1997 05 13 PC�0� �s► Q'C
Z
:. ys
GF tlx:
y OF TNT
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
May 13, 1997
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 97-029
Beginning Minute Motion 97-006
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing
Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of April 22, 1997
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Item .................. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602
Applicant ............ McComic Consolidated, Inc.
Location ............. South of PGA Boulevard along the east side of Cedar Crest, south
of Riviera along the east and west sides of Medinah, South of
Merion along the west side of Interlachen, and west of Colonial
Request .............. 1) To subdivide 17 acres into 69 single family and other common
lots in PGA West resort and club, and 2) approval of three house
plans (compatibility review)
Action ................ Resolution 97- , Resolution 97-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Item .................. STREET VACATION 97-034
Applicant ........... City of La Quinta
Location ............ Avenida Montezuma at Avenida Obregon
Request ............. Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency finding with
proposed vacation of street right-of-way
Action .............. Minute Motion 97-
B. Item .................. CONTINUED - HIGHWAY 111 LANDSCAPE AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
Applicant ............ City of La Quinta
Location ............. Highway 111 from the easterly City limits to the westerly limits
Request .............. Approval of landscaping, entry signs, bus stops and building design
guidelines
Action ............... Minute Motion 97-
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Report of the City Council meeting of May 6, 1997.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
April 22, 1997
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Principal Planner Stan Sawa to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Gardner,
Newkirk, Tyler, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
C. Commissioner Butler clarified that Commissioner Tyler does live in La Quinta in
contrast to what was printed in the Desert Sun.
D. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 8, 1997.
There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Gardner to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved with
Commissioner Seaton abstaining.
B. Department Report: None
1'C4-22-97
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 96-602; a request of McComic Consolidated, Inc., to subdivide 17 acres
into 69 single family and other common lots in PGA West resort and club, and
compatibility review and approval of three house plans.
1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the preliminary elevations had not been
submitted for Commission review. Staff explained that since the applicant
had requested a continuance for the Site Development Permit, the elevations
had not been submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked why the entire request
was not being continued. Staff explained that the tract map could be
considered separately and the elevations could be brought back at a later date.
Discussion followed regarding the application.
5. Mr. Geoff McComic, the applicant, stated there had been mis-communication
between the City and his staff. The City required more detail than what was
required by the Homeowners' Association and therefore they did not have
time to prepare the elevations as requested by the City.
6. Commissioner Butler expressed his concern that the Commission hold off on
their review of projects until the entire submittal package had been received.
This project had been submitted without color boards, elevations, etc. Mr.
McComic stated it was his understanding that the tract map could be
approved separate from the Site Development Permit. Commissioner Butler
asked staff for clarification. Staff stated the tract map could be approved
separately.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if a grading plan had been submitted and if it
was required. Staff stated it was not required for the review process of a
tentative tract map, but is required prior to the final map. Commissioner
Woodard asked if it would come before the Commission for their review.
PC4-22-97
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the grading plan does not go
before the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Woodard
stated he would prefer to see the grading plan in order to see the elevations
in relation to the different pads. Staff explained that the pad elevations are
shown on the tentative tract map. Commissioner Woodard, then asked if the
landscaping would be approved by the Commission. Staff explained that if
the Commission wanted to review the landscaping, it could be required to
have Commission approval. Commissioner Woodard asked staff what the
amenity ratio was for the tract. Staff stated there was no minimum or
maximum for detached single family houses in accordance with the Specific
Plan, therefore they were not required to submit any information.
Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the concerns that had been
received from the homeowner association. Staff explained the concerns
raised in the letter from the homeowners' (HOA). They do not supersede the
City's requirements. Discussion followed regarding the privacy wall.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the developer was required to provide
swimming pools per any agreements. Staff explained it is an issue with the
HOA, not the City. The Specific Plan only requires pools when the
residential units are attached.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked whether or not the golf car access should be
addressed. Staff stated it was up to the Commission whether or not it should
be addressed.
10. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain Fugitive Dust Control. Staff
explained it was a State mandated requirement.
11. Mr. Barry McComic, 2032 Via Cassa Alta, San Diego, the applicant, stated
he was there to answer any questions. He stated that the island where the
four lots were proposed had been resolved. The two lots would be built with
nice views. He further stated there were no problems with the golf cart
access easement as they would work with staff to resolve. In regard to the
swimming pools, he did not believe any more than two were needed. It was
his belief that if people purchasing one of his homes wanted a swimming
pool, they would install one on their property. In reviewing the area, he had
not found a lot of use being given to the pools provided.
PC4-22-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
12. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed that community pools were not
necessary, but was there a commitment on the part of the developer to install
the pools. He then asked the applicant to explain "Seoktop". Mr. McComic
explained that was the name of his partner. Commissioner Butler asked if the
swimming pools was an issue that should be resolved by the Commission or
the HOA? Mr. McComic stated that as far as the planning of the project, it
is not required. It is a marketing decision, and in their opinion it would be a
waste to build more than the two pools they are proposing.
13. Commissioner Butler asked the City Attorney for her opinion. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as they were meeting zoning and specific
plan requirements, it did not need to be addressed.
14. Commissioner Woodward asked for clarification. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated it was an issue that was resolved at the time of the approval
of the Specific Plan for the entire PGA West project. At this time, it is not
an issue.
15. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about installing pools on the
residential lots as they were deep and narrow. This may be a justification for
requiring the community pools. Should the location of the pools be a concern
of the Commission? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if there was
a health or safety concern, yes. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection
was that the community pools are poorly located; one is near the golf tee, and
both are at either ends of the development. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the Commission could make a recommendation. McComic clarified
that there were other pools in the area, and the location of the pools is based
on the entire community and not just this tract. Commissioner Woodard
asked legal counsel to clarify whether it was within the Commission's
purview to determine the location of the pools. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated there was no criteria to make a determination as to the
location of the pools.
16. Mr. McComic addressed Commissioner Woodard's concern about the long
and narrow lots stating the houses were designed so a pool could be located
in the front yard. The pools were not intended to be in the backyard.
Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was that the pools were proposed
to be located at either end of the development and families would have to
travel a distance to use the pool. Mr. McComic clarified that the existing
pool at the end of Cedar Crest is also accessible.
PC4-22-97
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
17. Commissioner Newkirk asked where the model complex would be located.
Mr. McComic stated it would be at the corner of Merion and Riviera backing
up to the only lake on the project. Commissioner Newkirk stated this would
require an opening at both ends of Cedar Crest and asked Mr. McComic to
clarify how this would work. Mr. Geoff McComic explained this was a
requirement of the Public Works Department. Discussion followed as to the
road design.
18. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Corporation, clarified that the road is a
secondary access conditioned by the City for this tract. It is not a condition
of the developer to construct the road. Mr. Brian Esgate, engineer for the
project, clarified that presently it is their intent to connect the road at the
north end per staff s request to eliminate the cul-de-sac.
19. Commissioner Woodard stated it was his understanding that Cedar Crest
would hook up with Jack Nicklaus. Brian Esgate, engineer, stated that was
his understanding. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that Tentative Tract
28259 is required to provide a short piece of street to connect to existing
Cedar Crest. Until the two tracts are matched up, it is not possible to require
the applicant to provide the street connection. With the development of these
tracts, it will now provide the opportunity for this to happen.
20. Commissioner Woodard asked if this tract would not need the connection for
emergency vehicles. Discussion followed regarding the road design.
21. Commissioner Butler asked if the model complex was a part of this project?
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that even if the model complex was
located on the corner, the road was not required to be connected as KSL Land
Corporation did not own the land. Now with the development of this tract
there is a need for the access. Mr. McComic stated he had no objection to
providing the access. Mr. Brian Esgate stated their drawings showed an
access to the north and they would align their street to the north eliminating
with the cul-de-sac. Alternative solutions were discussed.
22. Commissioner Woodard asked if KSL had any concern with this connection.
Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, explained that since
they had acquired PGA West, they were asked to design their tract and create
the access. In their opinion it is not an effective use of the land for this area.
The bye hole golf tee was designed to accommodate this access and it would
PC4-22-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
be a monetary concern of theirs to have this connection. They have no
objection to an emergency access, but do not want the access open to their
tract due to the high end homes in their area.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with a 1400 foot long cul-de-sac;
however, he could understand their concerns. Mr. Hosea went on to explain
that these homes, as they approach the clubhouse, are on large lots and are
over a million dollars.
24. Commissioner Newkirk stated that as long as there is an emergency access,
he would be in favor of retaining the cul-de-sac. Staff stated the Subdivision
Ordinance would allow an emergency access to be installed in place of
through street.
25. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with pool locations and
asked if the pool at the end of the cul-de-sac was provided for other people
outside this tract. Mr. McComic stated this was the location originally
proposed by the HOA. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification as to
who the pool would serve. Mr. Hosea stated the proposed location supports
the developer's plan as it follows the overall changes proposed by KSL Land
Corporation to have more single family detached homes and less condos.
26. Commissioner Butler stated that across the street from this tract is KSL
property who is willing to allow their property to end at the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Hosea clarified that this property was originally owned and developed by
Sunrise Company. Mr. Brian Esgate clarified that these homes were built out
condos and they have access to an existing pool on Cedar Crest.
27. Mr. Arlo Nuutinen, attorney for the Coachella Valley Unified School District
(CVUSD), asked for clarification as to what condition would be imposed on
this tract regarding school fees. He went on to explain the original conditions
that had been placed on the Specific Plan (Condition #39) for the PGA West
development. He stated that if a condition was originally imposed regarding
school impacts, it was there because of unmitigated impacts. If the condition
had been removed, then the impact would now have to be addressed. In
reviewing the documents, he'was unable to find any changes to the conditions
regarding the school fees. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the issue is
that the original Specific Plan adopted in 1982, did not have State
requirements regarding specific school fees at certain levels. Later as the
PC4-22-97 6
Planning Commission Meeting
April22, 1997
Specific Plan was amended in 1996, the State requirements regarding schools
fees had been adopted. It was the City's understanding that agreements had
been made between the original developers and the school district in regards
to school fees. As the Plan was amended last summer, it was the City's
understanding that those agreements were still in effect. It was not the City
Council's intent to continue requiring a condition that had meaning in 1982
and 1983, but after the State requirements changed no longer had the same
type of meaning. Subsequently, the reference in the current Specific Plan that
is approved and governs this project, is Section 2.5.4 and refers to the fact
that the school services for the Specific Plan area are facilitated by DSUSD
and CVUSD. There is a requirement contained in the Conditions of
Approval (Condition #3) of the proposed tract, that prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits, the City will have clearances or permits from
the different agencies, one of which is CVUSD. If the school district has an
existing agreement that they believe is enforceable, then presumably they will
not issue their permit unless that is met and if they do not, then presumably
they will be following the State mandated requirement fees that will need to
be paid to them. So it is not the case that they will not be receiving anything.
It is the case that the City has made a determination that they will not be
requiring something different than what the State is currently requiring. Mr.
Nuutinen stated that his challenge was when did the City make this
determination, as it was not in the City records. If this is in writing, he would
like to ask, according to Public Record Act under Government Code 6250
and following, for all those documents. He went on to state the School
District's concern regarding the requirements and further if the City had such
an intent, where was it expressed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she
had repeated the condition that is existing in the current Specific Plan. That
is the only condition that relates to schools in the existing Specific Plan for
this project. The City has no intent to require anything other than what is
already required. The City is not imposing a separate fee. The City is saying
this is between the developer and the School District. The City will not issue
building permits until CVUSD gives their release. Mr. Nuutinen stated that
is a conclusion, but does not explain how it was arrived at. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the City is not required to give a reason under our
own zoning documents as to what conditions we come up with when it is not
something required of the City to provide. Mr. Nuutinen stated it is required
when the City is making an approval that has conditions that says the
conditions are being carried forward. Discussion followed regarding how the
City arrived at this decision.
PC4-22-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
28. Chairman Abels asked Mr. Nuutinen make a formal request of the City
Attorney as this issue cannot be resolved during this meeting.
29. Mr. Jim Saul, president of Homeowners' Association #2, stated he was in
favor of the proposed project and they will be a part of their HOA. However,
there are several unresolved issues. These issues had been alluded to in their
letter of April 16, 1997. They are requesting that the Commission not
approve the tract until the issues are resolved. One issue is finding a better
location for the model complex that would allow better security for the
existing homeowners. The proposed location of the models is to be deep
within'the existing homes which is an issue of security. The north end of
Cedar Crest would be a better location. That location would require
cooperation with KSL Land Corporation to keep the models secured and not
allow visitors accessibility to the rest of the tract. They would have no
objection to this location if they could let them know how they could provide
security. The second issue is the location of the two homes proposed to be
constructed on the island. They would prefer it be developed as a green belt
with a community pool as there are no pools available to the residents in this
area.
30. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Saul to identify how he was "related" to this
project and if he would explain any requirements regarding the pools. He
stated that the Commission is responsible for making decision on this tract,
and it can be difficult to make a decision on a part of a development when the
overall scheme of the development is not known. Mr. Saul stated it is their
desire to resolve the issues before the tract map is approved. Once the tract
is approved they have no alternative. Discussion followed regarding the
different concerns raised by the HOA.
