time. Mr. David Geiser, Director of Design for M & H Realty Partners, stated he knew there was a parking issue at this Center, but that is due to it being a successful Center. Pads 5 and 7 are both available for development. They have no plans to develop Pad 7 as the Beer Hunter desires to install a patio on a portion of this location. As pointed out in their parking study the Code does allow the development as proposed. He went on to review the parking requirements. Because of the parking problem they have brought a manager on site to handle the parking issues and the new development. They are considering developing Pad 7 for parking. The issue is the tenant mix; they have two popular restaurants at the same end of the Center. The idea they hope to implement is enforceable employee parking in the rear of the buildings. If safety is an issue, the property manager needs to be informed to address the issue. The site is allowed to be developed based on the requirements of the Center, per the Code and law. The Vons Supermarket remodel is to expand the back and east side of the store and will impact the parking minimally. Their concern is that this store will leave the Center if they cannot generate more business. They need an additional 9,500 square feet for them. He noted the site plan in the Commission packet is correct and there is no additional parking proposed for the east side of the building. In regard to staff's statement that any tenant could modify their sign is incorrect; this is a multi -tenant in -line building. The design of the building does not allow for a hanging CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 sign as there is in some portions of the Center. This sign program is consistent with what is there because there are a variety of signs currently being allowed in the Center. They did not want to apply for any variances, but only to build what is allowed by the City Code. The design of the building was a function of what is there at the Center. He went on to note the similarities between this building and the other buildings and show the changes made to their plans based on the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee's (ALRC) recommendation. Lastly, staff is requesting Von's Shopping apply for their remodel under their own site development permit. It helps them in their negotiations with Vons to have a site approval by the Planning Commission. 12. Commissioner Abels stated he had no objection to including the Von's expansion, but what happens to the existing tenants. Mr. Geiser stated they will move them possibly into this new building. Commissioner Abels stated he was glad to hear they are willing to take the parking into consideration. Perhaps this should be continued to a future date to consider the parking. He had spoken to people at the Vons Shopping market and they stated they did not have any idea about an expansion. He asked how many parking spaces would be supplied by converting Pad 7. Mr. Geiser stated about 15 more stalls. 13. Commissioner Robbins asked if the applicant would have any objection to making the development of parking on Pad 7 a part of the conditions. Mr. Geiser stated he would have no objection if the application is not continued. If the Commission wants a parking plan as part of the approval, he has no objection. 14. Commissioner Butler stated the drawing does show the changes as recommended by the ALRC, but he believes staff's recommendation is also valid. The raised parapets do allow signs to be installed at this location. His concerns about these issues as well as the parking, and seeing that the tenants are notified are enough to warrant a continuance of the project. The tenants have a right to know what is proposed here. Mr. Geiser stated they know there is a problem with parking and they are working to resolve those issues. If the Commission is going to continue the project for issues other than parking, then he is in favor. In regard to the notification of the tenants, it is unfortunate but the City only requires a developer to notice property owners. Commissioner Butler stated that in addition to this, the CAMy DocumentsNPDOCSTO-14-20.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 architectural detail has not been addressed as recommended by staff. Mr. Geiser stated they have addressed everything except the mansard roof, which the ALRC agreed with them. Staff has now changed their opinion and brought a new issue. Staff's recommendation is not possible. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked if the parking study included the parking spaces in the rear. Mr. Geiser stated yes. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were enough parking spaces in the back for the number of employees. Mr. Geiser stated they have not done an employee parking study, but have provided the number of parking spaces required by City Code. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Von's expansion would eliminate any of the parking spaces. Mr. Geiser stated yes and it was included in its study. Commissioner Tyler asked what tenants would be going into this new building. Mr. Geiser stated Rubio's Baja Grill, a pet business and dry cleaner are proposed. Discussion followed regarding the parking plan. Commissioner Tyler stated he, as well as the other Commissioners, have all looked at the area and agree with the parking problem. He too, is concerned with the design. From the south you see a building design throughout the Center that contains tile roofs and this building has no tile, which does not blend with the Center. Mr. Geiser stated they do not want a row of clay tile roofs, but rather a variety to the site by the use of the details used in the building. He gave examples of those details. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were any examples of the: Von's expansion. Mr. Geiser stated the architectural portion of that permit would come back to the Commission. 16. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. Staff showed pictures of the architectural style of the existing building. Chairman Kirk asked if there were pictures of Downey Savings as well. Staff displayed additional pictures of the Center. 17. Commissioner Abels stated the biggest problem is parking and even though it conforms to Code, it is a problem. He is glad to see the owner is willing to turn Pad 7 into parking. 18. Commissioner Robbins was also concerned with the parking and that one of the proposed tenants for this new building is a restaurant which will increase the intensity of the parking problem. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 The only way he could resolve this is to make the conversion of Pad 7 into parking. In regard to the architecture, he personally is not drawn to the red tile. The design of the building allows for several locations for signs and to him it would detract from the building to have them hanging. He asked if the Commission could deny the project even though it conforms with the Code. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commission can look at the environmental considerations. Even though the Zoning Code is met, the issues raised have to be mitigated, which is how the problem with parking could be addressed. Commissioner Robbins stated he had no problem with the addition of the Von's expansion. 19. Commissioner Butler stated his issues were the parking and architectural design of the building. He concurs with staff's recommendations and even though the applicant noted his opinion, he thinks the covered walkways and tile should be included. 20. Commissioner Tyler stated it was nice to consider Pad 7 for parking, but even that additional parking will create problems with access. He asked staff if they could add the Von's expansion if it had not been a part of the public hearing notice. 21. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked the applicant if the front elevation of Von's, or the empty pads that would be used for the expansion, would have be changed. Mr. Geiser stated that since the elevations of the shop buildings are lower the front would change. Staff noted this would have to have a condition added to the approval requiring these elevations to be approved by staff, or they would have to be submitted as a different application. 22. Commissioner Tyler stated he has no problem with the trellis, but in order to blend in the south elevation, the building needs to add the roof tile. 23. Chairman Kirk stated he agrees there is a parking problem. He also agrees with Commissioner Butler in that the architecture is an issue. He is not pleased with the Downey Savings building as it also does not fit in with the rest of the Center. Signs are a real issue as well. As this is not a single tenant, but a multi -tenant, problems are raised. Perhaps the building could be reduced in size to add the additional parking. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2000 24. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this project to April 11, 2000. Staff noted that with the continuance, staff would notify the tenants of the hearing. In addition, this will allow the applicant time to submit the elevations for the Von's expansion. 25. Commissioner Butler stated there are unanswered questions regarding the Beer Hunter outdoor seating as well. Staff noted that was not part of this application. 26. Chairman Kirk asked the applicant if he had any questions. Mr. Geiser stated the Commission has identified the issues, but provided no direction for him to address. He would therefore, prefer they act on the project at this time and allow him to appeal their decision. Chairman Kirk asked staff if they had any suggestions. 27. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the applicant should obtain approval by the Planning Commission. 28. Commissioner Robbins stated the applicant should respond to the same issues he would appeal to the City Council. Mr. Geiser stated the parking issue cannot be resolved. If the Commission is going to vote no because of the parking, then let him go forward on an appeal. 29. Commissioner Tyler stated ALRC is a recommending body to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council except in some cases such as Site Development Permits, where the Commission has the final action. 30. Chairman Kirk stated he did not believe the parking issue: was a fatal flaw, provided the applicant came back and addressed the issues, they may be resolved. 31. There being no further discussion, the Commission voted, on the motion. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. Chairman Kirk recessed at 8:43 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m. c.\Mv T)ncuments\WPDOCS\PC3-14-20.wpd 9 ATTACHMENT 3 IS 11 "X17" FLANS ATTACHMENT 4 �14 71 > '�L.IHA,AY PAP44IN6 11 ENT 5 %I%CRL i PLAZA LA 0LIW7A ATTACHMENT pp Qos w V. Or 77. 04 ' O C I �i7. 3/4 /.P. :c. s •a/.as. el 4j WALL Posr yr W . F Bsoo. _ vy 3urTER__. _ a . % l �� IQ�i• OL SOP Ll o SOO V. C� 'II i • M&H PROPERTY :MANAGEMENT, INC. March 27, 2000 Re: Proposed Parking Program Plaza La Quinta - La Quinta, CA ATTACHMENT 6 78-401 Highway 111, Suite'V' La Quinta, California 92253 Ph: 76C.771.4580 Fax: 76C.771.4680 In efforts to increase the availability of prime parking spaces for Plaza La Quinta customers, the following parking recommendations have been prepared for evaluation by the Property Management and Tenants of Plaza La Quinta. Based on the anticipated effectiveness of the recommendations, all or part of this list shall become the Parking Program for Plaza La Quinta to be implemented and enforced by Property Management and adhered to by the Tenants. • All Tenants and employees of Tenants leasing spaces 1 thru 17 shalI endeavor to park in the designated spaces behind (south side) the Center. Should spaces be unavailable behind the Center for these individuals, they shall endeavor to park in designated 'Employee Parking' area in front of Vons adjacent to Highway 111, see attached map. • All Tenants and employees of Tenants leasing spaces 18 thru 27 shall endeavor to park in the designated spaces behind (south side) the Center. Should spaces be unavailable for these individuals, they shall endeavor to park in front of their lease space in the row of parking facing Hwy 111, see attached map. • All Tenants and employees of Tenants leasing second floor office space (suites 29 thru 38) shall park in the designated spaces behind (south side) the Center, see attached map. • The spaces that park directly in front of Tenant spaces 1 thru 24 shall have curbs painted green with the text'20 MIN. PARKING' painted at the front end of the stall. • To address safety concerns at the rear of the Center, lights shall be added at the rear -building wall or on light standards to provide a minimum of three foot-candles of light throughout the rear parking; area from dusk until dawn. Lights to be activated by light sensor. • A site plan designating Tenant and employee parking areas and alternate areas shall be distributed to all Tenants. These plans shall be mounted in a conspicuous employee area of each Tenant space. • Parking 'passes', 'stickers' or other identifying devices shall be mounted in each Tenant and employee vehicle for compliance identification by the Property Management. It is recognized that only with active Tenant and employee participation will this program be successful and that it is to the Tenant's and employees benefit that this program succeed. The Contact person for the Property Management is: Bonnie Loza M&H Property Management 78-401 Highway 111, Suite'V' Plaza La Quinta La Quinta, CA 92253 760.771.4580 / EMS NOiDNIHSVM Q Q 70 w me LL- tZ- a' Q w� J ¢ Q z = 5 48 C(:2 i RI c ATACHMIENT #7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA March 1, 2000 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and Dennis Cunningham. C. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Reynolds. Unanimously approved. D. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan. Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. ][I. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. ][II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of February 2, 2000. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by C ' lee Mnmembers Bobbitt/Cunningham to approve the minutes as submitted. mouslapproved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: . 'k, A. bite Development Permit 2000-667; a request of M & H Realty Partners for approval ' of architectural and landscaping plans for a 6,600 square foot commercial pad building located at the southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Plaza. La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if he would like to address the Committee. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 3-1-00.wpd Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 Mr. David Geiser, M & H Realty Partners, owners of the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center stated they have gone to great extent to see that this building matches the rest of the center. It is their intention to maintain the architectural integrity of the existing design. To them, the issue is that staff is asking them to have a tile mansard roof on south elevation. To them the Center itself has a lot of different architectural features especially, where the tower is located and the plaza opens up. The idea is that as you see the building from Highway 111, it will match the rest of the Center, but from the Center looking north they want the outdoor plaza look with an outdoor sitting area to be the focal point. The arcade as suggested by staff, would create an area that would be more of a travel through than a sit down plaza. In contrast to staff s opinion, the flat trellis look does present the human scale which adds to the architectural character of the Center and increases the connection between the two buildings. They strongly want to keep the trellis as it will be a selling point. The blue tile around the doors is to match the existing Center as well as the exposed wood. They do not object to changing the doors on the trash enclosure to metal. They can change the windows as recommended by staff. Regarding the recommendation of staff for a wood storefront, they are requesting to use some of the newer building material technology to create a newer storefront system. They would be willing to use a plaster bullhead, but wood mullions are difficult to maintain. He went on to list the architectural details of the building that matched the Center. A second issue in staff s recommendation is Item # 1, where staff is asking them be resubmitted their plans to the Community Development Departrnent for review prior to submitting for a building permit. They have submitted their plans and want to be able to continue with the plan check process. 3 4. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is hard to create a rendering that will give a true description of what the project will look like, but in this instance the only item that appears to match the rest of the Center is the lamppost. This particular Center has a lot of texture that this building is missing. By not using mullions you lose the texture look. This building gives the appearance of a contemporary Spanish take off. This looks more like the Albertsons Plaza across the street. Plaza La Quinta had the higher file and full mudded tiles. The tiles on this building will have to match the rest of the Center exactly. When the Plaza was built, the developer created a more Spanish look. This store should be a continuation of what is there and appears to be going the wrong direction. He is not opposed to the trellis idea, but the rest of the building looks like a box store. Mr. Geiser stated that on the north elevation the details are the same. They are trying to combine all the elements of the Center. 5. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they agreed with all of staff s recommendations. Mr. Geiser stated they did. Committee Member Cunningham reiterated they do not want the storefront look. For the C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC 3-1-OO.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 1, 2000 windows, they could use a composite material that looks like wood and use true divided lights, but to stay close to staff s recommendations. This building is an in -fill that does have a distinct style. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agrees with Committee Member Cunningham. The east and north elevation are fine. The windows are riot the same as the rest of the Center, but do resemble the Downey Savings building. The detail that is missing is a tower element. This building is all flat. 1his is what is missing and a key element that should be included. The south elevation lacks architectural detail. On the rest of the Center you can see tile from every angle. Mr. Geiser stated they too wanted to have the tower element, but there is a height restriction on Highway 111 that prohibits the tower. Their original design did have the tower and mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated you would be able to see bits and pieces of tile from different angles as you traveled through the Center and he agrees the building would be better with a tower. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the walls are straight and the Center has a lot of variations. 7. Committee Member Cunningham stated that if this was done in a rendering form you could see how the tile would be used. He reiterated that the problem is that this Center has so much texture and these elevations do not give a true feel for how the building will look and if it will blend in. This building is to be a part of the group. A tower would be great, but it would be difficult with the regulations as they are today. Mr. Geiser staged this building will be located next to the focal tower element of the Center and if they did add a tower, the two might fight with each other. g. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that as you enter the Center you will see the effect. He does like the doors on the north elevation. As long as the south elevation has the same window effect he wouldn't object. Mr. Geiser stated the building may change with the addition of tenants who may want additional windows on the south elevation; could this be approved administratively. Staff stated yes. 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this piece of property takes up the entire pad area. Staff stated yes. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if staff was willing to give on the tile mansard roof. Staff stated this was the first building that would not have the tile. In addition, the applicant was asking for an amendment to the sign program to use all wall mounted signs instead of the hanging signs that are a part of the multi -tenant part of the Center. Also a concern, is that this building faces south and will need more shade than the trellis will provide. Mr. Geiser stated they would place the shade cloth and the plants. In regard to the signs, the way the building is designed there is no place to put the signs, except on the building fronts. CAMy Documente WPDOCS\ALRC 3-1-OO.wpd 3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes March 19 2000 Committee Member Cunningham stated the Center was designed to create a "Village" atmosphere. He likes the trellis because it opens it and is in keeping with the Center. The only issue he does not want to drop, is the storefront. The windows and front application should be the same as the 10. remainder of the Center. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he didn't dislike the building and :he too likes the trellis treatment. As far as the signs, the Center does have buildings with wall signs as well. His recommendation would be to approve the building with staff recommendations with the deletion of the mansard roof and tile for the south elevation. He asked if there was anyway to get the tower element without the full mansard roof. Mr. Geiser stated it will look like you are just trying to add tile. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the building would have the popouts around the windows. Mr. Geiser stated they will be the same as the existing tile popouts on the Center. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Cornmittee Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2000-005 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-667, subject to conditions as amended. a. Conditions 3.A.: deleted. b. Condition 3.D.: Storefront windows and doors shall use brown wood frames or similar composite materials. C. Condition 4: Materials, colors, and stucco finish shall match those used in the multi -tenant portion of the Center. Unanimously approved. B. 669 a request of the James R. Paul for approval of A,Y architectural and landscaping p ans for a multi -tenant industrial/office t>ui lding located at the northwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Corporate Center Drive within La Quinta Corporate Center Specific Plan. 1. 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. Committee Member Cunningham asked Mr. Bob Ricciardi, architect for the project, for his presentation. Mr. Ricciardi stated that due to the Specific Plan requirements the buildings are not the typical industrial style. However, they did need to accommodate the cost element therefore, the southwest look was selected with as much storefront glass as possible. They are using wood beam lintels and smaller windows to create the southwest look. With the landscaping they are trying to meet the Specific Plan requirements. CAMy Documents\WPDOCSWLRC 3-1-OO.wpd 4 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11, 2000 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675 APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: HASTINGS FAMILY TRUST REQUEST: 1) APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 2.44 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE STREET LOT, AND THREE LANDSCAPE LOTS; AND, 2) APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, WEST OF LADERA DRIVE AND APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH OF MILES AVENUE WEST TERMINUS OF LADERA DRIVE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675 ARE WITHIN TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 29288, FOR WHICH A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382 WAS CERTIFIED FOR TPM 29288, CUP 99-044, AND SDP 99-655 (FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT) UNDER PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-074. A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ADD NEW INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL NOISE, HYDROLOGICAL, AND GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS AND THEIR MITIGATION. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page 1 of 9 RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION AND LAND USE: ON SITE: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR); VACANT SURROUNDING USES: NORTH: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (TRACT 23913-QUINTERRA) EAST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS (TRACT 23913-QUINTERRA) WEST: CHURCH, VACANT, WELL SITE SOUTH: VACANT (FIRST SCHOOL OF THE DESERT SITE) BACKGROUND: The proposed subdivision (Desert Flower) is located north of the First School of the (Desert preschool, approved on Parcel 1 of TPM 29288, in October, 1999. The proposed subdivision is located on Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288 (Attachment 1). The proposed subdivision is bordered on the north and east by Quinterra, a single family residential development. Ladera Drive is stubbed for future extension to the west as required under Tentative Tract Map 23913 with the condition that the street stubs (Ladera Drive, Ocotillo Drive, and Nuevo Drive) shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. It was determined by the City that the best way to barricade the stubbed streets was with masonry block wail which would be removed at the time of future extensions, depending on the nature of proposed adjacent development. The applicant proposes to construct on the lots three residential prototype plans previously approved for construction in Tract 25691 (Wildflower), and one plan from the original Quinterra collection. Project Proposal Subdivision The proposed subdivision (Attachment 2) consists of 10 single family residential lots, three lettered lots for landscaping, and one private street lot. The street lot will be an extension of Ladera Drive (from Tract 23913) and will terminate in a 45-foot radius width cul-de-sac near the north boundary of the tentative tract. A 29-foot right-of-way width with a 5-foot wide utility easement on each side is proposed for the extension of Ladera Drive. No permanent access is proposed from Adams Street, or to the First School of the Desert project. The subdivision will be gated and controlled with electronic mechanisms, 30-feet C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page 2 of 9 of stacking distance, and turn -around area. The proposed lot data is as follows: Average lot size 8,750 sq. ft. Minimum lot size 7,439 sq. ft. Maximum lot size 10,661 sq. ft. Lot A (street) 106,235 sq. ft. The perimeter of the subdivision will have masonry walls, provided by the existing wall along the east and north boundaries and proposed slump block masonry walls with pilasters and decorative cap along Adams Street and the southern boundary. The perimeter wall will be curved at the southwest corner in order to provide better visibility for the preschool driveway and design/landscape interest. Generally, the proposed building pads are at a lower elevation than that approved for the preschool campus to the south, and slightly higher, 1 to 2 feet than elevations of the existing homes to the east. To the north the proposed elevations will be less than one foot than the existing house elevations. Short segments of retaining walls are proposed for Lot 1 (4' high), and a dual retaining wall system along a part of the southern boundary adjacent to Lot 10 and Lot B, to transition between the preschool and the proposed residential dot. Architecture The proposed single -story houses (Attachment 3) will range in height from 16'2" to 17'9", excluding chimney projections. Roof heights within each plan vary due to the different roof planes and sizes. Each plan is laid out with a front entry courtyard with either single or double front doors. The plans feature three car garages, ranging in size from 640 to 718 square feet, with both front and side loading options. A Mediterranean architectural style is proposed, utilizing exterior plaster walls and concrete tile roofing. Design elements include clerestory windows, towers, and squared trim angles. Color and materials exhibits featuring color schemes will be available at the meeting. Each plan includes two different facade options. Side and rear elevations are the same within each house plan. Plan 1 Option A 3 bedrooms 2 baths 3-car garage 2,078 square feet liveable 626 square feet garage 2,704 total square feet Two units of this design are proposed. C.\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp20Oo-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page 3 of 9 Plan 2 Option A 4 bedrooms 2 baths 3-car garage, front loading 2,078 square feet liveable 684 square feet garage 2,762 square feet total Option B (Only roof lines changed) One unit of this design is proposed. Plan 3 Option A 3 bedrooms 3 baths 3-car garage, front loading 2,230 square feet liveable 718 square feet garage 2,948 square feet total Option B 3 bedrooms 3 baths 3-car garage, side loading 2,230 square feet liveable 718 square feet garage 2,948 square feet total Three units of this design are proposed. Plan 4 Option A 4 bedrooms 3 baths 3-car garage, front loading 2,511 square feet liveable 696 square feet garage 3,207 square feet total Option B 4 bedrooms 3 baths 3-car garage, side loading 2,511 square feet liveable 640 square feet garage 3,151 square feet total Four units of this design are proposed. Architectural features include, but are not limited to arches, shutters, stucco window and door surrounds, decorative attic vents, glass block windows, and stucco eave trims. The material for the garage doors will be metal. Window frames will be white enameled aluminum. Earth tone trim colors for window shutters, lintels, etc.,- will be provided. Exterior finish will include terracotta -style concrete the roofing with various color flashing, earth tone color -coated stucco walls and fascias. C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page:4 of 9 Landscaping The typical front yard landscaping plan includes a minimum of two shade trees, palm trees, and numerous shrubs highlighted by lawn. A varied plant palette is proposed. Caliper size of the proposed trees is not specified. Perimeter landscaping is proposed along Adams Street that will match that approved to the south for the preschool facility, including 3-feet high continuous berming, and a 5-foot wide meandering sidewalk. Public Notice The requested subdivision was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on March 6, 2000 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. Correspondence has been received from the public, and is included as Attachment 5. Agency Comment These requests were transmitted to responsible agencies for review and comment. All pertinent comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Review On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and continued the proposal (Attachment 5). Issues raised by the Commission include the following: Garage Doors - The Applicant proposes to use only metal doors, and no wood garage doors. 2. Name of Project - The Applicant proposes to name the project "Desert Flower". 3. Front Setbacks - Typical front setbacks for private streets are measured from back of curb, while front setbacks for a public street are measured from the right-of-way line, generally 10 to 12 feet wide from back of curbs . Public streets are required to have 5' to 8' wide sidewalks where private streets are not required to have sidewalks. Due to the design of the proposed private road, with the curve and cul de sac, the proposed setback patterning will not be visually detectable from outside the project. C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page, 5 of 9 4. Signs - Subdivision identification sign will be located on the gate and/or adjacent wall as you enter the project. 5. Construction Entrance - The Applicant proposes to have temporary access from Adams Street through the applicant's property. It is possible that deliveries of large trusses, etc., will have to come through Ladera Drive, however, this is anticipated to be minimal. 6. Access - Consider not extending Ladera Drive for the proposed subdivision, and rather provide access from Adams Street. Discussion: The Applicant has prepared an alternative scenario for the subdivision with access off of Adams Street. Engineering staff reviewed this scenario and determined that this will result in pad elevation differentials between 4 to 5 feet higher than adjacent Quinterra pad heights, requiring the construction of retaining walls. The point of entry would be south of the first residential lot at the northwest corner of the tract, and have approximately 9% slope down into the project. Recommendation: Due to the height of the retaining walls and steep grade of the entry drive, staff is recommending the extension of Ladera Drive rather than access from Adams Street. 7. Size of Units - Proposed was Plan 1 with 1,704 square feet of liveable area, and a 475 square foot, 2-car, garage. The applicant is now proposing a minimum house size of 2,704 sq. ft. liveable area. Discussion. Although the proposed subdivision is a separate tract and is not required to undergo compatibility review, staff researched the existing homes along Ladera Drive, built in 1991 by Windsor Development, and found that they range in size from 1,968 tc 2,593 square feet of liveable space, without the garages. Along Fronterra, Arbola Circle, and Ocotillo Drive, homes built in 1995/1996 by Snellenberger, range in size from 1,968 to 2,730 (only 1 at this size) square feet of liveable space. Existing homes within Quinterra are on lots with an average size of C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page: 6 of 9 8,000 sq. ft. The majority of lots within Quinterra are approximately 80 x 100 ft. The average lot size for Desert Flower is 8,750 sq. ft. The proposed average lot size exceeds that within Quinterra by 750 sq. ft. Recommendation: As proposed, the units will be within, and exceed, the square footage range of the existing Quinterra homes. Therefore, staff recommends approval. 8. Architectural design of the units - Discussion: Existing units within Quinterra were compared with architectural design elements of the proposed units. The photographs show that the existing homes feature tower elements, clerestory windows, square trim elements, and exposed wood eaves. The proposed units show tower elements, clerestory windows, square trim elements, and stucco -clad eaves. Recommendation: None proposed as units are architecturally compatible, or in the case of Plan 1, identical to existing units in Quinterra. 9. Retention/Drainage - Discussion: Prior to City Council approval of the Hastings Parcel Map in 1999, engineering staff reviewed drainage calculations regarding Quinterra retention basin to confirm sufficient capacity if the subject property were authorized to drain to the existing Quinterra retention basin. The additional drainage area will increase the water surface in the retention basin an additional six (6) inches in the 100-year storm event. The City pays for Quinterra retention basin maintenance with Lighting and Landscape District funds derived from property owner assessments and supplemented with additional funding from the City's General Fund. Due to the subsidy funding draw against the General Fund, the City did not want to increase its maintenance responsibilities in 1999 with another retention basin to maintain if other reasonable alternatives exist. The City, therefore, agreed to allow the subject property to drain to the existing retention basin. The C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2OOO-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page 7 of 9 fact that the street in the proposed development is now proposed as a private street does not diminish the City's recent agreement that the drainage water can be directed to the existing retention basin. It should be noted, the future residents of the proposed development will pay the exact same Lighting and Landscape District assessment as the existing residents in the Quinterra subdivision. Recommendation: Authorize the development to drain to the existing retention basin in the Quinterra subdivision as previously agreed by the City in 1999 and as currently indicated In the proposed conditions for the proposed development. MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve Tentative Tract Map 29624, pursuant to Subdivision Ordinance Section 13.12.130, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. Findings necessary to approve Site Development Permit 2000-675, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 9.210.010(F), can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution, with the exception of the following Finding: 1. Landscape Design: As conditioned, the proposed front yard landscaping has been designed to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and provide a unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. However, the proposed landscaping along Adams Street is not consistent with the landscaping plan approved along Adams Street for the First School of the Desert. In order to ensure consistency, staff recommends SDP Condition No. 2 which requires that the landscaping match that approved along Adams Street for the First School of the Desert (SDP 99-655). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- recommending certification of a subsequent Mitigated (Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 99-382 to the City Council. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- recommending approval to the City Council for Tentative Tract Map 29624, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2000-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Pap 8 of 9 Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- approving Site Development Permit 2000-675, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. TTM 29624 exhibit 3. Architecture and Landscape exhibits (Wildflower) 4. Plan 1 (Qulnterra) 5. Correspondence 6. Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2000 Prepared by: Submitted by: r J J r / Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner Christine di lorio, Planning; Manager C:\Mydata\perptttm29624&sdp2OOO-675WorldDesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd Page; 9 of 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A SUBSEQUENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF 2.44 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE STREET LOT, AND THREE LANDSCAPING LOTS, AND SDP 2000-675 FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FOUR PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-382 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 28th day of March, and the 111h day of April, 2000, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by World Development on the Subsequent Environmental Analysis for Tentative Tract Map 29624 and Site Development Permit 2000-675, located on the east side of Adams Street, approximately 360 feet north of Miles Avenue; and, WHEREAS, said Subsequent Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study and has determined that although the proposed subdivision and residential units could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made conditions of approval and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for EA 99-382, by Resolution No. 99-074, prepared for CUP 99-044, SDP 99-655, and TPM 29288, for the First School of the Desert, to be developed on Parcel 1 of TPM 29288; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the fokowing facts to justify recommendation for certification of said Subsequent Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed tentative tract map and site development permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures, as the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts that could not be reasonably mitigated to levels of Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 insignificance. 2. The proposed tentative tract map and residential units will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation, as the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue. 3. The proposed tentative tract map will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as the noise, biology, geotechnical, hydrological, and cultural resources studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impacts with regard to this issue. 4. The proposed tentative tract map and residential units will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation, as the noise, geotechnical, and hydrological studies prepared for this project did not identify any significant impact with regard to the public health, safety, or general welfare. 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 correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination, mitigation measures, and certification of Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382 for the proposed Tentative Tract Map 29624 and Site Development Permit 2000-675. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of -the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 111h day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\PCEARESttm29624wORLD3-28-2000.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: ,BERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\PCEARESttm29624wORLD3-28-2000.wpd 2 SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Environmental Checklist Form - EA 99-382 Project Title: TTM 29624 & SDP 2000-675 Lead Agency Name and Address: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner 760-777-7068 4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Adams Street and Miles Avenue 5, project Sponsor's Name and Address: World Development Hy 1uite #103 Palm Desert, CA 92260 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential (RL) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Subdivision of 2.44 gross acres into 10 single family residential lots, one street lot, and three landscape lots on Parcel 2 of TPM 29288. On Parcel 1 (1.42 acres) a 7,065 square foot preschool building with parking area and play yard (approved under SDP 99-655, CUP 99-044, & TPM 29288) are approved for development. The Planning Commission certified the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 99-382), which included the entire map area with the exception of issues relating to the proposed tract units. The applicant also requests approval of architectural, landscaping, and site/grading plans for four prototype single family residential plans. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North= Single family residences East = Single family residences South = Approved preschool campus West = Church, Single family residences across Miles Avenue 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None identified. U 1.10 p:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00-wpd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Tmffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. a I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect.on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in project been made by or agreed to by the aPP EUENMGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION willbe prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONNM74TAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially sigmfcant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable s=dards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EK including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 6igna re Date Printed Name 1,/ � �G � u � � d� u 4 nol For G, y 6 � � � g U Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except ,No Impact" answers that are U1, ' -2- adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) �l�oWiyg Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVM, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or- negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVM at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially potentWft Significant Learn Than significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact p:1EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-OO.wpd 012 Would the proposal result in potential impacts "Ming: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Master X Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13; EA 99-382; architectural and landscaping exhibits) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Master Environmental Assessment, Pg. 5-13; Love and Tang, 1999; X EA 99-382) g the existin visual character or quality of the X c) Substantially d egrade site and its surroundings? (EA 99-382; Architectural and landscaping exhibits) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Cn M 29624) II, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the Ca"forma Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: . a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master X Environmental Assessment, pg. 2-23; EA 99-382) ng zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson X b) Conflict with existi Act contract? (City zoning Map; EA 99-382) c) Involve other changes m the existing environment which, due to X their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 2-23; EA 99-382) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: . a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (Master X Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-33 to 5-47; EA 99-382) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to X an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Fig. 5-1, Table 6-2; EA 99-382) X c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ( SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, pg. 6-1, Table 6-2; EA 99-382) X d) Create or contribute to a non -stationary source "hot spot" (primarily carbon monoxide)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table 9- 5-M; EA 99-382) P \EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd 013 e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial Pollutant concentrations? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4; EA 99-382) f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Fig. 5-4; EA 99-382) IV, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Adversely impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, any endangered, rare, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (sections 17.11 or 17.12)? (Cornett, 1999; Fish & Wildlife Service letter, Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) d) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Comett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; El 99-382) f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved loca regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Cornett, 1999; Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-5; EA 99-382) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of X Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Love and Tang, 1999; EA 99-382) E I P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-2&00.wpd 014 VL b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important Prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Love and Tang, 1999; EA 99-382) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map; EA 99-382) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Love and Tang, 1999; EA 99-382) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99- 382) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; Sladden Engineering, 1999; Anderson, 2-29- 2000) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382; Anderson, 2-29- 2000) iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99-382) v) Landslides? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-7; EA 99- 382) vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-13; EA 99-382) vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99; USGS Topo map, LA Quinta, 75; EA 99- 382) X X X X X X qq-- X X I b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 6-12; de la Torre, 9- 2-1999- hydrology report; EA 99-382) c) Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? (Aerial photos of project area; EA 99-382) X X X X 015 d) Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would X become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreaaiing, subsistence, liquefiction or collapse? (Anderson, 2-29-2000; EA 99-382) e) Is the project located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sladden Engineering, 1999; EA 99-382) f) Where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems? (Sladden Engineering, 1999; CVWD letter, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382) VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials; Ea 99-382) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials; EA 99-382) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials; EA 99-382) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (EA 99-382) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (USGS topo map, LA Quinta 7.5; EA 99-382) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (USGS topo map, La Quinta 7.5; EA 99-382) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Application materials; EA 99-382) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to t urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Fire Dept. Letter, 6-8-99; EA 99-382) VDL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Application Materials; EA 99-382) X i3 X X X X X X X p:1EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624World3-28-OO.wpd 016 x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (CVWD letter 2-16-2000; Ea 99-382) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion o2-99; EA 9 siltation ) on- or off -site? (De la Torre, Hydrology report d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (De la Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99; EA 99-382) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed nee capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to Torre, Hydrology report 9-2-99; Ea 99-382) f) Place housing within a 100 year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment, 6-7; EJ 99-382) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-7; X Application Materials; EA 99-382) E:= LAND USE AND pLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (General Plan, pg. 2- 17; Ea 99-382) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with, jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes 2 aavvoidi 99 38 mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan, pg. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (CV Fringe -toed Habitat Conservation Plan; EA 99-382) MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: MX X X a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-29; EA 99-382) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, pg. 5-29; Ea 99-382) XI, NOISE: Would the project result in: 017 1 7 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborue vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Greve and Utsler, 2-29-2000) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? (Riverside County comprehensive General Plan; Ea 99-382) X RX X X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; EA 99-382) ), POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (Application materials; EA 99-382) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials; EA 99-382) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials; EA 99-382) XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (Fire Dept. Letter, 2-15-2000) Police protection? (Riv- Co. Sheriffs Dept. Letter, 6-18-99; Ea 99- 382) Schools? (DSUSD letter, 2-4-2000) Parks? (EA 99-382) Other public facilities? (EA 99-382) 018 P-\FA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd M RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; EA 99-382) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials; EA 99-382) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Traffic Study 9-8-99; EA 99-382) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service CY standard established by the county congestion management 99 382 for X designated roads or highways? (Traffic study 9 c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Master Environmental Assessment, EA 99- X 382) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm X equipment) ? (application materials; EA 99-382) inadequate emergency access? (Application materials; EA X e) Result in inadeq g cy p 99-382) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity. (Zoning Ordinance; X, Application materials; EA 99-382) X g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (Zoning Ordinance; EA 99-382) XVL UTILrMS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ' X Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD letter 2-26-2000, EA 99-382) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater X treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000; EA 99-382) X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD letter, 2-16- 2000; Ea 99-382) P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00.wpd 019 d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (CVWD letter, 2-16-2000) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan 7-4; EA 99-382) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: X Hlyx X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the - environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (EA 99-382) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (EA 99-382) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? (EA 99-382) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (EA 99-382) XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. (REFERENCES CITED ON FOLLOWING PAGE) X X X X 020 P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29g24Wor1d3-28-00-wpd ,EFERENCES CITED ;CAQMD Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1992. .ove, Bruce and Tom Tang 5, 1999, Cultural Resources Report: First School of the Desert, February CRM TECH. :ornett, James W. Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis of the proposed Hastings Nursery School Site, July 26, 1999. riverside County Fire Department Letter dated 2-15-2000. Coachella Valley Water District Letter dated 246-2000. Sladden Engineering Geotechnical investigation: First School of the Desert, NE comer Adams Street and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California. August 23, 1999. Greve, Fred and Keith Utsler Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 29624. Feb. 29,2000. Mestre Greve Associates Riverside County Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. De La Torre, Julian First School of the DeserLaA Quinta Preliminary Hydrology Report. Sept 2, 1999, Mainiero Smith & Associates. First School of the Desert/La Quinta Traffic Analysis Report. Sept 8, 1999, Mainiero Smith & Associates. City of La Quinta General Plan, 1992. City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, 1992. Anderson, Brett L. Geotechnical Addendum: Tract 29624. Feb. 29,2000 Sladden Engineering Architectural and landscaping exhibits U21 P:\EA99-382checklistSubsequent negdecTM29624Wor1d3-28-00-wpd SUBSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Addendum to Environmental Checklist EA 99-382 IV. c, g) The project site is within an area designated as potential habitat for the Coachella Valley Giant Sand Treader Cricket and the Flat Tailed Horned Lizard. A comprehensive biological survey of the project site (dated July 26, 19919) was conducted by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, for the area within the parcel map, including the subject parcel for the proposed subdivision. The survey found no evidence of the cricket and states that it is unlikely that this species would be found on the site due to the sand stabilization, habitat isolation, and human disturbances. An intensive effort was made to locate the flat -tailed horned, lizard, however none were found. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. While no evidence of this species was found, the mandated $100 fee per acre of disturbed land. will be required as mitigation. This mitigation measure reduces impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance. VI aii) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed subdivision is located within a Zone IV groundshaking zone, within a half -mile of aninferred and inactive fault. The potential for seismic activity should be considered in structure design. As a minimum, the Uniform Building Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4 should be considered in design. The Geotechnical Addendum to the Preliminary Soils Report provides seismic design criteria for the proposed subdivision. The project: will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will ensure that impacts from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level. M. c) Single family residential communities are considered noise sensitive land uses, along with schools, hospitals, and churches. A noise study was prepared for the proposed subdivision by Mestre Greve Associates, February 29, 2000, wherein it was determined that noise mitigation is required. The primary noise source in the project area is traffic noise from Adams Street. Exterior living areas adjacent to Adams Street will be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of 68.2 CNEL at Lot 6. Therefore, in order to meet the City's 60 CNEL exterior noise standard, a noise barrier of up to 6-feet in height will be required. The required noise barrier locations are listed in the noise study. The barrier may consist of a wall, berm, or a combination of the two, with no openings or gaps. The City's interior noise standard for single family residential units is 45 CNEL. All homes throughout the project will meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades, with closed windows and mechanical ventilation The noise study showed that there is a potential for temporary construction noise impacts. To mitigate short-term construction noise impacts, construction shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code Section regarding construction activities near existing residential development which are limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Construction will not be permitted on Sunday or Federal holidays. P:WddendumEA99-382TM29624Worid3-28-2oo0.wpd 02, These mitigation measures will ensure that identified impacts will be reduced to a level less than significant. P:\AddendumEA99-382TM29624World3-28-2.00O.wpd 023 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA$ RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 2.44 GROSS ACRES IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT INTO TEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, ONE STREET LOT, AND THREE LETTERED LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH OF MILES AVENUE CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of March, and the 111" day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of World Development to subdivide 2.44 gross acres in the Low Density Residential Zoning District into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, and three lettered landscape lots generally located on the east side of Adams Street, 360 feet north of Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to approve said Tentative Tract Map 29624: Finding Number 1 - Consistency with CEQA Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382 was prepared for the proposed residential subdivision with a recommended Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Special studies for noise, geotechnical issues, biology, cultural resources, and hydrology were prepared for the environmental review. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for noise and biological issues, impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Finding Number 2 - Consistency with the General Plan The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the City's General Plan with the implementation of Conditions of Approval to provide for adequate stormwater drainage for each lot, and the appropriate cul de sac radius width of 45 feet. The P:\LESLI E\peres-r'TM29624W orld3-28-2000.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract 29624- Recommended April 17, 2000 project proposes 4 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with the Low Density Residential land use designation of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. Finding Number 3 - Consistency of Design and Improvements The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the City's General Plan, with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure proper sidewalk widths and location, and timing of their construction. Funding Number 4 - Consistency of Public Easements As conditioned, the design of the subdivision and type of improvements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision will not conflict with such easements. Finding Number 5 - Public Health and Safety The design of the subdivision and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 99-382 and Subsequent Environmental Assessment 99-382, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. Finding Number 6 - Suitability of Site The site of the proposed subdivision is physically suitable for the proposal as slopes do not exceed 20% and there are no identified geological constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study prepared for the subdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Qulnta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for Tentative Tract Map 29624; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 29624 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. P:\LESLIE\peresTTM29624World3-28-2000.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Tentative Tract 29624- Recommended April 11, 2000 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 11th day of April, 2000, 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 P:\LESLI E\peresTTM29624World3-28-2000.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 WORLD DEVELOPMENT APRIL 11, 2000 GENERAL 1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LC1MC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. LEST JE\29624-e.ofamod Printed April 6, 2000 Page i of 1 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance woth the City°s General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Rights of way and easements required of this map include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Adams Street: 44-foot half of an 88-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Ladera Drive: 29-foot width. For cul de sac bulb, use Riverside County Standard 800 with 45-foot radius, unless the General Plan requirement is changed to allow a smaller radius. B. LANDSCAPE LOTS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1) The applicant shall create lettered common landscape lots at the north end of the cul de sac (approximately 60 feet wide) and of the easterly 75 feet, plus or minus, of Lot 10 for maintenance by the homeowner's association. The applicant shall grant a permanent easement across the latter lot or a portion thereof, as necessary, to accept and convey drainage from Parcel 1 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288. 8. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, 9. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Adams Street - 10 feet. LESI,IE 29624-c. ofa. wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Pagc 2 of l l Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 10. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 11. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to Adams Street. 12. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur, 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 15. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. :\LESLIEQ9624-e.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 3 of l I Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer, 17. 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. 18. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. LESI.IE,\29624-e.ofa.wpd Printed April 6. 2000 Page 4 of 11 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 20, The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 21. If improvements required herein have been previously secured with the underlying Temporary Parcel Map 29288, the applicant will not be required to duplicate that security. However, final inspection and occupancy of homes in this tract will not be approved until the improvements are complete unless the applicant has an approved phasing plan and �s in compliance with the provisions of the plan. 22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City°s schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. LF,SLIE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 5 of 1 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 23. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 24, If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the above conditions have been met. 26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 27. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 1 YSLIF.\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 6 of 1 I Planning Commissior Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring - owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 29. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 32. This tract and the adjacent Parcel 1 from Temporary Parcel Map 29288 will be allowed to convey runoff along existing streets to retention basins constructed for Tract 23913 (Quinterra), The design of this site shall include provisions for surface flow of runoff from Parcel 1 to the surface of Ladera Drive. UTILITIES 33. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 1.F,SLIE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 7 of'] I Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 34. All new utility lines shall be installed underground with the proposed development. 35. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 36. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Adams Street - Construct eight -foot sidewalk. B. ON -SITE PRIVATE STREETS 1) Ladera Drive - 28-foot travel width (between curb faces). The cil de sac bulb shall conform to Riverside County Standard 800 with a 44.5-foot radius, unless the General Plan is amended to allow a smaller radius. C. Applicant provides gate and turnaround on Ladera Drive. 37. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid - block street lighting is not required. 38. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 39. Streets shall have vertical curbs which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 40. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): LESIJE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 8 of l l Planning Commissior Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 41. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 42. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks and common lots. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 45. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. ^LESI.IE\29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 9 of 1 1 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 PUBLIC SERVICES 46. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. 47. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 49. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 51. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. The applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for continuous, perpetual maintenance of the perimeter wall and landscaping and the common landscape lot required herein. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 1.ESLIN: 29624-c.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page 10 of l l Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 29624 - World Development April 11, 2000 MISCELLANEOUS 53. The design of the perimeter wall along Adams Street shall be slump stone with a 1- inch masonry cap and pilasters to match the wall at each property line point. The wall shall be curved at the southwest corner, adjacent to Adams Street. 54. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, final perimeter landscaping plans shall be revised to include: C. A three foot high landscape berm along Adams Street. D. An 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. E. Minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measuring 6- inches from ground level). F. A plant palette that matches that approved for SDP 99-655 (First School of the Desert) along Adams Street. : IYSI.IE\29624-e.ofa.wpd Printed April 6, 2000 Page I I of I I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING ARCHITECTURAL, LANDSCAPE, & SITE PLANS APPROVAL OF FOUR PROTOTYPE UNITS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN TENTATIVE TRACT 29624 ALONG A WESTERLY EXTENSION OF LADERA DRIVE, EAST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, NORTH OF MILES AVENUE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675 APPLICANT: WORLD DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28`h day of March, and the 111h day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider approval architectural, landscaping, & site plans for four prototype residential plans to be constructed, along a westerly extension of Ladera Drive, east of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 29288 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit is within Tentative Parcel Map 29288, for which a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 99-382 was certified for TPM 29288, CUP 99-044, and SDP 99-655 (First School of the Desert) under Planning Commission Resolution 99- 074. A subsequent environmental assessment has been prepared to add new information on potential noise, hydrological and geotechnical impacts and their mitigation. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed units provide a varied and aesthetically attractive view within the tract, as the four prototype plans provide a minimum of two front elevations with structural changes to insure a varied and marked difference. No more than one plan features a continuous roof when viewed from the front and rear of the unit. The units utilize varied architectural features such as tile roofs, exterior plaster, shutters, popout window and door surrounds, and arches. 2. The proposed landscaping plans will provide a minimum of one 24-incn box, 1 .5- to 2-inch caliper, size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at P: \peresSDP2000-675DesertFl ower4-11-OO.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-675 April 11, 2000 least one additional 15-gallon tree, 3/4-inch to 1-inch caliper, and other shrubs and groundcover in the front yard. 3. The final plot plan will ensure compliance with the requirement that identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 99-675 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 1 1th day of April, 2000, 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 P:lperesSCP2000-675DesertFlower4-11-OO.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-675 - WORLD DEVELOPMENT APRIL 11, 2000 GENERAL: 1. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first building permit for these units. The plans shall provide at least one specimen tree (i.e., minimum of a 24-inch box, 10-feet tall size (1.5-inch to 2-inch caliper measured 6-inches from ground level) shall be provided in the front yards and three In street side yards as per Section 9.60.300(I)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance, and 15-gallon trees with a minimum caliper size of 3/4- to 1-inch. 2. Garage doors shall be constructed of metal or composite and be sectional roll -up style. Lutes are optional. 3. Air conditioning mechanical equipment shall not be installed in the 5-foot side yard setbacks. 4. Decorative chimney caps shall be provided for all plans. 5. The window and door surrounds shall be a minimum of 3-inches in depth for continuous single plane side elevations. PALESLI BpccoaS D P2000-675Worl d Qu i nterra3-28-OO.wpd Page l of 1 T1 INTERSTATE 10 AY UNIDO o o mmmuloa �r FRM WARING DR Sl &A11E7i1JE UNlooc CASE MAP CASE No. ORTH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29624 'SCALE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-675 ATTACHMENT 5 April 3, 2000 City of La Quinta City Hall 78 495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 Attn: Community Development Department Re: Tentative Tract Map 29624 Dear Members: .ECE1W APA 4 70'flP After listening to the various people and builders regarding the building on Parcel 604-071-005 (Miles and Adams), I could not help but think that a simple solution would be to put the entry street off of Adams. This would be easier for the new owners, better for the Fire Department or other emergency vehicles. Also, it would make a lot of Quinterra residents happy. The fact that it would go down a slight grade is no different than that of Ocotillo, the entry street into Quinterra just north of the proposed development. MBJ:ar Monte B. Jordan 44 680 Fronterra Dr La Quinta, CA 92253 Very truly yours, Monte B. Jor'rn 79-130 Ladera Drive P QU%\ La Quinta, CA 92253 March 29, 2000 Rl-CEIVF 0 AR-3 XN Planning Commission City of La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Ladera Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: To summarize: This is a request that you read a correction into the record at your next public meeting that considers the application by World Development for development adjacent to Quinterra. This application appeared on your March 28, 2000 agenda as Environmental Assessment 99-382, Tentative Tract Map 29624, and Site Development Permit 99-675. A commissioner made a false statement on a pivotal legal matter to the developer and to the public. Uncorrected, this can: • Compromise your ability to rule fairly on this matter, • Compromise the ability of Quinterra residents to exercise their legal rights in the future, and • Further erode public confidence in official competency. To expand: We had the privilege of addressing you at the March 28 meeting, and we thank you for your time and attention. One of our requests was that you add to your resolution regarding this application another requirement on the covenants of the new development, to wit: • If that development is built as an extension of Ladera Drive, then its covenants shall include all the provisions already applicable to the adjacent Hots already existing on Ladera Drive, especially with regard to the prohibition of RVs. A commissioner addressed this point by stating, in summary: • That a "common misconception" exists with regard to the enforcement of CC&Rs, • That CC&Rs cannot be enforced in the absence of a Homeowners' Association, • That the existing Quinterra CC&Rs are thus meaningless, and • That the only regulation of RVs possible in Quinterra is that provided by La Quinta City law. Since public comment had already been closed, it was not possible to challenge this statement, and during the following Commission discussion, the covenant issue was dismissed as now a moot point. do fact, the "common misconception" is the Commissioner's. The City Attorney has so assured us, and she will so assure you. Covenants such as those governing Quinterra are explicitly enforceable by any property owner willing to expend the resources to do so, and we have, without benefit of an HOA, but with the advice of legal counsel, initiated proceedings to do so on more than one occasion. To avoid misunderstanding, let us assure you that we agree that: • Covenants are civil agreements among private individuals, not laws. • Covenant disputes arise between individuals, separately or in groups such as HOAs. • Covenant disputes escalate to Civil Courts, not to Criminal Courts. • The City does not participate in the en, forcemew of covenants. But we also believe that: • The ]Manning Commission, as the City's agent, does negotiate with applicants such as World Development. • The City does have the authority to require certain provisions in certain covenants. • The City already uses that authority in section 51 of the resolution distributed at the March 28 meeting. • That authority is a legitimate tool for the Commission to use in negotiating approval of the World Development application. Accordingly: • We encourage you to verify these facts with the City Attorney. • We request that at your next public consideration of this matter, when the developer and many of the same Quinterra residents will be present, you read a correction of this misstatement into the record. • We again request that compatible covenants be required on lots built on any extension of Ladera Drive. • We suggest that you encourage the City Attorney to interrupt your proceedings to correct legal misinformation of this kind. Again, we thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to an all -win solution to this issue. You can call us, or leave us a message, at 760-342-0424. Sincerely, H. C. (Neil) Ludlam and James Hanson cc: World Development La Quinta City Attorney La Quinta City Council Residents of Ladera Drive Residents ofMalia Circle Residents of Tortola Circle ATTACHMENT 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 many times as someone wants to pay the filing fees. Ch,�Kman Kirk stated the Commission is also tired of seein/e. same application come forward multiply time. They himited patience and have other items on the Agenda to reso 14. Ms. Joann Shirley, 50-860 Calle Paloma a ed why the Commission was even considering this reque The property owners of the Fairways knew this was to b a emergency exit only. This is a residential area and why can' the City just say no. 15. Mr. Dillon Steiner, 78-725 Avenida La,,Arita, stated that as long as they put forth an appli/Rh nd more residents will be here to oppose it. In regahey are not good neighbors because anyone who has Calle Rondo will notice that the wall has no landscapindo they want to dump their traffic into their neighborhy do not have the courtesy to landscape that portwall that borders their neighborhood. 16. There being no further ublic comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation p rtion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission dijobussion. 