31. Mr. Ted Martens, HOA, stated that Mr. McComic had met with the HOA on
one occasion. In regards to swimming pools, it is not true that 85% of the
residents of detached homes put in their own pools. Only 8% of the existing
detached homes in PGA West have pools. He then went on to give the
statistics of the pools at PGA West. He further stated that on one of the
streets that is a part of this tract, Cedar Crest, the homes on the west side of
the street (25 attached condos), have one pool on the southern end that serves
all 25 homes. Since the original development plans for this area called for
two more pools on the east side of Cedar Crest, most of the existing homes
on the west side of Cedar Crest expect the pools to be constructed.
PC4-22-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
32. Mr. Chuck Otto, 80-070 Cedar Crest, stated he lived approximately opposite
of where he understood the models would be constructed. He had no
objection to this location as long as there is security to keep people from
wandering through the rest of the community. He did purchase his home
with the understanding that there would be a pool provided for their area. As
everyone lives in the community and pays dues, they do not care who owns
the pools. In regard to the models, the concern is if their access is to be off
Cedar Crest. They do not want Cedar Crest used as the thoroughfare. This
would require an access from the Nichlaus Gate and this would require some
type of fencing.
33. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten houses across from the proposed
tract on Cedar Crest were expecting pools and were not to have them, and if
the pools are not an issue for the Commission, then the pool locations
become an issue relative to this tract. Where are the pool locations relative
to the entire Specific Plan? Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated this tract is not required to construct the pools; they are installing two
pools at their discretion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that at the
time there was an assumption that townhouses would be constructed and
therefore the density would be greater. It is not an issue of the Commission,
even though there was an assumption at that time for the existing
homeowners.
34. Commissioner Woodard and Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify the
location of the proposed models. Staff stated they would be processed under
a Minor Use Permit.
35. Mr. McComic stated it was their opinion that the two lots to be constructed
on the island was good planning and makes good monetary sense. If they
were not allowed to build the homes it could be a monetary loss of $150,000.
He then asked the City Attorney if the model complex was to be considered
by the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would be
before the Commission as a separate application to be heard at a different
time.
36. Mr. McComic stated that they had dealt with the issue of security for
numerous developments when the models were on the interior of the project.
Their procedure has been to put a security person in a vehicle who is in
communication with the guard gate to monitor who comes and goes to see the
PC4-22-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
models. The gate would notify the guard who and how many were coming
and the guard would monitor their movements. In all their years of
construction, they have never had an issue of someone coming in who did not
come to see the models. They take the security of the development seriously.
In regards to the location of the models, it is imperative to them that they be
on the best lots to offer them the best possible showcase for marketing their
models.
37. Mr. Saul stated he appreciated Mr. McComic's comments as he had not heard
this information prior to this meeting. It would be appreciated if he would
have a representative attend their board meetings to provide this information
as they would like these issues resolved. In regards to the overall PGA West
projeci, it would be to the advantage of the Commission to understand the
Specific Plan for the entire project to be aware of what has been planned.
38. Mr. Robert Foulk, 57-540 Interlachen, stated he and his neighbors object to
the construction of the homes on the islands as it would be the only island
with homes.
39. Mr. Geoff McComic, applicant, stated he had met with the Architectural
Review Committee and the Board of the HOA. After reviewing the plans
with the Architectural Review Committee they had reduced the homes from
four to two. In addition, they had described their plans for security regarding
the models at their board meeting.
40. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
41. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern that the issues raised by the HOA
be addressed and therefore he thought a continuance would be in order.
42. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the two lots being
constructed on the island and the access off the cul-de-sac. Discussion
followed regarding alternative layouts.
43. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the cul-de-sac be addressed as
a through street at some future time. Regarding the pools, it was his opinion
that the developer was being generous to construct the two pools. The
Commission does not have an understanding of the adjoining projects,
therefore, if the developer wants to put in two pools, it is a bonus.
PC4-22-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
44. Commissioner Seaton stated that in her opinion the developer had addressed
the issue of security for the model homes; the Commission needs to have
additional information regarding the pools; the two proposed lots on the
island is an issue and perhaps the Commission should listen to the HOA; and
there still needs to be information provided on the golf cart access.
45. Commissioner Newkirk stated he too believed most of the issues had been
addressed. His greatest concern was the cul-de-sac. He too believes the
construction of the two homes on the island is a big mistake and it should be
a park that would enhance the entire area. Commissioner Woodard suggested
the island become a park with a pool and the pool to be constructed at the end
of the tract become a house. Commissioner Newkirk agreed.
46. Commissioner Tyler stated it would be impossible for the Commission to
impose the conditions of the original Specific Plan on this developer. He
concurred with the concerns raised about the two houses on the island.
However, he too would not want a home with a community pool next to it.
As numerous issues still remained to be resolved, he would move to continue
the project.
47. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to continue Tentative Tract 28410 to May 13,
1997. 'Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
Commissioner Seaton informed the Chairman that she was ill and left the meeting during the recess.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT 28444; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval to
subdivide 38.36 acres into 69 single family and other common or street lots on the
south side of the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard and west of Madison Street
abutting the Tom Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Tournament Golf Courses.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
3. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land
Corporation, reviewed the conditions. He stated they were unclear regarding
Condition #30, but after discussions with Senior Engineer Steve Speer, they
PC4-22-97
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
understood they are only required to construct the west side of Airport
Boulevard. He then questioned their participation in a Thoroughfare
Improvement Program to be implemented by the City, but as there are now
other development to share in the costs, they have no objections. Regarding
the issue of school fees, he stated they had inherited the agreement that was
negotiated between DSUSD and CVUSD from Landmark Land Company
and it is their position that they are participating on based on those
agreements.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification as to the main and emergency
entrances into the tract. Mr. Hosea explained the entrances and stated the
design is tentative until they decide whether or not there would be another
entrance into the project.
5. Commissioner Butler asked about their fees for the construction of the
Madison Street Primary Arterial. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that
the reason for the requirement is that the Specific Plan requires the
development of the off -site streets. As they are in the final stages of
development for the specific plan area, that is why this is being required.
This condition is only identifying the ultimate width of the street. The second
half of the condition requires the applicant to secure 50% of the cost to
construct the west side of the street.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if someone is entering the Nicklaus gate was
there a traffic issue. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated there is a possibility
for a fender bender. Mr. Hosea stated that from a traffic engineering point,
the safest point to make the entrance is at the slowest point. Additional
measures such as speed bumps can be used. This is consistent with every
gate entrance at PGA West and it has not been an issue to date. Staff stated
that in the tight situations at slow speed there are conflicting problems that
will occur.
7. Mr. Arto Nuutinen, attorney for CVUSD, stated his concern was to obtain
what the City's policy is regarding these conditions. At some point a
determination will need to be made.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
PC4-22-97 12
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
9. Commissioner Tyler reviewed the Conditions of Approval for each of the
tracts and asked staff to clarify why they were not the same. It was his
opinion that the language should be consistent for each tract. Condition #2,
should have a sentence regarding when the tract would expire and an
additional condition added regarding drainage requirements.
10. Commissioner Newkirk stated he believed the issues raised in a letter by Mr.
D. R. Lutz should be addressed. Staff stated they were reviewing the issue.
There being no further comment or questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-
028 approving Tentative Tract 28444, subject to the findings and Conditions
of Approval as amended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner
and Seaton. ABSTAIN: None.
Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. HIGHWAY I I I GUIDELINES; a request of the City for review and approval of
landscaping, entry signs, bus stops, and building design guidelines.
Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Mr. Ray Lopez, consultant for the project, gave a presentation on the
proposed guidelines. He stated the guidelines would go to the City Council
for final approval.
3. Commissioner Woodard asked if the landscaping plans were designed to
blend with each of the adjoining cities. Mr. Lopez stated that there had been
no conscious effort to do this. Council direction was to give La Quinta its
own identity through signs, landscaping, bus stops, etc., to create a theme.
Commissioner Woodard questioned why the bicycle path along Highway 111
PC4-22-97 13
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
stopped at the channel; are there plans to continue the bikepath? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the City does have a plan to continue the path,
but not necessarily on Hwy 111 and described the proposed route.
4. Commissioner Woodard asked Mr. Lopez to explain what appeared to be a
wall on the plan. Mr. Lopez stated it denoted an area where larger plants may
be used to screen parking lots including buffer walls. Commissioner
Woodard asked what the time span was for the growth of the plants. Mr.
Lopez stated it has not been determined yet but he had recommended the
sizes that should be used. Commissioner Woodard asked whose
responsibility it would be to maintain it. Staff stated it would be the
developer. Commissioner Woodard stated they would like to see the larger
plants and as much as possible, if the developer is paying.
5. Commissioner Butler commended Mr. Lopez's plan. He questioned the
utilization of the Ocotillo plant, but watering determines whether or not they
are blooming, but how can the watering be controlled. Mr. Lopez stated that
if there is a well drained soil with ample water, they will flourish.
Commissioner Butler stated that as Highway 111 develops and the cost of
installing the planting will be the developers, are there any other plants that
should be recommended that would enhance the area. How does the City
control the developers that want it enhanced and those who don't. Mr. Lopez
stated that it needs to added to the guidelines so that the transition is
controlled to keep the continuity.
6. Commissioner Gardner asked what the height of medium high shrubs were.
Mr. Lopez stated three to five feet with screening shrubs being five to eight
feet. Discussion regarding the different plants and their heights.
7. Commissioner Woodard expressed his concern that if the developer is
planting and maintaining the landscaping, it could take years before it
develops to any substantial size. Size is therefore very important. Mr. Lopez
stated this could be addressed immediately. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated that if the Commission wants a certain size, it has to be stated in this
document. These are the guidelines that will determine what will be required.
8. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with the concept and would like to
see it developed in his lifetime. He did believe the diameter of the trees
needed to be added.
PC4-22-97 14
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
9. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the heavy use of turf. Mr.
Lopez stated the turf is high water use and low maintenance. It is being used
to identify La Quinta as well as being indicative of some of the businesses
along Highway 111 who have requested the more lush and not the desert
landscaping. Commissioner Tyler asked how the design would be
integrated into what has already been done; do you make this retroactive to
what is now along Highway 111. Staff stated they are working with the
current property owners regarding the proposed landscaping.
10. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was to have the developers install
the more mature material to ensure a more lasting landscape. The City needs
to take the aggressive role and require the more lush landscaping. Mr. Lopez
stated that most businesses would prefer the more attractive.
11. Commissioner Butler stated there currently are developments along Highway
I I I that will not maintain even their parking lots. It is difficult to motivate
some of the developers to produce the landscaping the City desires.
Regarding the medians, are they the City's responsibility? Staff stated they
were the responsibility of the City.
12. Commissioner Woodard how does the City enforce the standards. Staff
stated a section could be added to the Guidelines regarding the standards
required for maintenance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the
standards are not being upheld, it would be handled by Code Enforcement as
a violation. Discussion followed regarding the enforcement of the
Guidelines.
13. Commissioner Gardner asked how you can make a blanket requirement for
the diameter of the trees when so many different species are being used. Mr.
Lopez explained that it would have to vary with the species. The best way to
get the best plant is to go to the nursery and tag the trees or when they are
delivered reject them if they are not up to industry standards.
14. Mr. Lopez went on to explain the landscaping design for the entry
monuments and bus stops.
15. Commissioner Woodard asked where the signs would be located as they are
an important part of the landscaping. He requested that the signs be kept out
of the turf area. Mr. Lopez explained a possible layout. Commissioner
Woodard suggested that Mr. Lopez have a graphic display so the developer
can visually see what is requested of him.
PC4-22-97 15
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
16. Chairman Abels asked who would pay for the bus stops. Staff stated it was
the responsibility of the City. Chairman Abels suggested the bus stops be
sold to different entities to recover the cost.
17. Mr. Lopez described the bus stop designs. He stated Sunline Transit had
requested that the bus stops be designed in such a way that anyone waiting for
a bus could be seen by the bus drivers. He explained that the bus stops would
take on the look of the La Quinta Hotel and Resort by utilizing the concrete
tile roof. Commissioner Woodard questioned the materials to be used for the
tiles. Mr. Lopez explained that it is tiles made of concrete. Commissioner
Woodard stated his concern was that the tile roof would not have to be
slopped and therefore water would drain in on the people waiting for the
buses. Mr. Lopez stated this was a conceptual drawing and the working
drawings would address this issue. Commissioner Woodard suggested that
it be one continuous slope.
18. Chairman Abels asked if they could be graffiti -proof. Mr. Lopez stated that
with the smooth trowel finish and paint that is resistant to graffiti they will
be more easily maintained.
19. Commissioner Woodard asked if the waste containers were to be poured in
place concrete. Mr. Lopez stated it could be concrete masonry block. If the
concept is acceptable, it would be put out to bid to ascertain the best cost.
20. Commissioner Butler asked how many were anticipated to be constructed.
Mr. Lopez stated he understood six would be constructed.