17. CommissionVergency". yler asked that Condition #10 be revised to add the word "e 18. There be' g no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Comm' sioners Robbins/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Reso tion 2000-01 1 approving Tentative Parcel Map 29613, as am nded. Condition #10: "Gated emergency access on Calle Rondo...." OLL All. AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: B. Environmental Assessment 99-382 Tentative Tract Map 29624 Site Development Permit 99-675, a request of World Development for approval to subdivide 2.44 acres into ten single family residential lots, one street lot, three landscape lots, and approval of architectural and landscape plans for four prototype residential units. CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC3-28-20.Wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted corrections in the options; there is no Plan 3C and it should be deleted; Plan 4B has front loaded garages. Street Lot A to be named Ladera Drive. 2. Chairman Kirk asked staff to explain the difference between what is proposed and what is existing. Staff stated Plan 1 is 2,100 square feet including the garage and 1,700 square feet without the garage; Plan A is 2,200 square feet of livable area and (395 of garage; Option B is 2,200 square feet and is the same plan. Plan 4 is 2,500 square feet of livable area with a 688 square foot garage. Staff displayed the building elevations. 3. Commissioner Robbins stated this project may not be reviewed under the Compatibility Ordinance, but how do the house sizes compare to the adjoining tract. Staff stated they could look at the tract map for a comparison. 4. Commissioner Tyler stated the First School of the Desert appealed the requirement to underground the utilities to the City Council and that appeal applies to this tract as well. Staff stated the Council approved their request to not underground the utilities and will apply to this tract and the conditions have been changed to reflect Council's action. Commissioner Tyler asked who would be maintaining the common areas as well as the setback along Adams Street. Staff stated it would be maintained by HOA for this tract. 5. Commissioner Robbins asked staff to clarify the inconsistencies with regard to street widths. This is a private street with a width of 37-feet as opposed to the 33-feet noted on the tentative map. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the applicant changed from s public street to private street on short notice and the language regarding the HOA taking care of the common area lots needs to be added. He explained the HOA will be responsible for the landscape setback lot adjacent to Adams Street and the three on - site common area lots. 6. Commissioner Robbins stated the tentative map shows this street lining up with the existing Ladera Drive and asked the width of the existing street. Staff stated the existing street is 36 feet between the curbs. The new street will be conditioned to be 36 feet between the curbs. They will be the same width. CAMy Documents\ WPDOCS\PC3 -28-20.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 7. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone would like to address the Commission on this project. Mr. Ken Stittsworth, representing World Development, stated they are utilizing a product that is currently being built at Wildflower. In regard to the letters received in opposition to their project, he would like to state the houses would be an upgrade to the Quinterra tract. Their smallest unit, Plan 1 will be 1,704 square feet and will be unique in that it will have two master bedrooms and baths and only one will be built on Lot 5. The remainder of the units are 2,100 to 2,510 square feet. There will be upgrades to meet the market demand. They are a community developer. 8. Commissioner Tyler asked about the roll up garage doors. Mr. Stittsworth stated he would never use a wooden door in this climate condition. Commissioner Tyler asked about block walls. Mr. Stittsworth stated the units will have block walls. They will raise the wall by two courses and cap it. The wall will be decorative and will have a meandering walkway with landscaping that will be maintained by the HOA. 9. Chairman Kirk asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission. Mr. Alex Londos, 79-090 Ladera Drive, stated his concern was regarding this street coming through onto Ladera Drive. When they purchased their home, they called the City as there was an odd block wall at the end of the street and he assumed if the street was to be continue they would have installed a block wall up to the point of the street and then maybe a rail or something to indicate the street would be continued. He was also told at that time a church was going in and the road would not continue. He understands that things can change, but it has always been his understanding the road would not be completed. In addition, he also has several concerns with the architecture and how it will blend in with the existing landscape. He saw the elevations and thought it odd they would just take the plans from another tract and drop them here. They should not take a cookie cutter plan from one tract to another. They should be required to blend in with the existing neighborhood. He requested the Commission require further research of the Ladera Drive extension as it does impact their neighborhood. He cannot understand why they cannot come off Adams Street. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.Wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 10. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera Drive, stated he lives right next to the wall. 'When they bought their home they checked into what was going in on the other side of the wall and they were told a church. They were assured by the developer and the City it would be a church and no other homes would be developed in this location so they purchased their home. They have two small children and enjoy letting them play in the cul-de-sac and not deal with traffic. This is not the first issue they have had with the City. He and his neighbors lobbied until the City adopted a Compatibility Ordinance to require any development within an existing tract to be compatible with the existing tract. By continuing Ladera Drive you are continuing the Quinterra development. Therefore, there has to be harmonious elevations and congruent with the other homes in the area and not deviate more than 10% from the existing smallest home. Based on this, the smallest home that could be built in this area is 1,900 square feet. For them to propose a 1,700 square foot house is in violation of this requirement. Second, to bring a Wildflower elevation in is ,also an opposition to this requirement. If they were to enter off Adams Street and be a completely separate project that would be a different project. As it is proposed it is a continuation of their neighborhood. He then asked what the proposed retaining wall was to hold. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the pad will be raised slightly over the adjacent pad so a separate retaining wall will be required to protect the adjacent wall. Mr. Mercer asked if this would cause their water to drain to his lot. Staff staged this pad will graded to drain to the street at the front of the new lot. Mr. Mercer stated compatibility was an issue before and they sent 11,000 letters to the City Council and fought very hard to have the compatibility requirement so no one could step into a development and shrink the size of the homes and change the contours and elevations. 11. Ms. Shellie Stiver, 44-960 Malia Circle, stated they are part of the original Quinterra development and have put a lot of time and money into getting these laws in place for North La Quinta. Why does this developer need to use the Quinterra name. How does it benefit them. Their tract of homes are the original Windsor houses. They have small children playing along Ladera Drive and do not want their children playing outside with the additional traffic. Drainage is another issue. They already have problems with their retention basin. They do not need any more aggravation. Why can't they come off Adams Street and have CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC3-28-20.WPd 9 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 their own separate development. 12. Mr. Bob Tette, 44-930 Malia Circle, stated their homes have two or three car garages and one of their plans has only a two car garage. Also, he purchased his home because it is not a through street. It gives them the privacy and security they wanted with little, or no traffic. He would also like to see this development take its access off Adams Street. They purchased their home under the conditions at that time and now the conditions are: being changed and he doesn't understand how that can happen. They fought Mr. Snellenberger originally regarding the compatibility issues. Some of the homes were built so close to the street the cars are hanging into the sidewalk. This is only one example of the issues they are faced with. 13. Mr. Kim Job, 79-100 Ladera Drive, stated he too was one of the originally homeowners. He reminded the Commission that the City also spent $100,000 supporting this ordinance. If this developer is allowed to call his tract Quinterra, there should not be any two car garages and it should be required to meet the compatibility rule. The developer misinformed them regarding the size of the homes by including the size of the garages as part of the house size. In regard to the developer's statement that this tract would have upgrades, if you look at the original 18 homes they have steel window frames steel doors and a lot of additional upgrades. The newer units use plastic. They do not want Ladera Drive extended. If they are going to have their own HOA to maintain the landscaping they should be their own tract. In regard to the drainage problems, many times they have stagnate water that doesn't drain off. 14. Mr. Neil Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated he agreed with everything that had been stated. In addition, he thanked everyone for their help in winning the first "Quinterra Wars". His issue is covenants. This project is proposed to extend his street. When Quinterra was built out, no one was told there were covenants on the land. People who moved in were surprised to learn they could not park their RV. It is important to him that if this project is approved as proposed, they should be required to have as strong a covenant as they have on their street; especially in regard to RV's. In regard to elevations, the proposed garages seem to be so narrow you cannot get in or out of them. The garages should be built usable. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.Wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 Another issue is the details of the houses. The outside looks like the existing except the Windsor homes, but missed some of the significant points of the Quinterra architecture. The Windsor homes were a dramatic square zig-zag architecture. Almost Native American. There were no curves, or colonial treatments. Now, if you drive through the development you will see curved window treatments and rather astounding sudo-Colonial brass carriage lamps which does not go with the original American Indian motif the original designers constructed. He requested that if the street is built out, the builder should be required to follow the original American Indian architecture. The houses from Wildflower are not acceptable. He would not object to a crash gate for safety sake as long as it was aesthetic and RV were not visible. 15. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated she agreed with what had already been stated. Her issue is that she did check with the City before purchasing their home and were told a church was to be built and the street would not go through. When she saw the World Development sign going up she contacted the City and she was told that because they were not a part of the original Quinterra development, they could not be required to meet the Compatibility Ordinance requirements. The plans look nothing like the adjoining homes. She is against the road being constructed. If they want to be a private HOA, turn them around and let them gain access to their development from Adams Street. If they want to build here, they should use the original blueprints to be compatible with their neighborhood. 16. Mr. Tom Hanes, 79-180 Ladera, stated he too agrees with what has been stated and asked if the extension of Ladera Drive a dead end or attached to Adams Street. Chairman Kirk stated it is a cul- de-sac. Mr. Hanes asked if the construction trucks would come down Ladera Drive; if so can the construction entrance be moved. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated staff would work with the developer to take the trucks down Adams Street. Mr. Hanes asked that if their drainage is to come into their existing retention basin, is the retention basin big enough. Staff stated it was. 17. Mr. Richard Santo, 79-095 Arbola Circle, stated he was concerned about the value of the property within Quinterra. Will these units CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 hurt their values. 18. Mr. Jim Hanson, 79-130 Ladera Drive, stated he was present when the retention basin filled to about six feet in depth and it was open to all the children in the area. This is poor drainage and to add this tract's drainage will make it worse. The drainage should be looked at. 19. Mr. Bruce Mercy, 79-080 Ladera, stated they are proposing to use their entrance, their street, their flood control and drainage; area, and are proposing to use their name, but yet they have no control over the size, elevations, etc., they are proposing to build because it is not a continuation of their product. What is it? It is a part of Quinterra and will be governed by those rules, it seems it is a contradiction to that. 20. Mr. Jim Snellenberger, representing World Development, stated that what they are proposing is that since this is a private street, private community they will place a gate at the entrance so the homes will not even be seen. The existing homeowners will not be driving into this gated community. The values of the homes will be starting at $230,000 which is upper end for this community. 21. Mr. Neil Ludlam, 79-130 Ladera, stated that if it is to be a gated community, -then do not make it a part of Quinterra. 22. Ms. Joan Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera Drive, stated the retention basin is owned by the City of La Quinta. What will happen when we get a six foot flood and a child drowns? Chairman Kirk stated staff would answer questions regarding the drainage later on. 23. Mr. Stitsworth stated this product, whether or not it is Wildflower or what, this home will be built all over the desert, and are compatible with what is being built throughout the entire Valley. Some of the people present are from the prior product. When Mr. Snellenberger built they were required to be compatible. In regard to the smaller unit, there is only one with a two car garage, and it is set back and not seen from the other homes. In his opinion, these homes will only increase the property values. 24. Commissioner Butler asked if the houses would start at $230,000. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.Wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 Mr. Stitworth stated yes. 25. Mr. John Kneuer, 79-120 Ladera, asked if it was impossible to have the tract come off Adams Street. 26. Ms. Karen Job, 79-100 Ladera, stated her concern was that she did not know there would be a gate, will there be signage and will she have to be concerned about the safety of the gate. They have children who could be hurt by this gate. 27. There being no further public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing for Commission discussion. 28. Chairman Kirk asked staff regarding the compatibility issue. Planing Manager Christine di lorio explained that it was a new tract, not associated under the old tract number and therefore, under our Zoning Code there is a requirement that there: be a review of the homes for architecture, but not compatibility because it is not a part of the existing tract. 29. Chairman Kirk asked staff to address the flood drainage issue and access off of Adams Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that in regard to the drainage, the retention basin for the Quinterra project accepts water from 40 acres and this tract is less than five acres. When the parcel map was prepared for the First School the land was divided into two parcels and the City asked the applicant of the parcel map to review what it would do to the retention basin if they added the drainage water from these homes, they indicated that during a 100 year storm, it would raise the level of the water six inches at the maximum. At that time, the City anticipated this project would have a public street draining to it and since it was publically funded for maintenance, the City determined they could do this. The applicant's change to a private street does create some opportunity to reconsider sending private water into a public retention basin. In regard to the depth of the retention basin, it is standard practice in the desert -to use retention basins, with La Quinta having one of the more restrictive retention basin requirements, we size the basins to be five feet deep when the 100 year flood occurs. We allow a maximum slope of 3:1. This is how the City addresses the safety issues. The City realizes that any body of water does raise a potential for hazards CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 to people. In regard to taking access off Adams Street, staff stated that if the traffic were to exit onto Adams Street, it would need to be moved away from the First School of the Desert access and mindful of the street entering into Quinterra. Staff indicated one area where access could be made onto Adams Street. It could create design problems as Adams Street is higher than the existing ground so the street would have to dive down rapidly to come down into the tract and avoid building up the pads any more than what is already proposed. Both stormwater and sewer drainage would tie into the existing line in Ladera Drive and/or create its own retention basin. 30. Commissioner Tyler stated that at the height of the original compatibility issue he was involved and it does not apply to every houses to be built in North La Quinta. It only applies to houses within a given tract. He too, shares the concern of added traffic, but how much traffic can come from ten houses. Streets were built for traffic and not intended as a playground for children. In regard to the compatibility, these houses are different than the ones that are existing, but the ones Mr. Snellenberger built are different than those built by Windsor. That is a natural progression and they are around the corner and not in plain site. He was surprised to hear there would be private streets and a gate and he takes offense to new things being added during a public hearing by the developer. 