21. Commissioner Woodard stated that the sun shade would not be needed on
those bus stops that face north. Mr. Lopez stated that was true as well as the
landscaping that would be a backdrop to the bus stop.
22. Commissioner Tyler asked if they wouldn't all be the same and shouldn't
there be a place for the bus schedules. Mr. Lopez stated they would all be the
same once a design has been approved. As far as the bus schedule, there is
no problem providing a location.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated that on Exhibit "A" there is an opening so the
bus driver can see if someone is waiting for a bus. Exhibit "B" there is no
way to see anyone waiting inside. Mr. Lopez stated that on Exhibit "B" the
structure is pulled back to allow visibility. Commissioner Woodard stated
that the driver will not be able to see anyone waiting inside. Mr. Lopez stated
PC4-22-97 16
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
they are trying to open it up to create some interest. Commissioner Woodard
stated that the more you open it up the more problems you have structurally
and the more costly it will be to build. If there is going to be an opening, then
Exhibit "B" will not work and if the sculpture element is used, it will be a
place for vandals. Mr. Lopez stated they would review the plans in light of
the comments made.
24. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated this is a conceptual design. Staff
is requesting the Commission make a choice between Exhibit "A" or "B"
then staff will look at the more specific issues that have been raised.
25. Commissioner Butler asked when the City was proposing to have the bus
stops constructed. Staff stated they were included in the 1997/98 Capital
Improvement Budget. The bus stops needed to be thought out more.
26. Mr. Lopez stated it would cost approximately $5,000 to bring water to the
site for the drinking fountains. Discussion followed regarding options that
could be located at the bus stops.
27. Commissioner Newkirk stated they could do without the drinking fountains.
28. Commissioner Woodard stated he did not believe the bus stops were well
thought out and he would like to see a complete redesign. The proposed
materials and tile roof are appropriate; the drinking fountain and waste
containers are inappropriate. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if
the Commission would like to see what other designs had been reviewed by
the City Council. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if the receptacle
and drinking fountain were removed, would it be an appropriate design.
Commissioner Woodard stated the materials are appropriate such as the wood
beams, tile roofs, and the motif is somewhat reflective of the La Quinta
Hotel. Poured in place concrete seats are appropriate in terms of
maintenance, but beyond that point, the design needs a lot of help.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any lighting. Mr. Lopez stated
that Sunline Transit requested lights be installed.
30. Commissioner Woodard stated that Exhibit "B" was larger and has rustic
ornate canes, is this design part of the total costs. Mr. Lopez stated these are
conceptual designs and whatever elements were selected would be
incorporated into the final costs approved by Council.
PC4-22-97 17
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
31. Community Development Director stated staff was asking the Commission
for their approval of one of the designs and that recommendation would be
taken to the City Council. If the recommendation is to redesign the bus stops
then this recommendation will be taken to Council for a final determination.
There are no additional funds for redesign so it would be up to Council
whether or not to allocate additional funds.
32. Commissioner Tyler stated he would prefer Exhibit "A" with the deletion of
the drinking fountain and waste receptacle and a redesign of the roofline.
33. Commissioner Newkirk stated he agreed with Commissioner Tyler except
that he would like to have the trash receptacle.
34. Commissioner Gardner stated he too would eliminate the drinking fountain.
The trash receptacle is a necessity and regarding the roofline, he would agree
with Commissioner Woodard. His concern was not for the roof, but the
drainage water. He has no objection to either design.
35. Commissioner Butler stated he thought both designs would add something
to the community, but neither depicts what the community is trying to
achieve. As it appears, the Commission is going against what the Council
prefers by selecting Exhibit "A". Although he prefers Exhibit "A" and
believes it to be the more appropriate, it is still just a box. Exhibit "B" is
more appealing without the drinking fountains. Involving the art would be
an added feature if it was possible to make it vandal -proof. Exhibit "B" is a
unique design and has some character to it.
36. Chairman Abels stated he too would select Exhibit "B". Commissioner
Newkirk stated he too would prefer Exhibit "B" if it could be made vandal -
proof.
37. Commissioner Woodard stated that there were pre -cast waste receptacles that
could be used and would save costs. He would prefer Exhibit "B" but he was
concerned that the bus driver would not be able to see the people waiting. If
the problem can be solved between an art form that would obliterate part of
the view of someone waiting and then the angle wall if it has an opening it
would help. Right now if the view is a requirement, then Exhibit "B" would
not be appropriate. If it was not a requirement, he would prefer Exhibit "B".
PC4-22-97 18
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
38. Commissioner Gardner asked why an opening was needed on Exhibit "B",
if the bus stop was sitting parallel to the street, the angle wall would afford
the bus driver the view he would need. Commissioner Woodard stated he
agreed, but it looks like with the angle the driver would not be able to see.
Mr. Lopez stated he would show the design to Sunline Transit and let them
make the determination.
39. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to
recommended Exhibit "B" with the removal of the drinking fountain and
utilizing a precasted trash can.
40. Commissioner Tyler stated his concern about the metal back sunshade. Mr.
Lopez stated it could be eliminated as needed and the sun problem could be
taken care of by the use of trees. Commissioner Gardner suggested wood be
used as it would eliminate the problems caused by the metal.
41. Commissioners asked for the location of the entry signs. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman explained they would be on Highway
111. One at the west end on the south side of the street at Lumpy's and at the
east end on the northwest side at Home Depot.
42. Commissioner Butler stated that the water feature would not work with the
winds. He would prefer Design "A".
43. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to
recommended Design "A".
44. Due to the lateness of the meeting, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Newkirk, to continue the discussion regarding the
Highway III Architectural Guidelines to May 13, 1997. Unanimously
approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
A. Chairman Abels asked for a status report on The Tradition project. Staff explained
that they are progressing on with all areas except where the State agencies are
reviewing the six lots.
PC4-22-97 19
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on May 13,
1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:46 p.m. on April
22, 1997.
PC4-22-97 20
PH #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 13, 1997 (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 22, 1997)
CASE NOS.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 97-602
REQUESTS: (1) APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 17-ACRES INTO 69
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, AND (2) APPROVAL OF PROTOTYPE
HOUSES WHICH RANGE IN SIZE FROM APPROXIMATELY 2,201
TO OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW)
LOCATION: GENERALLY 560-FEET SOUTH OF PGA BOULEVARD ALONG THE
EAST SIDE OF CEDAR CREST, SOUTH OF RIVIERA ALONG THE
EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MEDINAH, SOUTH OF MERION
ALONG THE WEST SIDES OF INTERLACHEN AND COLONIAL
APPLICANT: MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED, INCORPORATED (MR. R.
GEOFFREY MC COMIC, PROJECT MANAGER)
PROPERTY
OWNER: SEOKTOP/MC COMIC, LLC
ENGINEERS: LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS (MR. STEVE SOMMERS
AND MR. BRIAN ESGATE)
ARCHITECT: THE MC KINLEY ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: HORTON SHEPARDSON ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THESE APPLICATIONS ARE FOR A SITE THAT IS PART OF THE
PGA WEST RESORT, AND HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) PER SECTION 65457(A) OF PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW BECAUSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS
PREPARED FOR THE "PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN" AND
CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 1, 1984. THE EIR
DOCUMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL
STPC410-13, RES0410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 1 of 7
IN 1988. MINOR AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED SINCE
1989 WITH THE LAST AMENDMENT BEING APPROVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 6, 1996 UNDER RESOLUTION 96-67.
THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS
DEEMED NECESSARY.
GENERAL
PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)
ZONING/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND SPECIFIC PLAN
RESIDENTIAL PER SP 83-002 (AMENDMENT #3)
BACKGROUND:
Planning Commission Action
On April 8, 1997, the Commission, by unanimous vote, continued the public hearing for
this case to April 22, 1997, at the request of the applicant. No public testimony was taken.
On April 22, 1997, the Planning Commission only reviewed the Tentative Tract Map
application because the site development application was incomplete. Public testimony
was taken which included requests by surrounding property owners and the PGA West
(Res. #2) Homeowners Association to require the developer to provide more community
recreation facilities, deletion of residential Lots 54 and 55, and discussion on whether or
not Cedar Crest at its north terminus should be a through street or gated for emergency
access only. A copy of the Minutes is attached (Attachment 1 - Excerpt). The Planning
Commission voted to continue the development request to May 13, 1997, on a unanimous
vote.
PGA West History
In 1984, the City approved the Landmark Land (LML) PGA West Specific Plan (83-002)
permitting 5,000 single family homes, a Resort Village (400 hotel room units, 250
apartment/condominium cottages, and support facilities), four 18-hole golf courses, and
other commercial resort facilities on 1,600+ acres.
In 1996, the City Council approved a third amendment to SP 83-002 by Resolution 96-67
with KSL Recreation Corporation to resolve and/or delete many of the obsolete policies
or graphics in the Plan that were are not consistent with KSL development plans or the
Zoning Code Update (Attachment 2, Land Use Plan). The purpose of the Plan is to "guide
the character, design and standards of development at PGA West."
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 2 of 7
Site Background /Tract History
The streets within the vacant project site were installed by a prior developer. The
properties gain access to PGA Boulevard by using Jack Nicklaus Boulevard via Riviera
or other streets in this area of PGA West. Interlachen, a private street, provides direct
access to 58t' Avenue, a public street.
Proiec1 t Request
The applicant has revised the map initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on April
22, 1997 (Attachments 3 and 4). The new map has 69 single family residential lots on
approximately 17-acres with the two common area pool sites eliminated. The lots range
in size from 7,983 to 31,455 square feet (Attachment 5 - New Map Exhibit). The proposed
single family lots back up to the existing golf course fairways of the Jack Nicklaus Private
Course with the exception of Lot 55.
On May 2, 1997, the applicant submitted plans to develop Mediterranean style prototype
houses for this map which range in size from 2,201 to 3,304 square feet. All proposed
houses are one-story and do not exceed 19-feet in overall height excluding chimneys. A
typical site plan is attached (Attachment 6). A summary of each housing unit type is noted
in the following table:
Plan 1 - 2,201 sq. ft.
Plan 2 - 2,564 sq. ft.
Plan 3 - 3,304 sq. ft.
3 bedroom
3 bedroom
4 bedroom
2 car garage + golf cart
storage space
2 car garage + golf cart
storage space
2 car garage + golf cart
storage space
The exterior materials proposed for each prototype unit includes light earth tone stucco
surfaces, and light to dark colors for exposed beams, rafter tails, garage doors, entry
doors, etc., and two-tone brown concrete barrel roof tiles. A material sample board will be
available at the meeting.
Front- and side -loaded garages are being offered. Each of the units would have a wrought
iron gate which leads into a courtyard of varying size. Covered patios are provided at the
rear of each home.
The landscape architect has chosen lawn as the unifying theme for the houses with trees,
shrubs and annual color. Thirteen types of trees are listed on the legend (e.g., 15-gallon
or larger). Each home site will have a minimum of two trees in the front yard with other
trees placed within courtyard or back yard areas. A variety of shrubs are also proposed,
with the typical size of five gallon and the number of shrubs per house frontage being no
less than ten. A copy of the plan is attached.
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 3 of 7
Public Notice
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on March 16, 1997. All
affected property owners within 500-feet were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice
as required by Title 13 (Subdivision Ordinance) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and
Charter. Letters received are discussed in Issue 7 of this Report.
Environmental Assessment
As noted, this site has received prior environmental consideration and the Community
Development Department deems no further review is warranted.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, SP 83-002, Zoning Code, and the
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 13) the following overview of the project is provided:
Issue 1 - General Plan Consistency/PGA West Specific Plan (SP 83-002)/Zoning Code
The City's General Plan designates the site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per
acre) which allows single family housing. The specific plan is consistent with the existing
General Plan and its internal elements because only 5,000 homes are allowed in the PGA
West development along with other commercial resort amenities. The proposed single
family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and PGA West Specific Plan
as designed because detached single family houses are permitted in the SPR District of
SP 83-002 (Chapter 3).
The adopted Specific Plan for this community outlines its long term development pattern
for this mixed -use project. Its text includes a land use map and narrative describing all
land uses in the area. The proposed tract map is in a residential district area of the Plan
(i.e., SPR District). Common recreational facilities are not required for this project per the
provisions of Specific Plan 83-002. The developer is not proposing any common
recreation areas.
The Plan 3 prototype will be required to have a three -car garage measuring a minimum
inside dimension of 30-foot wide by 20-foot in depth per the provision of the Zoning Code
(Chapter 9.150, Parking) because it has four bedrooms. This Zoning Code provision was
enacted by the City in 1996 to assure houses have adequate covered parking for owners
or guests (Condition 13 of the SDP).
Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements
The streets within the Tract are improved at this time. Access to PGA Boulevard is
possible by using Jack Nicklaus Boulevard or other streets in the development. Cedar
Crest, a 1,400-foot long cul-de-sac street, will be required to provide emergency though
access with gate (Condition 45). The extension of Cedar Crest will comply with the
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 4 of 7
provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance which requires cul-de-sac streets to be less than
660-feet in overall length per Chapter 13.24, unless emergency access is provided. No
major infrastructure improvements are necessary for development of the property. The
recommended conditions will ensure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards.
Issue 3 - Environmental Consideration
The City Council certified the EIR and approved this master planned development request
in May of 1984 and amended it in 1988, as previously noted. The project is exempt from
further environmental consideration because the Tentative Tract Map complies with the
Specific Plan and accompanying EIR.
Issue 4 - Compatibility Review
Under the Zoning Code provisions, this development is required to receive approval of the
new units through the Compatibility Review process (Section 9.60.290). The size of the
approved units within PGA West varies from 1,290 to 4,830 square feet. The units
proposed (2,201 to 3,304 square feet) by the applicant comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Code because they fall within the range of the existing built or approved housing
units for PGA West. A letter of approval from the Board of Directors for PGA West
(Residential Association #2) Homeowners Association is attached (Attachment 7)
The applicant's architectural plans are compatible with the existing houses built in PGA
West for the following reasons:
The houses are single -story with attached garages facing the front yard (Plans 2
and 3) or side -loaded (Plan 1) which is typical for homes in this development
whether detached or attached single family housing units. To accentuate the
houses, hip roofs are used extensively to create a low -profile building facade which
is also a common practice in this development. Interior courtyards are proposed
which is also typical for single family houses within PGA West.
2. Exterior materials are stucco with earth (Desert) tone colors. Dark colors are used
for accents. Wrought iron fencing will be used for the entry court areas. All privacy
walls are masonry with stucco finish. Two tone, concrete roof tiles are used to
accent the building colors selected by the developer to match existing PGA West
houses.
3. The facade windows for the houses are rectangular (i.e., dual -pane with internal
metal grids) with stucco surrounds. These treatments are consistent with existing
houses in the development.
4. The developers lush landscaping plan is consistent in overall design with the
existing PGA West houses. The design and selection of plant material is
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 5 of 7
appropriate for this area and complies with the landscape guidelines of Chapter 2.6
of SP 83-002.
Issue 5 - Health and Safety Concerns
All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project are either installed or will be
constructed as required by the attached Conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets,
and other necessary improvements.
Issue 6 - Public Agency Comments
All agency comments received have been made a part of the Conditions of Approval for
this case. The letters are on file with the Community Development Department.
Issue 7 - Neighborhood Letters of Concern
On April 16, 1997, Mr. Robert W. Foulk, an adjacent property owner, submitted a letter
(Attachment 8) identifying various concerns he has with this project accompanied by
petitions from his neighbors (Attachment 9, Sample Petition). Mr. Foulk's letter states that
he and his adjoining neighbors are concerned that houses are being planned on the small
island in the vicinity of Colonial and Interlachen (Lots 54 and 55), and these off -fairway
houses are "... not in keeping with the good planning objectives" for PGA West. Copies
of the petitions are on file with the Community Development Department. Additional
correspondence from PGA West II Residential Association dated April 16, 1997, is
attached (Attachment 10).
Issue 8 - School Mitigation Fees
Developers are required by State law and SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) to pay school
mitigation fees to the appropriate school district prior to obtaining building permits.
Currently, the Coachella Valley Unified School District charges developers $1.84 per
square foot of living area based on their passage of Resolution 96-37 in 1996 unless the
developer has entered into other contractual arranges with the District for fee payment.
Mr. Arto Nuutinen, attorney for the Coachella Valley Unified School District, spoke at the
April 22, 1997 meeting and requested that the City impose a prior school fee mitigation
condition which was deleted by the City Council in 1996 under Amendment #3 to SP 83-
002. Based on this deletion, the Planning Commission has no discretion to consider
adding a requirement other than the State mandated mitigation fee.
Staff Comments
Staff has reviewed the provisions of SP 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan), and determined
that the proposed lots (or houses) are allowed per Section 3.1.1 of the Zoning and
Development Regulations provided the lot frontage of each lot is 50-feet or larger. The
lots in question have frontages at least 55-feet with depths of approximately 150-feet which
comply with the minimum Specific Plan development standards.
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSION:
Since the last meeting, minor changes have been made to the proposed Conditions which
were presented on April 22, 1997. These changes are highlighted with an asterisk next
to the specific Condition Number.
The applicants' request conforms to the provisions outlined under Specific Plan 83-002
and the City's General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. Findings as noted in
the attached Resolutions for a recommendation of approval can be made. The tentative
map and site development permit, as Conditioned, are consistent with the existing PGA
West facilities in the immediate area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-_, recommending to City Council
conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 28410; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97- , recommending to the City Council
conditional approval of Site Development Permit 97-602.
Attachments:
1. April 22, 1997 Draft Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt)
2. PGA West Land Use Map
3. Location Map
4. TTM 28410
5. TTM 28410, Revised
6. Typical Site Plan Exhibit
7. Letter from PGA West (Res. #2) HOA dated April 16, 1997
8. Letter from Mr. Foulk dated April 16, 1997
9. Sample Petition
10. Letter from PGA West (Res. #2) HOA dated April 16, 1997
11. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only)
by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
i
Christine di lorio, Planking Manager
STPC410-13, RESO410-13, COND410-7
RESOPC602-14, CONDSPD602-14 Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410 TO
SUBDIVIDE 17-ACRES INTO 69 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS IN PGA WEST RESORT APPROXIMATELY 560-
FEET SOUTH OF PGA BOULEVARD ALONG THE
EAST SIDE OF CEDAR CREST, SOUTH OF RIVIERA
ALONG THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MEDINAH,
SOUTH OF MERION ALONG THE WEST SIDES OF
INTERLACHEN AND COLONIAL
CASE NO.: TTM 28410
APPLICANT: MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the a and 22"d days of April, and 13�1 day of May hold duly noticed Public Hearings
and consider the request of Mc Comic Consolidated to approve a 17-acre site with 69-
single family lots in the PGA West Resort approximately 560-feet south of PGA Boulevard
along Cedar Crest, Merion, Medinah, Colonial and Interlachen (private streets), more
particularly described as:
Portions of Section 21, T6S, R7E, S. B. B. M. (APN: 761-481-017, 018, 026
and 027, and 761-491-015) in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside,
State of California
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the
original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan)
approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended in 1988, is still valid and binding
on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted;
and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify to
the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28410:
A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any
applicable specific plans.
The project is in a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the
General Plan. Therefore, the density requirement of the Land Use Element
(Chapter 2) is met. The Tract, as designed, is consistent with the goals, policies
RESOPC410-13/COND410-7
Resolution 97-
Tentative Tract Map 28410
and intent of Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3) which permits 5,000 residential
units in PGA West, a master planned golf resort.
The site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL District) and designated Specific
Plan Residential (SPR) under SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) which permit single
family developments (i.e., attached or detached housing units). All plans for future
single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan and
Zoning Code in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development
of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area.
B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La
Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans.
The density and design standards for the Tract will comply with Specific Plan 83-
002 and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2). All streets and
improvements in the project conform to City standards of the General Plan and
Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets are private and will be
maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Cedar Crest, an existing cul-de-sac
street, will be extended north into Tentative Tract Map 28259 but will be gated for
access by emergency vehicles only.
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. The
development plan will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish
or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were required during the
grading of the site by Landmark Land Company and The Sunrise Company a few
years ago. Dust control measures shall be required during any further on -site
construction work as required by Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code.
D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
Health and safety concerns were addressed in 1984 and 1988, during consideration
and approval of the master planned PGA West Resort. Mitigation measures were
imposed to reduce noise, traffic and other environmental concerns under Specific
Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3). The design of the subdivision, as conditionally
approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install
urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements.
E. The design of the subdivision or type
easements, acquired by the public at large
within the proposed subdivision.
of improvements will not conflict with
for access through, or use of, property
RESOPC410-13/COND410-7
Resolution 97-
Tentative Tract Map 28410
The proposed private streets are planned to provide direct access to each single
family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support
necessary infrastructure improvements. The project as designed and conditioned
complies with all City requirements and Specific Plan 83-002 (Amendment #3).
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning
Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of
the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental
resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report
for Specific Plan 83-002 (as amended in 1988) and originally approved in 1984;
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map
28410 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
Conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of May, 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC410-13/COND410-7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED
MAY 13, 1997
* Modified by Staff on May 5, 1997 (for reference only)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these
Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against
the properties to which they apply (APN: 761-481-017, 018, 026, 027 and 761-491-
015).
2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28410 shall comply with the requirements and standards of
§§ 66410-66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act)
and Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by
the following conditions. This map approval shall expire and become void within two
years of the City Council approval unless extended based on the provisions of
Section 13.12.150 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any
building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits
and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
- Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
- Community Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands/Coachella Valley Unified School Districts
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from
those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans,
applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the
plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the
C OND410-7/RESO410-13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of
a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the
proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works
Department.
4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map
or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and
functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or
the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to
approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final
map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements
to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all
essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels.
6. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or
access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by
others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access
easements to those properties.
7. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
8. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets.
9. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
10. As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish
accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker,
on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files
shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a
basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final
COND410-7/RESO410-13 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -
constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or another program which is convertible
to AudoCad, the applicant may substitute scanned raster -image files of the as -built
plans in place of the AutoCad files required above.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
11. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of 'Rough Grading," "Precise Grading" and, if
necessary, "Drainage" and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans
shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have
signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation,
lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in
formats approved by the City Engineer.
12. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire
standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
13. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard
AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the
applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including
approved revisions to the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
14. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance
of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements,
security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Title 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing
structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
COND410-7/RESO410-13 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
15. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of
improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted
by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates
shall meet the approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside
agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for
telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not
be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the
telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service
to lots within the development.
16. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the
conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City
Engineer.
The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set
forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each
phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy
of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for
that phase is approved by the City Engineer.
17. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals
(conditional use permits, etc.), development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins,
perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to
approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
18.* The applicant shall be required to participate in the City's Major Thoroughfare
Improvement Program if adopted by the City Council prior to final map recordation.
GRADING
19. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand
nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other
wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
20. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance
with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall
COND410-7/RES0410-13 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee
compliance with the provisions of the permit.
21. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance.
22. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering
report (the "soils report") with the grading plan.
23. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan
shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as
adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear
on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has
been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
24. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of
this development with abutting properties and of separate tracts within this
development, if any. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by
more than three feet except for lots within a tract, but not sharing common street
frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet.
If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement,
the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community
acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development.
25. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate
document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or
surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document
shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and
the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number
and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
26. Storm drainage shall comply with the drainage and hydrology plan approved for the
PGA West Specific Plan area.
UTILITIES
27. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development
shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority
will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
COND410-7/RES0410-13 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
28. In areas where hadscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities
shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City
Engineer.
LANDSCAPING
29. The landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and landscape setback areas
shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans
are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the
City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner.
30. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way.
31. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated
to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
32. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
33. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the
City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and
specifications.
34. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers,
geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their
agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able
to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
35. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of
the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed"
clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or
COND410-7/RES0410-13 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the
plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed
condition.
MAINTENANCE
36. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage,
landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off -site
public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council.
37. The applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets,
landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any
other improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include
drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and
a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for
routine and long term maintenance.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
38. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking
and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when
the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
39. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2.5" X 2.5") will
be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330-feet apart in any
direction with any portion of any frontage more than 165-feet from a fire hydrant.
Minimum fire flow will be 1,000 G.P.M. for a two-hour duration at 20 PSI.
40. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer will furnish one blueline
copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review and approval.
Plans will conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will
meet the fire flow requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered
civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
41. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
COND410-7/RESO410-13 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-_
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28410
MAY 13, 1997
MISCELLANEOUS
42. The provisions of Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan), including sideyard
setbacks, shall be met prior to issuance of building permits.
43. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in
the event of any Degal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this
project.
44. All agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for
plan checking purposes.
45.* An all-weather emergency access road shall be constructed between the cul-de-sac
bulb on Cedar Crest and the private road in Tract 28259. The access road shall be
20 feet wide and fitted with a gate approved by the Fire Department and Community
Development Department. The road shall be constructed on land contained within
the Tract boundaries of Tracts 28410 and 28259.
46.* Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall pay school mitigation fees to
the appropriate school district based on the State imposed fee in effect at that time.
The school facilities fee shall be established by Resolution (i.e., State of California
School Facilities Finandng Act).
COND410-7/RESO410-13 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSES THAT RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2,201 TO
3,304 SQUARE FEET FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
28410
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602
APPLICANT: MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 8 h and 22"d days of April, and 131h day of May, 1997, hold duly noticed Public
Hearings to consider prototype housing units for Tentative Tract Map 28410, a 69 lot
single family subdivision, located 560-feet south of PGA Boulevard generally along Cedar
Crest, Riviera, Medinah, Merion, Interlachen and Colonial, more particularly described as:
Portions of Section 21, T6S, R7E, S. B. B. M. (APN: 761-481-
017, 018, 026 and 027, and 761-491-015) in the City of La
Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-63), in that the Community Development Director has determined that the
original Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan)
approved by the City Council in 1984, and as amended in 1988, is still valid and binding
on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted;
and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearong, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify a
recommendation for approval of said Site Development Permit 97-602:
A. The proposed houses are consistent with PGA West Specific Plan and Zoning
Code.