31. Commissioner Robbins stated he too was appalled to see Wildflower plans submitted for this development and if the developer cannot take the time to put together a set of plans that are for a specific piece of property, they he does not want to waste his time reviewing it for approval. He then asked what the minimum lot size was for this area. Staff stated 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Robbins stated he doubted Lot 5 would meet that requirement as the cul-de-sac has been changed. Because they have private streets and the setback is measured from the property line, these houses will be closer to the street even with the 20 foot setback because the 20 feet is measured from a different place. If he were to approve the project, he would want whatever the setback is from the curb at the Quinterra tract to apply to this project so they are in fact an equivalent setback. If this property is going to get by without providing for its own drainage retention, then there should be some tradeoffs. Some of CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.WPd 14 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 those trade offs, even though not bound by the compatibility requirements, if they are going to gain an extra lot because they are taking advantage of something that has taken place in Quinterra, then the trade offs are that they have to meet some additional compatibility requirements and more closely fit with the existing development. He understands the problem with elevation differences and how it would be difficult to come off Adams Street. He does not believe the ten lots create a great traffic issue. He too, does not like to have items added at the last moment. The gating should have been thought of earlier and presented as an option. 32. Community Development Director Jerry Herman, stated that taking access off Adams Street with the height differential, has the potential of raising the lots adjacent to Quinterra on the east to a pad elevation of three feet difference. These pads would be a minimum of three feet higher than those in Quinterra. Currently, they are only about one and a half foot different. 33. Chairman Kirk asked if these houses were reviewed by the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC). Staff stated no as they were approved elevations under Wildflower and the ALRC was reviewing them for design and not compatibility. 34. Commissioner Butler stated he likes the Wildflower houses so he does not have an issue with the elevations, but has this ever been done in the City where a private community with ten lots and gated were created. Staff stated it has been done in PGA West by The Woodard Group and the Medalist units at the Norman Course. Commissioner Butler stated his concern is that here is an established community and all of a sudden within this community we put a gated community in the center of it and ignore some of the surrounding environment because it is a gated community; so therefore, the compatibility issue is not valid and the traffic generated from this is also mute because it is only ten lots. Is the Commission doing the right thing from a planning standpoint? 35. Commissioner Abels stated he agrees with Commissioner Butler and he understands the homeowners concern that the identify of the Quinterra tract will be continued. He also, is not too happy with the project. 36. Chairman Kirk stated the entire Commission is sensitive to the City Laws, the Zoning Code, General Plan, etc. and try not to be hap - CAM), Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 15 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 hazard in regard to decision making issues, and the law in this instance states compatibility review should not apply. It appears however, that the intent of the Compatibility Ordinance does apply to this development. As stated by Commissioner Robbins, we may not be able to use compatibility review, at the same time this developer is looking for some favors of the existing development. They are looking for access, drainage, and even the name. Maybe we could use these issues to improve this development resolve some of the issues. The CC&R may be one issue whereby the developer could add the CC&R's to this development. Maybe the developer would want to prohibit any signs on the gate. These are suggestions that could be used to make it a better project. 37. Commissioner Abels stated he agreed that some of these issues could be resolved with the developer. 38. Commissioner Tyler stated that typically the citizens of La Quinta have a misconception of CC&R's. The CC&R's on any property, in essence, have no legal force and affect unless there is a HOA to enforce it. The existing Quinterra homeowners do not have an HOA and therefore, they are looking at a piece of paper that does not mean anything and you have to look to the City's regulations to have them, enforced by the City. This small group will have an HOA who will enforce their CC&R's and may have more power to enforce the CC&R's than the rest of the community. 39. Chairman Kirk stated some suggestions have been made that could be negotiated at this time, or the applicant may want to ask for a continuance. Staff stated that they had found the square footage for Plans 1-4 and it was Mr. Snellenberger's first Quinterra project and the Plan 1 is 1968 square feet and there proposal at this time is 1,700 square feet and the compatibility review allows a fluctuation of ten percent. 40. Commissioner Robbins stated that if you have used the compatibility issue once to get to 1900 square feet from the original proposal, you would have to go back to the original house plans to determine the ten percent. Mr. Snellenberger stated the original was 2,025 square feet. He further stated the gate is an option he was offering and it did not have to be built. He would prefer to resolve the issues at this meeting rather than continue it. In regard to the garages, more than half of the houses are the side loaded garages which have a very large driveway so the parking CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC3-28-20.wpd 16 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 issue is resolved. 41. Commissioner Tyler stated he was surprised to see the name Quinterra being used and asked if the name could be changed. Mr. Snellenberger stated it was not an issue to them. It was only to identify the location of the tract to draw people to the location. If they had a different name they would need signage and they did not want to go through that. 42. Commissioner Abels asked that the developer if the project could be called Quinterra II? Mr. Snellenberger stated it did not matter what it was called. The problem was to get the people back to the development. Commissioner Abels stated he thought the project should be continued to allow the developer time to resolve the issues raised. Mr. Snellenberger stated the issue was the sign. 43. Chairman Kirk stated signage was one issue, but it was not compatibility related as lot sizes, setbacks, drainage, access, etc. Mr. Snellenberger stated he could put a smaller house on -the lot and have it set back further. They can put a public street in with the smaller house and sell it and make the same profit, but it: is not what they want to do. 44. Commissioner Abels stated he is not in favor of continuing projects, but in this case there are too many issues to be resolved at this meeting. 45. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Abels to deny the project as submitted. 46. Chairman Kirk stated that as the developer has offered the Commission little choice. He asked the applicant if he would prefer the Commission vote on the denial motion or continue the project. Mr. Snellenberger stated he would prefer the continuance. 47. Commissioners Abels/Robbins withdrew their motion. 48. Discussion followed regarding meeting dates. Staff suggested the Commission stay with their regular meeting dates of April 1 1 th or 25th 49. Chairman Kirk stated the issues for the developer to address were CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 17 Planning Commission Meeting March 28, 2000 setbacks, unit sizes, garage doors and their location, name, gated or not, compatibility with the existing units, how the elevations are sequenced on the lots, and whether Lot B could be a retention basin. Mr. Snellenberger stated Lot B is used for a turn around area at the gate. 50. There being ro further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this to April 11, 2000, with the developer addressing the following issues: a. House sequence on lots b. Retention area C. Garage doors d. Name e. Gated or not f. Compatibility g. Size of houses h. Setbacks i. Construction entrance j. Private vs. public street k. Drainage I. Lot sizes Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATE¢ L: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Community Develo ent Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission the would be two joint meetings with the City Council. One in April d ore in September. Commissioners suggested May 9, 2000 an eptember 26, 2000, be submitted to the City Council for their nsideration. B. ommissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of March 21, 2000. IV ADJOURNMENT: CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC3-28-20.wpd 18 NiffuRif PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 APPLICANT: BILL HOBIN C/O LA QUINTA - SPC, LLC. PROPERTY OWNER: RAYMOND TROLL C/O TROLL WOODPARK DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECT: VALLI ARCHITECTURAL GROUP REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF ADAMS STREET AND CORPORATE CENTRE DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-383, PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-036, AND CERTIFIED SEPTEMBER 7, 1999, BY RESOLUTION 99-110. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION AND LAND USE: COMMERCIAL PARK; VACANT SURROUNDING USES: NORTH: WATERCOURSE; COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL EAST: COMMERCIAL PARK; VACANT- FUTURE WELL SITE SOUTH: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT PAperptSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd WEST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL; WALMART pI �Ifiila The proposed self storage facility will be a 3.77 acre expansion to the existing La Quinta Self Storage facility (Attachment 1). The proposed expansion is within Planning Area 1 of the La Quinta Corporate Centre (Specific Plan 99-036). The existing facility, which fronts on Adams Street, is not within the Specific Plan (Attachment 2). The proposed single -story self storage facility (Buildings A, B, C, & D) will contain 58,126 square feet of floor area, and 111 parking spaces (Attachment 3), with a floor area ratio of 49.9 %. The proposed expansion will be completely secured with the perimeter buildings serving as barriers along with connecting walls and access gates. The expansion area will not be accessed from the existing facility, except through a maintenance gate located near the northeast corner of the existing facility. No additional employee/public parking spaces are proposed for the expansion. Parking will be provided within the 28-ft to 30-ft wide asphalt drive aisles between each building. The two proposed access gates along Corporate Centre Drive will have 7-feet high black wrought iron electronic sliding gates with keypad entry equipment. The western -most gate will be 25-feet wide, have a 35-foot long stacking area, and serve as primary access to the proposed expansion area. The 20-foot wide eastern -most gate will serve as emergency access only. The proposed 12-foot high buildings will have flat gray metal roofs with decorative parapet caps. The proposed north and south elevations will match the same architectural design as the existing facility, with light tan painted concrete block walls and stucco -clad pilasters spaced 66-feet apart. The proposed building walls will feature horizontal reveals and darker tan color accent along the wall bases. The proposed trellises will be "cedar red". A color and materials exhibit will be available at the meeting. The interior elevations of the perimeter buildings will feature "cedar red" painted metal roll -up doors separated by stucco -clad concrete block pilasters, decorative parapet caps, and tan trim colored raingutters. PAperptSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Proposed exterior lighting consists of wall mounted metal halide lights placed every 60 feet on the buildings, and six 18' high light standards with metal halide lurninaire housing per City approved standard for La Quinta Corporate Centre specific plan area. The pole mounted lights will be within area E of Phase III. Landscaping The conceptual landscaping plan is included in the proposal, and has a varied plant palette consisting of 2 varieties of trees, 1 variety of palm tree, 2 varieties of espaliers/vines, 13 varieties of shrubs, and 3 types of ground cover. Caliper sizes of the proposed trees are not specified. The plan proposes perimeter landscaping along Corporate Centre Drive, in front of Buildings A and B, and along the north elevation of Building C at the pilasters. The requested development was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 1, 2000, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the project site. No correspondence has been received. •. . Marini This request was transmitted to responsible agencies for review and comment. All pertinent comments have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Architecture and Landscaping_Committee Review On April 5, 2000, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee considered this request and adopted a recommendation of conditional approval to the Planning Commission (Attachment 4). MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made per Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permit) of the Zoning Code, and are contained in the attached Resolution with the following exception: 1. Landscape Design. The proposed landscape plan does not comply with the adopted La Quinta Corporate Centre landscape guidelines in that plant species are proposed that are not on the Master Plant List. To remedy this, staff recommends Condition No. 1 which requires that the landscape plan be revised to comply with the Specific Plan list. The proposed landscaping plans do not indicate the caliper of the 24-inch box or 15-gallon trees, but staff recommends PAperptSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd in Condition No. 2 that the plan provide a minimum 1.5" to 2 inch caliper size for the 24-inch box size and 3/4- to 1-inch caliper for the 15-gallon sized trees, to comply with Section 9.60.300 (1)(4) of the Zoning Code. Also, groundcover is not proposed along Corporate Center Drive, therefore, staff is recommending it be added to the landscape plan. 60►l1� 1k,9A M Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2000- approving of Site Development Permit 2000-673, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Specific Plan Exhibit 3. Architectural and landscaping plans 4. ALRC Minutes of April 5, 2000 Prepared by: Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner P:\perptSDP2000-673Hobin4-1 1-OO.wpd Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN LA QUINTA CORPORATE CENTRE CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 APPLICANT: BILL HOBIN C/O LA QUINTA - SPC, LLC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 11'h day of April, 2000, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the request of Bill Hobin c/o La Quinta - SPC, LLC. to consider approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a storage facility expansion be constructed at the northeast corner of Adams Street and Corporate Centre Drive, more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 649-020-016 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5" day of April, 2000, hold a duly -noticed public meeting to consider approval of architectural and landscape plans for storage . facility expansion to be constructed on the northeast corner of Adams Street and Corporate Centre Drive, and did adopt Minute Motion 2000-009, recommending to -the Planning Commission approval of the request subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1 . Consistency with General Plan. The proposed storage facility is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the use's design, low height, scale, and mass are compatible with the Commercial Park (CP) designation. The 49.9% floor area ratio (FAR) will not exceed the 50% maximum FAR permitted by Specific Plan 99-036 for the self storage expansion. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. As conditioned, the proposed self storage expansion is consistent with the Commercial Park Zoning with reclard to setbacks, building height. landscaping, and circulation requirements. 3. Consistency with CEQA The Community Development Director has determined that the request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Envuronmental Assessment 99-383, prepared for SP 99-036, for which a PAperesSDP200C-673Hobin4-1 1 -00.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-673 Hobin April 11, 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified by the City Council on September 7, 1999, by Resolution 99-110. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 4. Architectural Design. The proposed building architecture complies with the architectural guidelines of the adopted La Quinta Corporate Centre as flat roofs, stucco -clad walls, and parapet caps are included in the broad interpretation of Southwest architectural style. The proposed trim and accent colors fall within the traditional Southwest color schemes as required by the Specific Plan 99-036 Design Guidelines, with the use of "Cedar red" -for the landscaping trellises. 5. Landscape Design. The proposed landscape plan does not comply with the adopted La Quinta Corporate Centre landscape guidelines in that plant species are proposed that are not on the Master Plant List. To remedy this, staff recommends that the plan be revised to comply with this list. The proposed landscaping plans do not include the caliper sizes for proposed trees, therefore, staff requires that this information be included on the final landscape plan, in accordance with Section 9.60.300 (1)(4) of the Zoning Code. 6. Site Design. The site design of the proposed expansion, including but not limited to project gates, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, exterior lighting, vehicle stacking, and spacing between buildings are compatible with the existing storage facility, and adopted guidelines within SP 99-036. 7. Sign Program. No signs are proposed with this development application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Site reasons set forth in this Resolution attached hereto; Development Permit 2000-673 -for the , subject to the Conditions of Approval P:\peresSD P2000-673Hobi n4-11-OO.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Site Development Permit 2000-673 Hobin April 11, 2000 PASSED, Quinta City Planning following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Commission, held on the 11th day of April, 2000, by the TOM KIRK, Chairman City of La Quinta, California JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\peresSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 LA QUINTA SELF STORAGE II APRIL 11, 2000 GENERAL The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2000-673 unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved site development permit shall be used within two years of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 (D). 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement: plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. PApccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 1 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a girading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 5. This development shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage along the streets and properties except access drives described herein. 7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall confer easements and other property rights required of or necessary for construction or proper functioning of this development and the development proposed for the underlying specific plan, Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall acquire easements and approvals as necessary for construction of this site and the specific improvements required herein. This requirement shall include approvals from CVWD for installation of a drainage outfall into the Coachella Valley Storm Channel and construction of a bikeway along the embankment of the Channel. 