The project is within the PGA West Resort, a master planned development of 5,000
single family houses. The site is designated Specific Plan Residential (SPR) under
SP 83-002 (Amendment #3) which permit single family developments (i.e., attached
or detached housing units). All plans for future single family homes shall be
RESOPC602.14, CONDSDP602-14
Planning Commission Resolution 97-.
Site Development Permit 97-602
consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code in effect at the
time building permits are acquired. The development of the project, as Conditioned,
will be compatible with the surrounding area because only one-story houses are
being proposed and design characteristics match other PGA West housing units.
B. The architectural design of the houses is consistent with other projects in the
vicinity.
Mediterranean style houses are proposed. The one-story houses, which range in
size from 2,201 to over 3,000 square feet, are compatible with adjacent houses
because the exterior materials to be used are stucco with concrete tile roofing.
Desert colors and different building facades for each prototype housing unit create
a diverse streetscape. Garage parking will be provided for each house as required.
Conditions are recommended to ensure the houses are built to current Code
standards when constructed.
C. The site design of each house shall be compatible with surrounding areas and
include prevalent site features.
The houses are plotted so that the front yard of the house is generally 20-feet from
the front property line with the backyards facing onto the golf course fairways with
the exception of Lot 55.
D. The site landscaping will complement the proposed buildings and create a unifying
influence for the community.
Each house will have front yard landscaping which will include trees, shrubs and
groundcover with on -site irrigation. The landscaping improvements will be similar
to adjacent attached and detached single family houses and be semi -mature when
installed. The location and design of the privacy walls shall be consistent with other
houses in the area (i.e., masonry with stucco finish). The proposed plant materials
are acceptable for this climate zone and complement other residential
developments in the area.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Site Development Permit, the Planning
Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of
the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the
residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental
resources;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
RESOPC602-14, CONDSDP602-14
Planning Commission Resolution 97-.
Site Development Permit 97-602
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Site Development Permit
97-602 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached
Conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on the 1 V1 day of May, 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC602.14, CONDSDP602-14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602
MC COMIC CONSOLIDATED, INC.
MAY 13, 1997
CONDITIONS:
Pedestrian gates leading into the side and back yards shall be wrought iron or
tubular metal.
2. The landscape/irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review. The plans will require Community Development
Department, Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agriculture
Commissioner approval before they will be considered final. The plans shall
include the following: (A) front yard landscaping shall include lawn and a minimum
of ten shrubs (i.e., 5-gallon or larger) and two trees (i.e., one 15-gallon with 1"
diameter trunks and one 24" box tree with a 1.75" diameter trunk) for interior lots
and five trees (4 trees @ 15-gallon minimum with one 24" box tree) for corner lots;
and (B) landscaping or fencing shall screen all ground mounted mechanical
equipment (i.e., A/C condensing units, pool equipment, etc.). All provisions of
Chapter 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping and Irrigation) shall be met. The
developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all
landscaping in a healthy and viable condition.
3. Lawn areas for front yards shall be either Hybrid Bermuda (Summer) or Hybrid
Bermuda/Rye (Winter) depending upon the season when it is installed. All trees
shall be double staked with lodge poles to prevent wind damage. All shrubs and
trees shall be watered with bubblers or emitters. Landscape improvements for each
house shall be installed before final occupancy of the house.
4. Ground mounted equipment (air-conditioning condensers, etc.) shall be located in
side and/or rear yard areas behind screen walls or landscaping. All equipment
shall be a minimum distance of five -feet from any property line.
5. The concrete driveways shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better)
texture.
6. All requirements of Tentative Tract Map 28410, SP 83-002 and the RL Zone District
shall be met during building permit plan check approval. This site development
permit shall run concurrently with Tentative Tract Map 28410 processed under Title
13 of the Municipal Code.
CONDSDP602-14
Planning Commission Resolution 97-_
Site Development Pemut 97-602
May 13, 1997
7. A Minor Use Permit shall be required for temporary model complexes (sales offices)
including signs/flags per Section 9.60.250 of the Zoning Code.
8. Roll -up, sectional metal garage doors shall be installed for all homes.
9. Permanent subdivision signing, if desired, for the Tract shall be approved by the
Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit for said structure(s)
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning Ordinance.
10. Private yard walls shall be constructed using masonry blocks (or wood) and be
finished with stucco.
11. Plaster surrounds shall be added to all windows on the side building elevations for
all houses in Tentative Tract Map 28410, subject to approval of the Community
Development Department.
12. 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.
13. All four bedroom houses shall have three car garages as required by Chapter 9.150
of the Municipal Code.
14. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall pay school mitigation fees to
the appropriate school district based on the State imposed fee in effect at that time.
The school facilities fee shall be established by Resolution (i.e., State of California
School Facilities Financing Act).
CONDSDP602-14 2
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENT 1
April 22. 1997
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 28410 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT 96-602; a request of McComic Consolidated, Inc., to subdivide 17 acres
into 69 single family and other common lots in PGA West resort and club, and
compatibility review and approval of three house plans.
1. Commissioner Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest.
2. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
I Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
4. Commissioner Tyler asked why the preliminary elevations had not been
submitted for Commission review. Staff explained that since the applicant
had requested a continuance for the Site Development Permit, the elevations
had not been submitted. Commissioner Tyler asked why the entire request
was not being continued. Staff explained that the tract map could be
considered separately and the elevations could be brought back at a later date.
Discussion followed regarding the application.
5. Mr. Geoff McComic, the applicant, stated there had been mis-communication
between the City and his staff. The City required more detail than what was
required by the Homeowners' Association and therefore they did not have
time to prepare the elevations as requested by the City.
6. Commissioner Butler expressed his concern that the Commission hold off on
their review of projects until the entire submittal package had been received.
This project had been submitted without color boards, elevations, etc. Mr.
McComic stated it was his understanding that the tract map could be
approved separate from the Site Development Permit. Commissioner Butler
asked staff for clarification. Staff stated the tract map could be approved
separately.
7. Commissioner Woodard asked if a grading plan had been submitted and if it
was recuired. Staff stated it was not required for the review process of a
tentative tract map, but is required prior to the final map. Commissioner
Woodard asked if it would come before the Commission for their review.
PC4-22-97 2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that the grading plan does not go
before the Planning Commission or City Council. Commissioner Woodard
stated he would prefer to see the grading plan in order to see the elevations
in relation to the different pads. Staff explained that the pad elevations are
shown on the tentative tract map. Commissioner Woodard, then asked if the
landscaping would be approved by the Commission. Staff explained that if
the Commission wanted to review the landscaping, it could be required to
have Commission approval. Commissioner Woodard asked staff what the
amenity ratio was for the tract. Staff stated there was no minimum or
maximum for detached single family houses in accordance with the Specific
Plan, therefore they were not required to submit any information.
Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain the concerns that had been
received from the homeowner association. Staff explained the concerns
raised in the letter from the homeowners' (HOA). They do not supersede the
City's requirements. Discussion followed regarding the privacy wall.
8. Commissioner Woodard asked staff if the developer was required to provide
swimming pools per any agreements. Staff explained it is an issue with the
HOA, not the City. The Specific Plan only requires pools when the
residential units are attached.
9. Commissioner Woodard asked whether or not the golf car access should be
addressed. Staff stated it was up to the Commission whether or not it should
be addressed.
10. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain Fugitive Dust Control. Staff
explained it was a State mandated requirement.
11. Mr. Barry McComic, 2032 Via Cassa Alta, San Diego, the applicant, stated
he was there to answer any questions. He stated that the island where the
four lots were proposed had been resolved. The two lots would be built with
nice views. He further stated there were no problems with the golf cart
access easement as they would work with staff to resolve. In regard to the
swimming pools, he did not believe any more than two were needed. It was
his belief that if people purchasing one of his homes wanted a swimming
pool, they would install one on their property. In reviewing the area, he had
not found a lot of use being given to the pools provided.
PC4-22-97 3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
12. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed that community pools were not
necessary, but was there a commitment on the part of the developer to install
the pools. He then asked the applicant to explain "Seoktop". Mr. McComic
explained that was the name of his partner. Commissioner Butler asked if the
swimming pools was an issue that should be resolved by the Commission or
the HOA? Mr. McComic stated that as far as the planning of the project, it
is not required. It is a marketing decision, and in their opinion it would be a
waste to build more than the two pools they are proposing.
13. Commissioner Butler asked the City Attorney for her opinion. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated that as long as they were meeting zoning and specific
plan requirements, it did not need to be addressed.
14. Commissioner Woodward asked for clarification. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated it was an issue that was resolved at the time of the approval
of the Specific Plan for the entire PGA West project. At this time, it is not
an issue.
15. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about installing pools on the
residential lots as they were deep and narrow. This may be a justification for
requiring the community pools. Should the location of the pools be a concern
of the Commission? City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if there was
a health or safety concern, yes. Commissioner Woodard stated his objection
was that the community pools are poorly located; one is near the golf tee, and
both are at either ends of the development. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the Commission could make a recommendation. McComic clarified
that there were other pools in the area, and the location of the pools is based
on the- entire community and not just this tract. Commissioner Woodard
asked legal counsel to clarify whether it was within the Commission's
purview to determine the location of the pools. City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell stated there was no criteria to make a determination as to the
location of the pools.
16. Mr. McComic addressed Commissioner Woodard's concern about the long
and narrow lots stating the houses were designed so a pool could be located
in the front yard. The pools were not intended to be in the backyard.
Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was that the pools were proposed
to be located at either end of the development and families would have to
travel a distance to use the pool. Mr. McComic clarified that the existing
pool at the end of Cedar Crest is also accessible.
PC4-22-97 4
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
17. Commissioner Newkirk asked where the model complex would be located.
Mr. McComic stated it would be at the corner of Merion and Riviera backing
up to the only lake on the project. Commissioner Newkirk stated this would
require an opening at both ends of Cedar Crest and asked Mr. McComic to
clarify how this would work. Mr. Geoff McComic explained this was a
requirement of the Public Works Department. Discussion followed as to the
road design.
18. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Corporation, clarified that the road is a
secondary access conditioned by the City for this tract. It is not a condition
of the developer to construct the road. Mr. Brian Esgate, engineer for the
project, clarified that presently it is their intent to connect the road at the
north end per staff s request to eliminate the cul-de-sac.
19. Commissioner Woodard stated it was his understanding that Cedar Crest
would hook up with Jack Nicklaus. Brian Esgate, engineer, stated that was
his understanding. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that Tentative Tract
28259 is required to provide a short piece of street to connect to existing
Cedar Crest. Until the two tracts are matched up, it is not possible to require
the applicant to provide the street connection. With the development of these
tracts, it will now provide the opportunity for this to happen.
20. Commissioner Woodard asked if this tract would not need the connection for
emergency vehicles. Discussion followed regarding the road design.
21. Commissioner Butler asked if the model complex was a part of this project?
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that even if the model complex was
located on the corner, the road was not required to be connected as KSL Land
Corporation did not own the land. Now with the development of this tract
there is a need for the access. Mr. McComic stated he had no objection to
providing the access. Mr. Brian Esgate stated their drawings showed an
access to the north and they would align their street to the north eliminating
with the cul-de-sac. Alternative solutions were discussed.
22. Commissioner Woodard asked if KSL had any concern with this connection.
Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, explained that since
they had acquired PGA West, they were asked to design their tract and create
the access. In their opinion it is not an effective use of the land for this area.
The bye hole golf tee was designed to accommodate this access and it would
PC4-22-97 5
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
be a monetary concern of theirs to have this connection. They have no
objection to an emergency access, but do not want the access open to their
tract due to the high end homes in their area.
23. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with a 1400 foot long cul-de-sac;
however, he could understand their concerns. Mr. Hosea went on to explain
that these homes, as they approach the clubhouse, are on large lots and are
over a million dollars.
24. Commissioner Newkirk stated that as long as there is an emergency access,
he would be in favor of retaining the cul-de-sac. Staff stated the Subdivision
Ordinance would allow an emergency access to be installed in place of
through street.
25. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with pool locations and
asked if the pool at the end of the cul-de-sac was provided for other people
outside this tract. Mr. McComic stated this was the location originally
proposed by the HOA. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification as to
who the pool would serve. Mr. Hosea stated the proposed location supports
the developer's plan as it follows the overall changes proposed by KSL Land
Corporation to have more single family detached homes and less condos.
26. Commissioner Butler stated that across the street from this tract is KSL
property who is willing to allow their property to end at the cul-de-sac. Mr.
Hosea clarified that this property was originally owned and developed by
Sunrise Company. Mr. Brian Esgate clarified that these homes were built out
condos and they have access to an existing pool on Cedar Crest.
27. Mr. Arto Nuutinen, attorney for the Coachella Valley Unified School District
(CVUSD), asked for clarification as to what condition would be imposed on
this tract regarding school fees. He went on to explain the original conditions
that had been placed on the Specific Plan (Condition #39) for the PGA West
development. He stated that if a condition was originally imposed regarding
school impacts, it was there because of unmitigated impacts. If the condition
had been removed, then the impact would now have to be addressed. In
reviewing the documents, he'was unable to find any changes to the conditions
regarding the school fees. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the issue is
that the original Specific Plan adopted in 1982, did not have State
requirements regarding specific school fees at certain levels. Later as the
PC4-22-97
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
Specific Plan was amended in 1996, the State requirements regarding schools
fees had been adopted. It was the City's understanding that agreements had
been made between the original developers and the school district in regards
to school fees. As the Plan was amended last summer, it was the City's
understanding that those agreements were still in effect. It was not the City
Council's intent to continue requiring a condition that had meaning in 1982
and 1983, but after the State requirements changed no longer had the same
type of meaning. Subsequently, the reference in the current Specific Plan that
is approved and governs this project, is Section 2.5.4 and refers to the fact
that the school services for the Specific Plan area are facilitated by DSUSD
and CVUSD. There is a requirement contained in the Conditions of
Approval (Condition #3) of the proposed tract, that prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits, the City will have clearances or permits from
the different agencies, one of which is CVUSD. If the school district has an
existing agreement that they believe is enforceable, then presumably they will
not issue their permit unless that is met and if they do not, then presumably
they will be following the State mandated requirement fees that will need to
be paid to them. So it is not the case that they will not be receiving anything.
It is the case that the City has made a determination that they will not be
requiring something different than what the State is currently requiring. Mr.
Nuutinen stated that his challenge was when did the City make this
determination, as it was not in the City records. If this is in writing, he would
like to ask, according to Public Record Act under Government Code 6250
and following, for all those documents. He went on to state the School
District's concern regarding the requirements and further if the City had such
an intent, where was it expressed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she
had repeated the condition that is existing in the current Specific Plan. That
is the only condition that relates to schools in the existing Specific Plan for
this project. The City has no intent to require anything other than what is
already required. The City is not imposing a separate fee. The City is saying
this is between the developer and the School District. The City will not issue
building permits until CVUSD gives their release. Mr. Nuutinen stated that
is a conclusion, but does not explain how it was arrived at. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the City is not required to give a reason under our
own zoning documents as to what conditions we come up with when it is not
something required of the City to provide. Mr. Nuutinen stated it is required
when the City is making an approval that has conditions that says the
conditions are being carried forward. Discussion followed regarding how the
City arrived at this decision.
PC4-22-97 7
Planning Commission Meeting
April22, 1997
28. Chairman Abels asked Mr. Nuutinen make a formal request of the City
Attorney as this issue cannot be resolved during this meeting.
29. Mr. Jim Saul, president of Homeowners' Association #2, stated he was in
favor of the proposed project and they will be a part of their HOA. However,
there are several unresolved issues. These issues had been alluded to in their
letter of April 16, 1997. They are requesting that the Commission not
approve the tract until the issues are resolved. One issue is finding a better
location for the model complex that would allow better security for the
existing homeowners. The proposed location of the models is to be deep
within the existing homes which is an issue of security. The north end of
Cedar Crest would be a better location. That location would require
cooperation with KSL Land Corporation to keep the models secured and not
allow visitors accessibility to the rest of the tract. They would have no
objection to this location if they could let them know how they could provide
security. The second issue is the location of the two homes proposed to be
constructed on the island. They would prefer it be developed as a green belt
with a community pool as there are no pools available to the residents in this
area.
30. Commissioner Butler asked Mr. Saul to identify how he was "related" to this
project and if he would explain any requirements regarding the pools. He
stated that the Commission is responsible for making decision on this tract,
and it can be difficult to make a decision on a part of a development when the
overall scheme of the development is not known. Mr. Saul stated it is their
desire to resolve the issues before the tract map is approved. Once the tract
is approved they have no alternative. Discussion followed regarding the
different concerns raised by the HOA.
31. Mr. Ted Martens, HOA, stated that Mr. McComic had met with the HOA on
one occasion. In regards to swimming pools, it is not true that 85% of the
residents of detached homes put in their own pools. Only 8% of the existing
detached homes in PGA West have pools. He then went on to give the
statistics of the pools at PGA West. He further stated that on one of the
streets that is a part of this tract, Cedar Crest, the homes on the west side of
the street (25 attached condos), have one pool on the southern end that serves
all 25 homes. Since the original development plans for this area called for
two more pools on the east side of Cedar Crest, most of the existing homes
on the west side of Cedar Crest expect the pools to be constructed.
PC4-22-97 8
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
32. Mr. Chuck Otto, 80-070 Cedar Crest, stated he lived approximately opposite
of where he understood the models would be constructed. He had no
objection to this location as long as there is security to keep people from
wandering through the rest of the community. He did purchase his home
with the understanding that there would be a pool provided for their area. As
everyone lives in the community and pays dues, they do not care who owns
the pools. In regard to the models, the concern is if their access is to be off
Cedar Crest. They do not want Cedar Crest used as the thoroughfare. This
would require an access from the Nichlaus Gate and this would require some
type of fencing.
33. Commissioner Woodard asked if the ten houses across from the proposed
tract on Cedar Crest were expecting pools and were not to have them, and if
the pools are not an issue for the Commission, then the pool locations
become an issue relative to this tract. Where are the pool locations relative
to the entire Specific Plan? Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated this tract is not required to construct the pools; they are installing two
pools at their discretion. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that at the
time there was an assumption that townhouses would be constructed and
therefore the density would be greater. It is not an issue of the Commission,
even though there was an assumption at that time for the existing
homeowners.
34. Commissioner Woodard and Commissioner Tyler asked staff to identify the
location of the proposed models. Staff stated they would be processed under
a Minor Use Permit.
35. Mr. McComic stated it was their opinion that the two lots to be constructed
on the island was good planning and makes good monetary sense. If they
were not allowed to build the homes it could be a monetary loss of $150,000.
He then asked the City Attorney if the model complex was to be considered
by the Commission. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it would be
before the Commission as a separate application to be heard at a different
time.
36. Mr. McComic stated that they had dealt with the issue of security for
numerous developments when the models were on the interior of the project.
Their procedure has been to put a security person in a vehicle who is in
communication with the guard gate to monitor who comes and goes to see the
PC4-22-97 9
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22. 1997
models. The gate would notify the guard who and how many were coming
and the guard would monitor their movements. In all their years of
construction, they have never had an issue of someone coming in who did not
come to see the models. They take the security of the development seriously.
In regards to the location of the models, it is imperative to them that they be
on the best lots to offer them the best possible showcase for marketing their
models.
37. Mr. Saul stated he appreciated Mr. McComic's comments as he had not heard
this information prior to this meeting. It would be appreciated if he would
have a representative attend their board meetings to provide this information
as they would like these issues resolved. In regards to the overall PGA West
project, it would be to the advantage of the Commission to understand the
Specific Plan for the entire project to be aware of what has been planned.
38. Mr. Robert Foulk, 57-540 Interlachen, stated he and his neighbors object to
the construction of the homes on the islands as it would be the only island
with homes.
39. Mr. Geoff McComic, applicant, stated he had met with the Architectural
Review Committee and the Board of the HOA. After reviewing the plans
with the Architectural Review Committee they had reduced the homes from
four to two. In addition, they had described their plans for security regarding
the models at their board meeting.
40. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
41. Commissioner Tyler expressed his concern that the issues raised by the HOA
be addressed and therefore he thought a continuance would be in order.
42. Commissioner Woodard stated he still had a problem with the two lots being
constructed on the island and the access off the cul-de-sac. Discussion
followed regarding alternative layouts.
43. Commissioner Butler stated his concern that the cul-de-sac be addressed as
a through street at some future time. Regarding the pools, it was his opinion
that the developer was being generous to construct the two pools. The
Commission does not have an understanding of the adjoining projects,
therefore, if the developer wants to put in two pools, it is a bonus.
PC4-22-97 10
Planning Commission Meeting
April 22, 1997
44. Commissioner Seaton stated that in her opinion the developer had addressed
the issue of security for the model homes; the Commission needs to have
additional information regarding the pools; the two proposed lots on the
island is an issue and perhaps the Commission should listen to the HOA; and
there still needs to be information provided on the golf cart access.
45. Commissioner Newkirk stated he too believed most of the issues had been
addressed. His greatest concern was the cul-de-sac. He too believes the
construction of the two homes on the island is a big mistake and it should be
a park that would enhance the entire area. Commissioner Woodard suggested
the island become a park with a pool and the pool to be constructed at the end
of the tract become a house. Commissioner Newkirk agreed.
46. Commissioner Tyler stated it would be impossible for the Commission to
impose the conditions of the original Specific Plan on this developer. He
concurred with the concerns raised about the two houses on the island.
However, he too would not want a home with a community pool next to it.
As numerous issues still remained to be resolved, he would move to continue
the project.
47. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Woodard to continue Tentative Tract 28410 to May 13,
1997. 'Unanimously approved.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m.
Commissioner Seaton informed the Chairman that she was ill and left the meeting during the recess.
B. TENTATIVE TRACT 28444; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval to
subdivide 38.36 acres into 69 single family and other common or street lots on the
south side of the southern terminus of PGA Boulevard and west of Madison Street
abutting the Tom Weiskopf and Jack Nicklaus Tournament Golf Courses.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
3. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land
Corporation, reviewed the conditions. He stated they were unclear regarding
Condition #30, but after discussions with Senior Engineer Steve Speer, they
PC4-22-97 11
PGA WEST RESORT
LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
521VO AVENUE
N
54TN AVENUE
W
h
AIRPORT BL VD.
r
y1 sp 1 O
0
T4+ AVM', �
{fC/NTYUAP
NOT TO SCALE
a
CASES: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.28410
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-602
/At THE C/TY OF' LA GOU//VTA, COUNTY OE R1VA RS/OE
8410,
POA WEES T
t�ECEMBEH. t396 LA NO 0EWELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
ATTACHMENT 4
;Q l,4-A
c 's
LOTAR548
LLi:W v
lorszwAw
xq
A" L
LAND (. W
ACAS44E� -
— —AtAtOU_ �a(e,ailb�•� i
ij
LEA °''"*"`'~r•C=' •-\T,.�,'" /.',:f,'.,,
•, ," , rrFrAL SWEruEC%XiV�..i
M81A[YSY (61397I1G1 ''
clY4{f4tl�Alnl
IN THE CITY OP LA OUINTA, COUNTY OFRIWERSILAE
TEINTA TIVAE TRA C, T A/0- 28410
POA WEST
LANO DFV-=L OP"F-71VT 0OA49UL TA NTS
LEG& DE6U%IP7AW_
"All I
ups
LOT SUWW48r
Lorcow-
2omw
1; Z4
6MMER
ATTACHMENT 5
M
AVAE6
Lr
AelDV4RV7AW
LOTAAW
I
m
q
h
I
I
p,TTACHMENT 6 ; -
N
148 ' t\
148'
g
I
I
I �
I =
' 6
I
�I
(D.
o�
01LAl-
��10ur/
PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 1282, LA QUINTA, CA 92253
(619) 776-5100 FAX (619) 776-5111
ATTACHMENT 7
April 16, 1997
Greg Trousdale, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta CA 92253
Re: Preliminary Elevations/Floor Plans
Tract Map No. 28410
Submitted By McComic Consolidated
Dear Mr. Trousdale:
At the request of Geoff McComic of McComic Consolidated, we are writing to you to
advise that the Architectural Committee and Board of Directors of PGA WEST 11
Residential Association have reviewed the elevations and floor plans for three product types
in the above -referenced tract map. Please be advised that the Association has approved the
conceptual drawings as compatible in design and size with existing single family homes
within the Association.
Please feel free to contact our Property Manager, John Handel, at 776-5100 with any
questions regarding these plans as they relate to the Association.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PGA WEST 11 RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION
cc: Geoff McComic, McComic Consolidated
John Handel, Association Manager
dAlohn\pgares2\city re seoktop plans elevations 4.16.97.doc
� 'PR
17 1997
• ='i :':F�i•!ii�.i�:i, ijF't�i�R i Td�i..i':T '
ROBERT W. FOULK
5 7-5 40 I NTERLACH EN
LA OUINTA. CA..92253
(6 1 9)77 1- 1 649
kpril 16, 1997
'ity of LaQuinta
Tanning Commission
,ity Hall, Lucinda
lonorable Chairman and Members of the Commission
ATTACHMENT 8
Inclosed are signed petitions from 47 homeowners in the close vicinity of Interlachen and Colonial, (small land island) which
hown on Tentative Map No. 2841, PGA West, presently under consideration by you. Specifically these petitions are to reque
ou deny housing on this particular interior block
'GA West is a well planned community with all back yards adjacent and touching open space areas of golf course or water
capes. The developed areas within the community have a definite open space characteristic unique to the Coachella Valley a
xtremely well done at PGA West. These two lots, ( surrounded by streets and limited open space )if allowed, will not provide
ieir subsequent users an ambiance simalar or equal to that of the other 1500 plus homes existing in the community.
kdditionally, the Architectural Guidelines for home construction in PGA West Res. 2 allows but does not encourage rear ya:
rivacy walls limited to 20" in height (previously 36'). Two homes within the subject island area would not afford any priva4
their inhabitants as they would have a street both in front of and behind the houses with a maximum 20" high privacy wall.
he rather shallow open area shown to the rear of these lots is not sufficient to screen the rear of the houses from the Colonial
treet loop.
be subject island of land is not suited for lotting by it's size, shape and interior location. Any housing on such a small irregu
haped interior parcel is simply not in keeping with good planning objectives. I urge you to disallow housing on the subject
,land to maintain the integrity of the overall PGA West Planned Community.