9. The applicant shall grant public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 10. Grants required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Corporate Centre Drive - 64-foot right of way. P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 2 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 B. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE 1) All easements necessary for the portion of the utility and drainage facilities identified in the master drainage and utility plans for Specific Plan 99-036 which underlie or are to be used by this development. 11. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way are necessary prior to development of this expansion the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 13. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as Follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): A. Corporate Centre Drive - 10 feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 14. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscaping lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. 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. 18. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved improvement plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. Depending on the timing of development of this expansion and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the applicant may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this development, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage 11 - Hobin April 11, 2000 City, the applicant shall, at the time of approval of a grading plan or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by these conditions prior to approval of a grading permit. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not art of the proposed improvements. 21. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has et all requirements for telephone service. 22. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development: of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 23. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building in the development is or may be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 65.5(a)(6). Prior to issuance of building permits for pads which are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications that P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 the above conditions have been met. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. 25. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside of right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 27. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. DRAINAGE 29. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Specific Plan 99-036. Drainage structures and features identified in the plan which are located within public street rights of way to be improved as pars: of this development or which will be utilized by this development shall be installed prior to or concurrently with construction of this development. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved method. 30. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on al heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this site development permit excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. 31. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of CVWD for the lining of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. UTILITIES 32. Utilities identified in the master utility plan for Specific Plan 99-036 which are located within public rights of way to be improved with this development or which will be used by this development shall be installed prior to or concurrently with construction of this development. 33. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of wy and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 34. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all propsed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 35. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 36. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 7 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Sto,age II - Hobin April 11, 2000 A. Corporate Centre Drive - 40-foot travel width (between curb faces) plus 5- foot sidewalks. The applicant shall be responsible for and secure a fair share of the cost of a traffic signal at Adams Street. B. Bike Path - Pay pro-rata share of Bike Path adjacent to project site. Prorate share shall not exceed $30 per lineal foot of 8-foot wide PCC bike path. C. Adams Street - Channel lining cutback, and associated street and sidewalk work, shall be reconfigured and reconstructed to correct alignment defect leftover from original construction of first phase of the La Quinta Self Storage development. Reconstruction work shall be competed prior to obtaining onsite Building Permit. Corner cutbacks, bus turnouts and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by tine City Engineer. 37. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 38. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading, traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 39. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 40. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0' /5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-00.wpd Page 8 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 41. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction until mix designs are approved. 42. The City will conduct a final inspection of the buildings only after Corporate Centre Drive is complete. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings, street name signs and sidewalks. 43. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to those locations shown on the preliminary site plan accompanying the permit application except as approved or required by the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks. 45. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 46. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage 11 - Hobin April 11, 2000 PUBLIC SERVICES 47. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 48. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 49. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professional to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 50. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 51. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the city. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy, of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 52. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 53. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 10 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2C00 FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department protection standards. 54. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2,500 gprn for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 55. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fir hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" x 2 1/2') will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 56. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 57. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside Country Fire Department." 58. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 59. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. 60. The minimum dimensions for fire apparatus access roads entering and exiting this project shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet in each direction and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Parking is permitted on one side of roadways with a minimum width of 28 feet. Parking is permitted on both sides of roadways with a minimum width of 36 feet. P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 11 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development Permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 61. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 62. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 63. All fire sprinkler systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Planning & Engineering office for submittal requirements. 64. Install portable fir extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 65. Gates shall have Knox key operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forma are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 66. Gates shall have either a secondary power supply or an approved manual means to release mechanical control of the gate in the event of loss of primary power. 67. Final conditions will be addressed when architectural building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. MISCELLANEOUS 68. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 69. Prior to issuance of building permits, a final exterior lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Community Development Department, indicting exterior pole - mounted lighting consisting of one-piece die cast aluminum luminaire housing with metal halide lamps, and flat or recessed lenses mounted to 18-foot high poles by P-\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobin4-11-OO.wpd Page 12 of 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2000- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Site Development permit 2000-673 La Quinta Self Storage II - Hobin April 11, 2000 extruded aluminum arms with a standard Dark Bronze baked -on polyester paint finish. 70. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for approval to the Community Development Department that includes a plant palette consistent with the adopted Master Plant List for SP 99-03,6. The plans shall be first submitted for review and approval by CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 71. The final landscape plan shall include: (1) the required caliper sizes in compliance with Section 9.60.300 (1)(4) of the Zoning code, which requires a minimum 1.5" to 2" caliper for 24-inch box tree sizes and 3/4" to 1" caliper for the 15-gallon sized trees, measured at a point 6-inches above ground surface; (2) groundcover along Corporate Centre Drive. P:\pccoaSDP2000-673Hobir4-11-OO.wpd Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT 1 TH A PROJECT � SITE MILES AVE. 46TH AVE. CASE MAP CASE No. ORTIH SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-673 SCALE LA QUINTA SELF STORAGE EXPANSION ATTACHMENT 'IS swepd CASE MAP CASE No. 'Pal swled auna SP 99-036 La Quinta Corporate Centre SCALE: B 1 #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-674 APPLICANT: T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR TWO NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB ARCHITECT: PEKAREK-CRAN DELL, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 15303, CLASS 3(A) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. BACKGROUND: The Rancho La Quinta Country Club (Specific Plan 84-004) is an under construction master planned community of 1,300 single family houses situated around two existing 18 hole golf courses on 718 acres located on the south side of Avenue 4B and situated between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Specific Plan 84-004 (Amendment #3) was approved by the City Council on June 1, 1999 under Resolution 99-73 and provides the Community Design Guidelines for the proposed residential units (Attachment 1). The applicant's prototype units are proposed to be located in the east side of the development in Tract 29457 (Planning Unit III of SP 84-004). See Attachment Number 2. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Two prototype, single story house plans (i.e., Elegantes and Villas) are proposed ranging in size from 2,627 square feet to over 5,000 square feet. Architectural SR PC SDP 2000-674 - 40 themes are Santa Barbara and California Mediterranean with typically one building facade treatment proposed for each floor plan variation. Plan types are as follows: Elegantes Plan 1 Plan 1 Opt. Plan 2 Plan 3 Sq. Footage 3,228 3,630 3,854+ 4,855+ Bedrooms 3 4 4 4 Garage Parking Spaces 3 Front Loaded 3 Front Loaded 3 Front and Side Loaded 3 Front Loaded Villas Plan 1 Plan 2 Sq. Footage 2,627 2,639+ Bedrooms 3 3 or 4 Garage Parking Spaces 3 Front Loaded 2 Front Loaded Architectural variations are achieved through variations in window sizes and shapes, changes in roof designs, and other distinct but unifying features (i.e., stucco pop outs, etc.). Hip and gable roof design themes are proposed and roof heights vary from approximately 19 feet to 22 feet. Exterior building materials vary depending on the architectural theme of the unit. Materials include plaster walls, S-shaped concrete roof tiles, and precast stone accents. Building colors are primarily variations of off-white and light brown with accents colors in shades of green and brown. Roof tile colors are in shades of brown, red and grey. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting for review. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of April 5, 2000, and determined the project was acceptable as presented. The Committee, on a 2-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2000-008, recommending approval, subject to conditions (Attachment 3, Draft Minutes). FINDINGS: 1. This project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed single family residences are allowed within the General Plan designation of low density single family residential. SR PC SDP 2000-674 - 40 2. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code and Architectural Guidelines of applicable Specific Plan 84-004 because facades are varied including roof heights, window and door surrounds, and eave details. The proposed plans are in compliance with these items provided two distinct building elevation styles are provided for each floor plan layout (Condition No. 6). 3. Typical front yard landscaping plans were not submitted for review. Various landscape plans have been approved for this development in the past. The developer is allowed to use these plans or shall submit new plans to the City for review during plan check. 4. Under Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Zoning Code, three garage parking spaces are required when a house has four or more bedrooms. The plan types show optional floor plans with dens, guest suites, and offices which are counted as bedrooms for compliance with the Zoning Code provisions. Plan 2 of the Villas requires a three car garage if the option suite is chosen (Condition No. fii). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , approving Site Development Permit 2000-674, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1 . SP 84-004 Map 2. Tract Map 29457 3. April 51h Draft ALRC Minutes 4. Large Plans (Commission only) Pry area( by: Greg romsdell, Associate Planner Submitted by: {jF Jfjf Christine di lorio, Manning Manager SR PC SDP 2000-674 - 40 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-674 T. D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT APRIL 11, 2000 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 . This approval is for Villas and Elegantes housing units for Tract 29457. 2. Perimeter lot walls shall be constructed using masonry blocks clad in stucco. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The plans require Community Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District, and Riverside County Agricultural Commission approval before they will be considered final. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, final architectural working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. 5. Three car garages shall be provided for all four bedroom units pursuant to Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Ordinance. Enclosed parking spaces shall measure a minimum dimension of 10-feet wide by 20-feet long and be free of any obstructions such as mechanical equipment, etc. 6. A minimum of two facades shall be prepared for each plan type as required by Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Ordinance. Cond SDP 674 RLQ - 39 1 ATTACHMENTS TABLES Attachment 1 PLANNING AREA III - EXISTING LAND USE Rancho La Quinta Residential, and Golf Facilities GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE ZONE ACRES UNITS DENSITY LDR-Low Density Residential RL 192.0 768 4 DU's/AC G - Golf Course GC 151.0 — — W - Water Course / Floodway WC 12.0 — — SUBTOTALS 355.0 768 Ave. 48 V) O IV / N a, 4_ • / � Avenue 50 TABLE 6 PLANNING AREA Ili - PROPOSED LAND USE Rancho La Quinta Residentialand Golf GENERAL PLAN/LAND USE' ZONE ACRES UNITS DENSITY LDR-Low Density Residential RL 160.0 640 4 DU's/AC G - Golf Course GC 196.0 — — W - Water Course / Floodway WC 12.5 — Well Sites 3.0 lID Substation Site 1.8 — — SUBTOTALS 373.3 640 *Planning Area III, Specific Plan Amendment III includes land previously included as a separate planning area in the preceding approval document (Planning Area IV, Specific Plan Amendment II). 2.29 �.. Attachment 3 7 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 5, 2000 2. Committee Member Gingham asked the applicant if he would like to address the Committee. Mr. Gary Lemon, Regional Manger for Toll Brothers and Mark Kiner, architect for the project, stated they had no questions, but were available for any questions the Committee may have. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the exclusive use of the hip roof rather than the gable style. 4. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had no objections and approved the project as submitted. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-671, subject to conditions as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2000-674; a request of the T.D. Desert Development for approval of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units located. within Rancho La Quinta Country Club. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated we are getting more and more of the Moorish architecture and sometimes the size of the exterior does not: match the size of the interior and does not work well. This look is part of the transition taking place at Rancho La Quinta. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the guest house was added to the Plan 1, would that not give them two elevations. Staff stated the thought was to have one floor plan and two elevations to give the patrons more of a choice. Committee Member Cunningham asked how many units would be built from these elevations. Staff stated approximately 300. These units are to be used for the last phases of the country club. Committee Member Cunningham stated that if they were going to use 40 or 50 of these elevations it wouldn't be too much, but not 300 was too much of a concentration. He agreed with staff that more elevations were needed. Staff did remind the Committee that they do have approval on plans that are existing. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-008 approving Site Development Permit 99-674, as submitted. Unanimously approved. A:\AI,RC4-5-20.wpd 2 Ell #E3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 11, 2000 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-671 APPLICANT: GARY LEMON, REGIONAL MANAGER FOR TOLL BROTHERS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: TOLL CALIFORNIA II, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR EIGHT NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO THE GREG NORMAN SIGNATURE GOLF COURSE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AIRPORT BOULEVARD, EAST OF MADISON STREET ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: RNM ARCHITECTS• PLANNERS TKD ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED THIS SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 15303, CLASS 3(A) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. The property is within the Greg Norman Signature Golf Course on the north side of Airport Boulevard, east of Madison Street (Attachment 1). The applicant's prototype units are proposed to be located on Kingston Heath and Tiburon, private streets 'within the project. Specific Plan 90-015 (Amendment #2) for The Norman Course, approved under Resolution 99-1 12, provides the Community Design Guidelines for the residential units. SR PC SDP 2000-671 - 40, Toll Bros. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Eight prototype house plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,689 square feet to over 4,000 square feet. There are no two story houses proposed. The height of these houses average 21 feet. Proposed architectural design themes are Italian Country, Santa Barbara, and Contemporary. Each plan type has two facade design treatments that include architectural popouts, variation in window sizes and shapes, changes in roof designs, and other distinct but unifying features. Hip roofs, in varied heights, are the dominant facade treatment (i.e., 5:12 roof pitches). Plan types are as follows: Plan 5A Plan 6 Plan 7 Plan 8 Castillo Navarro Quintana Sienna Sq. Footage 2,689 3,222 3,412 3,409 + Bedrooms 3 4 4 3 or 4 Garage 2 3 3 3 Parking Front Loaded Front and Side Side Loaded Front and Side Spaces Loaded i I Loaded Plan 91 Plan 10 Plan 11 Plan 12 Santa Barbara Mendocino Santa Rosa Ventana Sq. Footage 3,230+ 3,650 3,741 4,057+ Bedrooms 3 or 4 4 5 5 or 6 Garage 3 3 3 3 Parking Front and Side Front and Side Front Loaded Side Loaded Spaces Loaded Loaded Note: Detached casitas options are available on Plans 8, 9, and 12. House widths vary from 60 feet to 70 feet. Exterior building materials vary depending on the architectural theme of the: unit. Materials include plaster walls, flat and S-shaped concrete roof tiles, and stone veneer accents. Building colors are primarily variations of white and brown with dark accents colors in shades of blue, green and brown. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting. A front yard landscaping plan has been submitted for the model homes sales area on Kingston Heath (Lots 2-5 of Tract 29349-1). Landscaping consists of two street trees (24" box and larger) per lot accented by sod, a variety of five gallon shrubs, palm trees and annual color. Trees used for the project are California Pepper, Chilean SR PC SDP 2000-671 - 40, Toll Bros. Mesquite, Jacaranda and African Sumac. Plant materials are appropriate for this climate. Boulders highlight the landscape planting program. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of April 5, 2000, and determined the project was acceptable as presented. The Committee, on a 2-0 vote, adopted Minute Motion 2000-007, recommending approval, subject to conditions (Attachment 2 - Draft Minutes). FINDINGS: 1. This project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed single family residences are allowed within the General Plan designation of low density single family residential. 2. The project is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code and Architectural Guidelines of applicable Specific Plan 90-015, Amendment #2 in that the design guidelines require a minimum of two different front elevations, varied roof heights, and window and door surrounds for flat elevation planes. The proposed units comply with these requirements in that two facades per plan are proposed, roof heights are varied with the combination of different roofs, and plaster surrounds are provided where required. The Specific Plan guidelines dictate architectural themes, exterior color ranges and materials, and design criteria. The proposed plans are in compliance with these items. 3. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. The plans provide conceptual design and planting information for the front yards and project entries. The pallette includes those plants specified in the specific plan, as well as additional compatible plants. Staff review of detailed plans for these plans is required. SR PC SDP 2000-371 - 40, Toll Bros. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2000- , approving Site Development Permit 2000-671, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. April 51h ALRC Minutes (Draft) 3. Plan Exhibit Booklet (Commission only) 4. Concept Landscape Plan (Commission only) Prepared by: 3reg" oug dell, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager SR PC SDP 2000-671 - 40, Toll Bros. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2000- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-671 TOLL BROTHERS, INCORPORATED APRIL 11, 2000 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This approval is for eight prototype units (Plans 5A through 12) for which plans are on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Perimeter lot walls shall be constructed using masonry blocks and be clad in stucco. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The plans require Community Development Department, Coachella Valley Water District, and Riverside County Agricultural Commission approval before they MI be considered final. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, final architectural working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Cond SDP 671 - 40 Toll Bros. 1 ATTACHMENTS 04:..,, �,�.•.^� � ���� ate. �, „a Attachment 1 2.5 CIRCULATION PLAN The proposed circulation system for the Norman Course Specific Plan conforms with the requirements of the City of La Quinta General Plan - Circulation Element by providing a hierarchy of vehicular traffic -ways with pedestrian -ways segregated within the plan area. The proposed circulation alignment is defined by the proposed golf course and ties to existing perimeter streets, adjacent to within PGA West and the plan area boundary. The City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element delineates an equestrian overlay which provides for an equestrian trail on the easterly side ofMadison Street. This element is delineated in the Open Space Policy Diagram on page 4-5 of the General Plan and on Exhibit XX, below Secured entries into the residential areas have been located to provide adequate line of sight and optimum traffic ingress and egress from the residential components of the master plan area. Primary Arterial Onsite Collector �+ 5 Local Street • • • • • • Equestrian Trail Exhibit 11 Individual driveways are proposed with generous setbacks from entry boulevards, neighborhood loop collectors, and neighborhood streets to further provide safe ingress and egress from the individual residences. 2.15 Iz Attachment 2 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 5, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:09 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Dennis Cunningham and Frank Reynolds C. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Cunningham to excuse Committee Member Bobbitt. Unanimously approved. D. Staff present: Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Associate Planners Leslie Mouriquand and Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 1, 2000. Committee Member Reynolds noted he was not present but, under Adjournment the date should be changed to April 5, 2000. There being no quorum, approval of the minutes was continued to May 3, 2000. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2000-671; a request of Toll Brothers for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for eight new prototype residential units located adjacent to the Greg Norman signature golf course on portions of Kingston Heath and Tiburon Drive in Tracts 29349 and 29348. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. AAALRC4-5-20.wpd Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 5. 2000 2. Committee Member Cunningham asked the applicant if he would like to address the Committee. Mr. Gary Lemon, Regional Manger for Toll Brothers and Mark Kiner, architect for the project, stated they had no questions, but were available for any questions the Committee may have. 3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he likes the exclusive use of the hip roof rather than the gable style. 4. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had no objections and approved the project as submitted. 5. "There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-671, subject to conditions as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Site Development Permit 2000-674; a request of the T.D. Desert Development for approval of architectural plans for two new prototype residential units located within Rancho l',a Quinta Country Club. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Cunningham stated we are getting more and more of the Moorish architecture and sometimes the size of the exterior does not match the size of the interior and does not work well. This look is par-, of the transition taking place at Rancho I,a Quinta. 3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the guest house was added to the Plan 1, would that not give them two elevations. Staff stated the thought was to have one floor plan and two elevations to give the patrons more of a choice. Committee Member Cunningham asked how many units would be built from these elevations. Staff stated approximately 300. "These units are to be used for the last phases of the country club. Committee Member Cunningham stated that if they were going to use 40 or 50 of these elevations it wouldn't be too much, but not 300 was too much of a concentration. I le agreed with staff that more elevations were needed. Staff did remind the Committee that they do have approval on plans that are existing. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Cunningham/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2000-008 approving Site Development Permit 99-674, as submitted. Unanimously approved. A:\AI.RC'4-5-20.%%pal 2 March 29, 2000 The Honorable John Pena City of LaQuinta P.O. Box 15044 LaQuinta, Ca 92253 Dear Mayer Pena, I am writing in sapport of the new building project of the LaQuinta Arts Faunciation. Although I am not a resident of your city, I count myself among the thousands of Coachella Valley citizens who benefit from the Foundation's programs. I wn privileged to :serve as a n ►ember of the the LOAF board of directors, and my wife is a volunteer teacher in local schook The I~owAdian needs to expand its f tfolities to tweet the rapidly growb%ir cultural and intellectual needs of Valley residents. Its special enVhasis on youth has produced much --needed schaitu ships and educational programming, and we ;need. more space to continue growing those programs. I curt+exitly screrc on the city vFIndian 'i tells pianning commission, and I know that . our commission and city council wiR subject the proposed project to a fair and rigorous study to assure that it meets your high expectations. I am confident you will conclude that this project will heneftt the City of LaQuintds citizens and the natty others who reside in the larger cotmurtunity served by L{IAF. Thank you for your past support of our Foundation, and for your consideration of our new building project. very truly yours, CA"&Lf Jim Parrish 45605 Cielito Drive Indian Wells, Ca 92210 cc: LaQuinta Planning Cornml-Wilon Nfembers LaQuinta City Council Members Mr. Jerry Herman, Cormnunity Development Director Mr. Tom Genovese, City Manager n• 79-13 0 Ladera Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 March 29, 2000 Planning Commission City of La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Ladera Drive La Quinta_ CA 92253 Gentlemen: To summarize: This is a request that you read a correction into the record at your next public meeting that considers the application by World Development for development adjacent to Quinterra. This application appeared -in your March 28, 2000 agenda as Environmental Axsessment 99-382, 7entafive 'tract Map 29624, and S"ie Deveiopinent Termit 99-675. A commissioner made a false statement on a pivotal legal matter to the developer and to the public. Uncorrected, this can: • Compromise your ability to rule fairly on this matter, • Compromise the ability oFQuintena residents to exercise their legal rights in the future, and • Further erode public confidence in official competency. To expand: We had the privilege of addressing you at the March 28 meeting, and we thank you for your time and attention. One of our requests was that you add to your resolution regarding this application another requirement on the covenants of the nev, development, to wit: • If that development is built as an extension of Ladera Drive, then its covenants shall include all the provisions already applicable to the adjacent lots already existing on Ladera Drive, especially with regard to the prohibition of RVs. A commissioner addressed this point by stating, in summary • That a "common misconception" exists with regard to the eniForeement of CC&Rs, • That CC&Rs cannot be enforced in the absence of a Homeowners' Association, • That the existing Quinterra CC&Rs are thus meaningless, and • That the only regulation of RVs possible in Quinterra is that ,provided by La Quinta City law. Since public comment had already been closed, it was not possible to challenge this statement, and during the following Commission discussion, tl-e covenant issue was dismissed as now a moot point. In fact, the "common miveonce19tion" is the Commissioner's. The City Attorney has so assured us, and she will so assure you. Covenants such as those governing Quinterra are explicitly enforceable by any property owner willing to expend the resources to do so, and we have, without benefit of an HOA, but with the advice of legal counsel, initiated proceedings to do so on more than one occasion. To avoid misunderstanding, Iet us assure you that we agree that • Covenants are civil agreements among private individuals, not laws. • Covenant disputes arise between individuals, separately or in groups such as HOAs • Covenant disputes escalate to Civil Courts, not to Criminal Courts. • The City does not participate in the enforcement of covenants. But we also believe that • The Planning Commission, as the City's agent, does negotiate with applicants such as World Development. • The City does have the authority to require certain provisions in certain covenants. • The City already uses that authority in section 51 of the resolution distributed at the March 28 meeting. • That authority is a legitimate tool for the Commission to use in negotiating approval of the World Development application. Accordingly: • We encourage you to verify these facts with the City Attorney. • We request that at your next public consideration of this matter, when the developer and many of the same Quinterra residents will be present, you read a correction of this misstatement into the record. • We again request that compatible covenants be required on lots built on any extension of Ladera Drive. • We suggest that you encourage the City Attorney to interrupt your proceedings to correct legal misinformation of this kind. Again, we thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to an all -win solution to this issue. You can call us, or leave us a. message, at 760-342-0424. Sincerely, H. C. (Neil) Ludlam and. James Hanson cc: World Development La Quinta City Attorney La Quinta City Council Residents of Ladera Drive Residents of iv[alia Circle Residents of Tortola Circle March 30, 2000 Roan B.. Foster P.O,, Box 1202, La QuJnLa, CA-. 9,12253 The Honorable John Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta P.O. Box, 1504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 Dear John, For the past 18 years, -the La Quinta Arts Foundation has been working toward our goal of bring quality art and art education to the people of our community and the Valley. We have done this, with our, now Nationally known, La Quinta Arts Festival, our scholarship program, classroom art education and adult education programs. Asyou are avvarc,,vve have outgrown both our building and our Festival grounds. We have come to a standstill in our ability to provide quality classes and ex -paneled programming due to this lack of space. The gift we have been given is the answer to any growing organizations dreams. The property on Washington Blvd. is our dream come true. This property will give us; the ability to be what we know ,will become a model for the Valley. With, our plans for the future, we will be able to give so much more to our community. It will also provide a destination for residents as well as visitors to our area. We would like La Q,►uinta to become a mecca for all those interested in the eixts. Our facility would allow the world. to see what a wonderful city we live in. Thank you for your support of our project and our goals. Since, rav Cc: Don ARAph,Terry Henderson, Ron Perkins, Stanley si ?iff, Jerry Herman, Tom Genovese, L.Q, Planning Commission 0 0 DESERT'ff OWER SU RTEY Based on the following cnlena. would you support the Desert Flower development proposed for the corner of Miles Ave & Adams SO Gated Community ' Design Compatibility l � � Home Sizes ' Home values ADS• k cr �C. 1'j �f '-7c -tas AosoLa CiaL'" 0 0 DESEIzTJYo-WE V SURTEY tlased on the following cniena. wuuld YOU suppu►t the Uese►t Flower development proposed for the corner of Miles Ave & Adams St? Uesu n Cum raUlnlily ' I lome SILOS ' I lurr►e Values Gale►l Cunnnu►►'ly l 1 � _ X(i,, tv c �. ADDRESS —let Zj /11 el l P 7m l ma b'O.a COL 64 6uo Aaa J9 N J/ o J7 J6 JJ JI h JJ 0 J1 $ J/ '+ M h ?9 p 19 ?7 h 16 O ` 7 B O$ O O+ f V �♦ e � p $ J o �4 �� 10 °„ 1 `b1 I . GJ.91 / .• 6ry 11.93 y E'5.70 GJ.O M1 ° Gt, 17 at%& tJSo ADO" C6 Lof 6 tor M o 7fo //7,0 8� aJ0 "I tt Jo•d / J.70//0.70 "� 7.f4 Sao 6J.71 / p JJ �d + it. a 0 JJ y� �JI I PQ/ " 10 0 �l�i .Wi aJ.t A e 9 ]7 ly v N �r 47 ® ± . atB �[, w eJ.c7 86.0 80. //0.0 .107.4 II p p J C Jp to 17 mal o reo.r ; �g• Z62 At a. .rase .to.7J f �.'' ® \ � ' '� '� ?r e7 6 ,I ��.� r0.o + J9i \ '� '' { p �+6J �19c 44 41 C ♦ M /©ti /6 h ®o` , ►, I tl.fi �� 91.c fo for P Z /I r O 's \y rd� t•w.w :o Q `� '\ a fl f7 �' I r // /2 N /J a. Ile 74 740 7sn,.slrl I 1►�, : o� ® /9� c /g �m IA 1•� /oe � ' no ' a LOT 0 7� �. ¢ r ff "Jai Bfss 61°. r�77 60.0 Io Je.» t•u•n L•f 'j7 rr4 !i 63 61 65cc 68 69 i I107 a SA ,0 • 9 p O O y' O p O :y J `.ICY' O O Q T cfj � ® ° a aee wz.. :to 49•� 6bo soo 6t.o_ L3 i5ts_� I' r16 /'=tL75o��tL�.i \V L p / of \ t.07J7�/ WJW ti � 6 r �� ©p C cs.os 7�.c e r � O I rr6 9 0 m �t! C1 o 0 m ^ I w /a.h a 66.0 4�0.` 0 2 9B 104.1 oAIR w X� I Igo. V, 4, "Pion Plan One — 2, I00 Square I ' et Priced From $ 2I9,990 Features Include: W/ Pool, Spa & Back Landscaping - $249,990 Three Bedrooms + Office/Fourth Bedroom Two Bathrooms Breakfast Nook & Formal Dining Room Fireplaces In Tlie Master Suite & Living Room Pool, Spa & Back Yard Landscaping Optional Three Czar Garage Plan Two — .2,2.37 Square Feet Features Include: Priced From $ 229,990 W/ Pool, Spa & Back Landscaping - $259,990 Three Bedrooms Three Bathrooms Great Room With Formal Dining Room Fireplaces In The Master Suite & Living Room Pool, Spa & Back Yard Landscaping Optional -Three Czar Garage Plan Three — 2, SIO Square Feet Features Include: Priced From $ 244,990 W/ Pool, Spa & Back Landscaping - $274,990 Dour Bedrooms Threc Bathrooms Living & Family Kootn With Formal Dining Room Fireplaces In The Master Suite & Living Room Pool, Spa & Back Yard Landscaping Optional Three Car Garage WORLD DEVELOPMENT, INC. "A Step Above The Rest" Http •/hvwiv. world -development. com 760/568-2955 a� F, 42 a� U b U 4a i a 0 3 U N O a aA a� CD a� 42 0 a, 4-4 0 0 b 0 U 7 aU a N Q P-, cd a 0 0 00 V- L U O .0 O _0 Co C (U :3 (1) o " L) ::3 C U Cn U) w iQ w z Cn CO W Q U IT r,J 29