Very Truly Yours
iM ix�� i,
Robert W. Foulk
4� � APR 16 1997 J
CITY OF LAOJ11,1 TA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PETMON RE: TENIAIIVL MAH NU. e_041
SPECIFICALLY THE COLON IAL-INTERLACH EN ISLAND
ATTACHMENT 9
We, the undersigned respectfully request you deny the portion of the tentative map that shows two lots on the approx. 1 a
island that is surrounded by Interlachen and Colonial within the PGA West community for the following reason.
l- There are numerous small islands in the developed portions OF PGA West of a similar size, all of which are pool or
manicured open space sites, none with houses.
2- All PGA West existing homes have rear yards that front on vast acreage golf course or interior lakes negating the need
rear yard fencing or walls to screen the buildings from opposite neighbors, not possible for the proposed two lots.
3- There are no interior blocks of houses in PGA West, but rather a character of lineal streets with one set of houses eac
and frequent visual relief along the streets with golf course, triangular parks and pools, each street set apart from others
large open areas of golf course or interior block lakes
4- These two lots if allowed would stand alone in the community as the only properties not conforming to the concept of r
yard openness and would appear out of place with respect the rest of PGA West as developed.
5- Interlachen is a relatively long block with an auxiliary gate out of the property to 58th, and ultimately may have many
residents traveling along it. The tentative map proposed shows virtually solid housing along both Interlachen and Medinal
the exception of a very small amount of open space surrounding these two ill conceived lots.
6- The proposed two lots violate the integrity of the land use example established at PGA West, proposing the first ever
configuration of homes, basically surrounded by other homes and streets rather than golf course or other open amenities,
actually projecting a local crowded appearance.
7- A 1 acre, plus or minus interior block with housing, surrounded by other houses and streets cannot be found any wher,
PGA West or any other Planned Development in the Coachella Valley and appears to be an attempt to maximize land yiel
builder at the expense of the conununity.
In summary, the island of land is not suited for lotting by its shape, size and 'interior location, is isolated from open space
and would -create substandard lots. Putting it to open space use in it's entirety would enhance their proposed land plan by
breaking the monotony of continuous rows of housing on both Medinah and Interlachen as they propose. We urge you to
disallow housing on the subject island to maintain the integrity of the overall planned development at PGA West and not a
to be compromised by crowding lots into areas not desirable for such a use.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Very Truly Yours
Name: .'V Cw A -a cz E 0 A R n7�ri
Address: - G SS— n,� ,/-.
cc. Robert W. Foulk
57-540 Interlachen
LaQuinta, Ca.,92253
April 16, 1997
Jerry Herman, Director
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta CA 92253
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 28410
Submitted By McComic Consolidated
Dear Mr. Herman:
PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 1282, LA QUINTA, CA 92253
(619) 776-51W FAX (619) 176-5111
ATTACHMENT 10
(i A r R 17 1997 ,; �
`J
CI T Y OF LAGU NTA
PLANNING DEPP,RTMENT
Thank you for meeting with our property manager John Handel and his assistant John
Monahan yesterday to review various concerns of both the Board of Directors and
individual homeowners in PGA WEST 11 Residential Association, as they relate to the
above -referenced tract map submitted by McComic Consolidated. The purpose of this
letter is to communicate those concerns in writing to the La Quinta Planning Commission,
for consideration at the April 22°' Public Hearing. The Association's four concerns
prioritized in order of importance:
1) PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED MODEL COMPLEX - The model
complex should be placed on Cedar Crest at the cul-de-sac, to
minimize security concerns with public access through our residential
gatehouse on Jack Nicklaus Blvd. By locating the models just inside the
gate, on a connecting road off of Jack Nicklaus Blvd., the flow of
sales traffic can be controlled much more effectively, without giving
the public access to other private residential streets. The Board feels
very sLiungly 2bout 1.h6 sabue. As Line ivadway tot ingress and egress
will require the cooperation of KSL, our Board looks forward to working
with Seoktop and KSL to resolve this issue to our mutual benefit.
2) ADDITIONAL POOLS ARE NEEDED - The Board requests that Seoktop
install community pools at the following locations: Southeast side of Cedar Crest,
halfway between the cul-de-sac and Riviera, West side of Medinah halfway between
Riviera and Merion, North side of Merion at the intersection of Merion and
Interlachen, the island on Colonial, and the cul-de-sac on Cedar Crest.. These sites
are in conformance with the original specific plan as developed by Sunrise
Company, and coincide with the existing ratio of community pools to finished
homes in that area.
d:\john\pgares2\c1ty re tract map 28410 - seoktop 4.16.97.doc
MR. JERRY HERMAN
APRIL 16, 1997
PAGE TWO
3) POOL/GREENBELT ONLY ON COLONIAL ISLAND - Nowhere at PGA
WEST are there homes on an "island" created by surrounding streets such
as those proposed by Seoktop on Colonial. A much more appropriate use for
this parcel would be a large community pool, park and greenbelt. Homes at this
location would not complement the surrounding development and are not
acceptable to many of the existing residents on Interlachen.
4) GOLF CARTIMAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT ACCESS - Along Medinah and
Interlachen, as proposed, there would be no golf cart or equipment access. The
Board respectfully requests that you study a means of providing access along
these two streets.
It is the Association's firm desire to see a successful development of new homes by
Seoktop, as part of PGA WEST 11 Residential Association. To that end, we want to work
closely with the Developer to achieve a good relationship - one that will benefit all parties.
We thank your for the opportunity to communicate our concerns with the proposed
Tentative Tract Map 28410.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PGA WEST 11 RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION
cc: Geoff McComic, McComic Consolidated
John Handel, Association Manager
dAjohn\pgares2\c1ty re tract map 28410 - seoktop 4.16.97.doc
I
n h x
Cam.
'GA WEST
City of la Quinta
Planning Coannission
P. O. Box 1504
Ia Quinta, Calif. 92253
Dear Ccmn_issioners:
PGA WEST II RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
P.O. BOX 1282, LA QUINTA, CA 92253
(619) 776-5100 FAX (619) 776-5111
May 13, 1997
Re: McCcmic Consolidated, Inc.
Please be advised that PGA West II Residential Association, Inc., by unanimous
vote of it's Board of Directors on May 13, 1997, opposes the application
sutmitted by M CMic Consolidated, Inc. for approval of 'Tentative Tract Map
28410 and Site DevelopwzIt Permit 97-602.
The Association's opposition is based on its requirement that the developer
observe the Association's 20 ft. street setback standard, include a swimming
pool on Medi_nah and place the planned swimming pool on Cedar Crest a reasonable
distance to the South of the cul-de-sac. McCcmic has taken steps toward a
compromise position that was proposed by the Association for various issues that
were unresolved at the time of the April 22, 1997 Connnission Public Hearing.
However, the remaining unresolved matters have a significant impact on the
architectural standards, recreational amenities and ambiance that ccuprise the
omm cnity lifestyle of PGA West. Nowhere in the existing developed areas of PGA
West are there long, unbroken rows o hones on narrow lots on both sides of
streets as long as Medinah and Cedar Crest. The proposed plan, in its present
state, without pools and proper setbacks would, in the opinion of the
Association, create a unacceptable congested look in the cCU=nity.
It is important to note that the Due Diligence materials provided, at the time
the property was wed, indicated approval for 66 units. The elimination of
one unit on Medinah in favor of the pool will still leave 66 building lots. The
Association is not asking the developer to build fewer homes than he expected to
be able to build at the time he pirdhased the property.
The Association recognizes that the Application, in most respects, meets the
building requirements of the City of la Quinta. We do request, however, that
the Commission be sensitive to the fact that the Association's CC&R's,
Architectural. Guidelines and hcueowner expectations supplement, and in many
cases, exceed the City's requirements. The obligation of our Board of Directors
to our hmxxxvners is to ensure that the standards established at PGA West are
met.
We are confident that the few remaining differences between the Association and
McComic Consolidated can and will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. We
request that this resolution be accomplished prior to the Commission's approval
of the subject application.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Respectfully
W. Saul, President
OF DRS
PGA West II Residential Association, Inc.
VIA
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: MAY 13, 1997
SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 111 LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
At your meeting of April 22, 1997, staff presented the Highway I I I Landscape Architectural Design
Guidelines. Due to the length of the meeting, this item was continued. We are therefore attaching
a copy of the proposed Architectural Standards for your review and comment.
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
A. Development along Highway 111 is to avoid becoming a random series of
unrelated, shallow depth, impulse -buyer -oriented, sign -intensive commercial
uses with frequent driveways onto Highway 111.
B. The Highway 111 corridor is the window into La Quinta. The background
vistas consist of three horizontal elements: desert, mountains and sky.
Developments shall be sensitive to their effect on background vistas along
Highway 111.
1. No particular architectural style or building materials shall be required as a
whole, except that high quality building materials and architectural designs are
encouraged.
2. To promote individuality among the structures, expressive shapes, notched
entryways, building off -sets, overhangs are encouraged.
3. Within individual development projects, a unifying architectural theme shall be
provided. This then may restrict architectural style, building materials,
landscaping materials, paving materials, or other design factors and features
to be applied to future developments within the project. In general, "standard"
design of franchises and other multiple location business shall not be allowed
unless determined to be consistent with the overall theme of the project.
4. Structures and all supportive design elements including landscaping, shall
exhibit designs, heights, bulk, masses, shapes, places, textures, and materials
which are compatible with the desert setting and does not obscure or distract
from the mountains and sky vistas.
5. Properties abutting the Whitewater Wash shall be designed so that the view is
acceptable from the residential land uses to the north across the Wash. This
may require internal service areas, and orienting buildings so that their service
side does not face north.
6. Strip commercial is discouraged as it is arranged in a linear fashion along the
road for maximum visibility from the street.
7. The impression formed while traveling along a strip commercial segment is that
it is "never ending". A designation -bound buyer can't find what he/she is
p AchristAarch-standards
Page - 1 -
seeking because of the clutter of uses.
8. Encourage development that contributes to La Quinta as a unique place by
reflecting its physical character and adding to it in appropriate ways. The
guidelines are by no means intended to limit creativity; it is the City's hope that
they will serve as a useful tool for design professionals engaged in site specific
design in context with this goal.
9. Facades and exterior walls should be articulated to reduce the massive scale
and the uniform, impersonal appearances of large retail buildings and provide
visual interest that will be consistent with the community's identity, character
and scale. The intent is to encourage a more human scale.
10. Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual
interest, at the scale of the pedestrian, and reduce massive aesthetic effects
and local character. The architectural elements should be integral parts of the
building fabric and not superficially applied trim or graphics or paints.
11. Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to and reduce the
massive scale of large buildings.
12. Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and
aesthetically pleasing character to the building.
13. All facades of the buildings visible from adjoining properties and/or public
streets should contribute to the pleasing scale and features of the buildings and
encourage community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the
facade.
14. Buildings should offer attractive and inviting pedestrian scale features, spaces
and amenities. Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be
functional and inviting with walking conveniently tied to logical destinations.
15. Projects which are designed too comply with these guidelines are actively
encouraged. However, creative and sensitive projects complying with the
purpose and intent of these guidelines but do not strictly conform to detailed
aspects will be given careful consideration by the City.
16. The City discourages the design of buildings which are essentially
contemporary but gratuitously provide a tiled parapet arched entry or similar
feature that creates a veneer of the traditional styles.
18. The City recognizes that a more traditional design may be difficult to
accomplish due to the differences in scale and mass between historical and
p:\christi\arch-sta ndards
Page -2-
new structures. Many contemporary buildings will, by nature of their uses,
incorporate larger building spaces than that associated with older buildings.
Therefore, the design of such buildings are discouraged from incorporating
mission the and/or stucco as an afterthought.
19. Architectural designs should incorporate an appropriate variety of qualities
including compatibility with adjoining buildings, intimacy of space, layering of
views, accent landscaping, richness of materials, and appropriateness of
rooflines.
20. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation should be designed to provide safe and
convenient access between the adjoining street and the parking area and
between the parking area and building entrances.
21. Light standards within the parking lots and on buildings will stress a low profile
design compatible with the architectural design of the building.
22. Signs along Highway 111 shall be oriented to auto traffic, but shall emphasize
the name and theme of the complex, not a directory listing of facility/tenant
names.
23. Loading areas and outdoor storage areas exert visual and noise impacts on
surrounding neighborhoods. These areas, when visible from adjoining
properties and/or public streets, should be screened, recessed, or enclosed.
pAchristi\arch-standards Page -3-
B I #A
DATE:
CASE NO.:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 7, 1997
STREET VACATION 97-034
DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH
PROPOSED STREET VACATION.
PORTIONS OF AVENIDA OBREGON AT AVENIDA MONTEZUMA
KARIN MEYER
Pursuant to State law', prior to street vacations or public easements being vacated by the City Council, the
"Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's General
Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission.
There are no street improvements within this proposed vacation area. The surrounding street improvements
were installed as part of the Cove Improvement Program, in which the City realigned the connection of
Avenida Oregon to Avenida Montezuma in an effort to improve traffic safety and neighborhood cohesiveness.
The subject location is a result of that activity.
Street Vacation Case No. 97-034 as generally indicated on Attachment 1, contains a portion of the Avenida
Obregon right of way, and is specifically described in Attachment 2, (exhibits "A" and "B"). This portion of
the street right of way is not needed by other property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to
residential properties. The roadway configuration is shown in Attachment 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to, the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On May 6, 1997, staff mailed notices to possibly affected public agencies, informing them of the proposed
vacation. It is expected that some utility companies may responded with requests for easements to operate
and maintain existing public utilities. Other than the easement reservations, no negative comments are
expected.
Government Code Section 65402
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV97_034.WPD
FINDINGS:
The proposed street vacation will have no environmental effects that adversely impacts the human
population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segment is currently unused by the public
and inaccessible to vehicles; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical
environmental effect.
2. The segment of street right of way proposed for vacation meets the definition of a local residential
street, which by definition is intended to provide access to abutting properties, with movement of
traffic given secondary importance. This portion of the street right of way is not needed by other
property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties, and is consistent with
the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan.
The street vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the
continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of this portion of the Avenida Obregon street right of
way is consistent with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan.
Prepared by:
R MANO VERLENGIA, Assistant Engineer II
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO,Ylanning Manager
RJV/dv
Attachments:
1. - Vicinity Map
2. - Exhibit "A" and `B"
3. - Street Plan
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\SV97_034.WPD
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT
lOPOS
REET-
CATIO
iCATlO
CALLF ENSF�C54ci�u U SCHOC
'CAi cF�iFr ALL!- �
I.1ANOF _ AV M hf'�
L�MS
N
HACK LN
FRITI B. BURNS
PARK
FTS FESTIVAL
FOUNDS
I )E7'I' %' 110 \'
It d.V
'LA OUINTA VILLAGE
`- SHOPPING CENTER
SENIOR CENTER
ATTACHMENT 2
"EXIIIBIT A"
Being a portion of Avenida Montezuma and a portion of Avenida Obregon as shown by the Map
of the Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, Unit No. 2, in the City of La Quinta as shown by Map
on file in Book 18, at pages 55 and 56 of Maps, Official Records of Riverside County, California
being more particularly descried as follows:
BEGINNING at the most Southwesterly corner of Lot 2, Block 19 of Santa Carmelita at Vale La
Quinta No. 2, in the City of La Quinta, as shown by Map on file in Book 18 of Maps, at pages 55
and 56 of Maps Official Records of Riverside County, California;
Thence South 89' 53' 37" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the South line of said Lot 2 a
distance of 59.90 feet to the Southeasterly right of way of.Avenida Montezuma, having a half -
width of 30.00 feet as shown on said Map;
Thence North 37° 56' 07" East, along the Southeast right of way of Avenida Montezuma, a
distance of 88.88 feet to a point of intersection with the Westerly prolongation of the North line
of said Lot 2 and the Southeast right of way of Avenida Montezuma;
Thence North 89' 53' 37" East, along the Westerly prolongation of the North line of said Lot 2 to
a point in a non -tangent curve, having a radial bearing of South 79' 45' 04" East and having a
radius of 40.00 feet, a distance of 5.78 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 2;
Thence Southerly, along said curve in the West line of Lot 2, through a central angle of 10' 2P
19" an arc distance of 7.23 feet to the end of the curve;
Thence South 00° 06' 22" East along the West line of Lot 2 a distance of 62.81 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Contains: 2278 Sq. Feet.
�G LAND S�
A.
L` S.4741
rp
9lF OF C A\-
���4
"EXHIBIT B"
SHOWING THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF AVENIDA OBREGO
AS SHOWN BY M.B.18/55-56 N
THE CITY OF LA GUINTA,
CALIFORNIA.
O
GOC
V 0
0
z
EI 59.
L.S.4741
.4-
OT I
9TF OF CP����4
�N 89053'370E
5.78
N 89° 53' 37"E 99.35
;ig°4S'04•W iR)
`�[v-10°21'19'
R-40.00
L-7.23
T-3.52
LOT 2 (MEYER)
A.P.N. 773-081-002
89°53'37"E 100.00
SANTA CARMELITA AT
VALE LA GUINTA,
UNIT N0, 2, M.B.18/55-56
LOT 3
'��• PROPOSED R/W AVENIDA OBREGON
�� 9r°o EXISTING R/W AVENIDA OBREGON
O0
W
• a
Y
A
prepared by:
TRI—STATE LAND SURVEYORS
AND CIVIL ENGINEERS
30' 30'
"Q 78035 Calle Estado
�0 La Guinta, CA 92253
(760) 564-0271
z
3e
N
N
to
0
0
o.
HIGHWAY III LANDSCAPE & ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN GUIDELINES
City of La Quinta
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS
Intent
The Highway I I I corridor is the central window into the City of La Quinta. Developments within
this corridor must be sensitive to the natural background vistas, consisting of three horizontal
elements: desert, mountains, and sky.
Developments which contribute to making La Quinta a unique City by reflecting its physical
character and adding to it in appropriate ways, are to be encouraged. Conversely, developments
which result in a random series of unrelated, shallow depth, impulse -buyer oriented, sign -intensive
commercial uses, with numerous driveways onto Highway 111, are to be avoided.
Objectives
Although these guidelines are by no means intended to stifle creativity, it is the City's hope that
they will serve as useful tools for those design professionals who are engaged in site -specific
designs for this important portion of La Quinta.
The City recognizes that traditional building designs may be more difficult to accomplish due to
the differences in scale and mass between historical and contemporary structures. Many
contemporary buildings, by the nature of their uses, incorporate larger spaces than those
associated with older buildings. Buildings which are of contemporary design but which
"gratuitously" provide a tiled parapet, arched entry, or similar feature as an afterthought, just to
create a veneer of a more traditional style, are discouraged.
Projects which are designed to comply with these guidelines are actively encouraged. However,
creative and sensitive projects which comply with the purpose and intent of these guidelines but
which do not conform to the detailed aspects will still be given careful consideration by the City.
Guidelines
I . No particular architectural style or building materials are specified herein. However, high
quality architectural designs and building material selections are encouraged.
2. Within an individual development project, a unifying theme shall be established. This
theme will then establish the tone for architectural style, building materials, landscaping
materials, paving materials, and other design factors and features to be utilized throughout
the project. In general, "standard" design of franchises and other multiple -location
businesses shall not be allowed, unless they are determined to be consistent with the
overall theme of a project.
Structures and all supporting design elements, including landscaping, shall exhibit designs,
heights, bulk, mass, shapes, places, textures, and materials which are compatible with the
desert setting, and do not obscure or distract from the mountain and sky vistas. To
promote individuality among structures, expressive shapes, notched entryways, building
off -sets and overhangs are encouraged.
4. Buildings should have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest, at the
scale of the pedestrian, and which reduce massive aesthetic effects. Architectural features
should be integral parts of the building fabric, and not be superficially applied trim,
graphics, or paints.
5. Architectural designs should incorporate an appropriate variety of qualities, including
compatibility with adjoining buildings, intimacy of space, layering of views, accent
landscaping, richness of materials, and appropriateness of roof lines.
6. Facades and exterior walls should be articulated to reduce the massive scale and the
uniform, impersonal appearance of large retail buildings, and to provide visual interest that
is consistent with the City's identity, character, and scale. The intent is to encourage a
more human scale.
7. Buildings should offer attractive pedestrian -scale features, spaces, and amenities.
Entrances and parking lots should be configured to be both functional and inviting, with
walking conveniently tied to logical destinations.
8. Pedestrian and vehicle circulation should be designed to provide safe and convenient
access between the adjacent street and the parking area, and between the parking area and
the building entrances.
9. Entryway design elements and variations should give orientation and aesthetically pleasing
character to the building.
10. All building facades that are visible from adjoining properties and/or public streets should
contribute to the pleasing scale and features of those buildings, and shall encourage
community integration by featuring characteristics similar to the facade.
11. Loading areas and outdoor storage/display areas exert visual and noise impacts on
surrounding neighbors. Such areas, when visible from adjoining properties and/or public
streets, should be screened, recessed, or enclosed.
12. Light standards within parking lights, and exterior lights on buildings shall be of the low
profile variety, compatible with the architectural design of the building. All lighting shall
meet the requirements of the City's "Dark Sky" ordinance.
13. Signs along Highway 111 shall be oriented to automobile traffic, and shall emphasize the
name and theme of the building complex. They shall not be a directory listing of the
facility/tenant names.
14. Variations in roof lines should be used to add interest to and reduce the massive scale of
large buildings.
15. Those developments which abut the Whitewater Wash should be designed so that their
appearance is pleasing and acceptable when viewed from the residential properties situated
on the opposite side of the Wash. This may require that internal service areas be provided,
or that buildings be oriented so that their service side does not face the Wash.
16. "Strip Developments", which are generally arranged in a linear fashion along the adjacent
street for maximum visibility from the street, are discouraged. The impression formed
while traveling along a strip development is that it is "never ending", and the destination -
bound consumer cannot locate what he/she is seeking because of the clutter.
THE WOODARD GROUP
May 8, 1997
Jacques Abels
P.O. Box 3052
Palm Desert, Ca. 92261
Dear Jack:
The primary reason for writing this letter is to request the approval of the commission to excuse
my absence from the next meeting. I am leaving for Europe on May 7th and will be returning on
May 25. I will be in Italy, stone cutting in marble, which I do on alternate years. I tried to get the
City to pay for the trip, as 1 promised to visit the planning meetings in Florence, but to no avail?
I also wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the last meeting regarding the submission
for the project located on PGA West property. The request for approval is a difficult issue, on
one hand, the serenity of the sales "compound' is very important to any developer, yet on the
other hand, the length of the street with a cul-d-sac is just wrong. Maybe a solution is to limit the
duration of the "dead-end" to 1-1/2 years. Maybe the developer should lose several lots for that
same time an put in a temporary road that could be hidden with proper landscaping?
POOLS - As to the pools, there seems to be a hidden agenda! If the developer doesn't need it,
why are they putting them in? I suspect it is to keep the natives quiet, who own the town homes
across the street. The combination of town homes and single family homes on such a long street
is not acceptable.
ISLAND HOMES - I am for leaving two homes in the island, but "torking" the locations so that
they do not face the main road. This will not only eliminate two drives, but will generate
additional landscaping areas which should help the situation.
SALES COMPOUND - The proposed location for their sales area is very good, as it will be
appropriate for on -going traffic.
GENERAL COMMENTS •-
1. The lot plotting should be brought back to the commission.
2. The elevations, color boards, plans and amenity package should be brought back to the
commission.
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 5031 BIRCH STREET, SUITE C, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660, 714-476-2566 / 714-476-0715 FAX
7979-1 OLYMPIA FIELDS, LA QUINTA, CA, 619-564-4418
A quality of a body of work that creates a high moral impression.
3. The island situation should be presented with a site plan with the homes, landscaping
and open spaces shown at a larger scale.
4. The golf course access issue should be addressed.
I hope the above comments will be of interest to you and the commission. The sales compound
issue is a tough one. (But that is why you get paid so much). Sorry I can't be there, but someone
has to have fun! ! !
Give my best to all of my fellow planners.
Sincerely,
Stewart Woodard, A.I.A.
Cc: Christine di Iorio
-IRK' f8l ! kHAk
1ji GjjjNTq, efi: y? _ 2,5
Pbfi U.Jes-1-11@4irier Course 619-771-0910
FHH_77 1 __0 19 1
n s o I i id' a t e d s u d i LO i S i 110.
i
Ccindition 45 lakes csare of the erg ergeroxg acess 1road into the cul-
Irl
de_saf at jjot,ti-.-, end of Cedar Crest.
0c, F,,olorlial (small land island) should
be lienjed. On the reoised plans, thel4 are not plotted.
3. TI'l;e 0(301 iSSUP--not our concern since the houses are detache-L
I -led
Specific 11iiI(I pools when residefitiai MlitS are dttaCl
There is now a poul at corner ofEedar Crest and Rioiera and a
pooj on Jjjj,.erlcfu_hem U houses below Coloniai. Hs i undersiand
itl we Ean not condi4ion 'this, but ujould recommend that
deLjeioper buiids a pool in the small iand island area.
4. Golf cart access I don't 'think WE shotild address this issue.
Rcuess to th e 1,-ouirse is auailable at several points where paths
from greens to the nest tee cross streets. Similar to other areas
in PGH WJESJF
HespectfullLj,