Loading...
1997 08 12 PC2 5 �OF� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA An Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California August 12, 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 97-056 Beginning Minute Motion 97-010 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 July 8, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022 - TIME EXTENSION Applicant .......... Tom Suitt Location ........... 79-410 Highway 111 Request ............ Approval of a one year time extension for a used vehicle sales lot Action ............. Resolution 97- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 97-387 Applicant .......... Beer Hunter Sports Pub & Grill Location .....•...... 78-483 Highway 111 (at Washington Street) Request ............ Approval of a new identification signs on Washington Street an( Highway 111 Action ............. Minute Motion 97- B. Item ................ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 96-590, AMENDMENT #1 Applicant ......... Jordan Architects, Inc., Lapis Energy Organization, Inc. Location .......... East side of Dune Palms Road, approximately 600 feet south o Highway 111 (47-250 Dune Palms Road) Request ........... Approval of site and building area revisions for Parcel 3 of TPb 28422, relating to the approved self -storage use proposed by Lapis Energy Action ............ Resolution 97- VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Discussion regarding the responsibility of the Planning Commission. B. Discussion regarding the Hillside Conservation Ordinance C. Report of the City Council meeting of July 15, 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 July 8, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER 4:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Seaton to lead the flag salute. E�. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Butler to excuse Commissioner Gardner. C. 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. D. Consultants present: Special Legal Counsel Richard Zeilenga, Randy Nichols and Tony Locacciato of Impact Sciences, Environmental Impact Consultants. II. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Staff requested that Public Hearing Item B be heard as Item C and Item C be heard as Item B. Unanimously approved. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 10, 1997. Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be amended on Page 6, Item 30 to delete the word "not" where it appeared twice, and Page 7, Item 32 to correct the spelling of the word "transit". There being no other corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Kirk abstaining. B. Department Report: None PC7-8-97 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 Commissioner Tyler noted for the record that prior to this meeting, he had a discussion with Ms. Della Davis, who said she represented some of the homeowners' of the Mountain Estates a part of the Enclave development portion of Santa Rosa Cove. 2. 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. Staff noted that a meeting had been held between KSL and some of the property owners of the Duna La Quinta Country Club and some resolve had been reached. The applicant would present those solutions. Staff indicated additional letters and draft resolutions had been distributed prior to the hearing. 3. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. 4. Commissioner Kirk questioned Page 9 of the staff report and asked staff to explain what was meant by zoning the property "Tourist Commercial" (TC) that dwould "remove the density of development as a factor for the resort residential uses." Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the zoning of Tourist Commercial has no density maximums or minimums nor any range that resort residential development has to follow. If it was medium density residential it would have to be between 4-8 dwelling units per acre. As Tourist Commercial the density factor does not come into play and it is a matter of complying with the code requirements. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to identify on the map, the 13.6 acres that were to be zoned Tourist Commercial. Staff identified the location on the exhibits and explained the request as it related to this specific area. 6. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page 4 of the staff report regarding what property the applicant was proposing to re zone. Principal Planner Stan Sawa clarified that the area is only that land within the Specific Plan. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the site where the maintenance facility was proposed to be constructed at the corner of 501h Avenue. and Eisenhower Drive and asked if there was anything else proposed to be constructed in this area. Staff stated the area was zoned Low Density Residential and currently no applications had been submitted for this area. He stated the applicant was PC7-8-97 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 14. Commissioner Woodard asked about the easement that would be used for emergency uses. Staff stated that KSL did not have any use or control over the gate on Avenida Obregon. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Fire Department would have to travel around the tract to reach the cul-de-sac, and did the Fire Marshal have a problem with the circulation plan. Staff stated the Fire Marshal did not indicate any problems with circulation. Staff stated that if the Fire Marshal were to see a problem during plan check, he would require the necessary changes. The Fire Department does have access to the gate. 15. Commissioner Woodard asked why a requirement was made for a third interior entrance into the employee parking lot. Staff stated they did not require it; it was shown by the applicant. Commissioner Woodard asked what the "L" shaped building next to the maintenance facility was proposed to be. Staff stated it was an open yard area enclosed by a chain -link fence referred to as a staging compound. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify what the wall is that is separating the maintenance facility from the street. Staff stated it is shown as a living fence. Staff was requiring that the entry gate, across from this building, was to be a solid gate to eliminate visibility into the compound. Commissioner Woodard asked the height of the buildings. Staff stated they were 22 feet. Commissioner Woodard stated that the building silhouette would be seen from the street as you drive by. Staff stated it would depend on the grading and line of sight. 16. Commissioner Woodard asked about the noise mitigation measures and whether or not the noises were typical for residential uses. Staff stated it was in compliance with a residential use, but staff would have to refer to the study for exact information. Commissioner Woodard clarified that the noise would be similar to a residential community. Staff stated this was true, except for occasional occurrences. 17. Commissioner Woodard referred to Page 21, Item #6 of the staff report and asked staff to explain what the Historic Preservation Commission (HPQ was referring to. Staff explained the Historical Preservation Commission had approved the project subject to the applicant adding language into the report regarding this item. 18. Commissioner Seaton asked staff what the height of the towers was on the proposed Spa. Staff stated they were to be 42-feet. Commissioner Seaton asked if the towers were different on the different buildings. Staff stated the tower feature was proposed only for the spa. Commissioner Seaton stated PC7-8-97 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 generate in excess of $3 million in revenue to the City. The overall project will produce over one half million dollars in Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT) each year. This year it will generate taxes in excess of $3 million. Regarding the parking maintenance facility proposed for 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive, this parking will accommodate a portion of the employees who work at the Hotel. It is intended to replace the parking on Avenida Obregon. The traffic will not increase as the employees will be taken to the hotel via the shuttle service they will be providing. They anticipate having a variety of vans, based on the employment volume. The majority of their hourly work force comes from the cities east of La Quinta who already use 50th Avenue. What this parking lot proposes is to provide parking for the employees before they reach Eisenhower, and therefore decrease the traffic on Eisenhower Drive. It is KSL's opinion that they have mitigated most of the noise problems, as well as the other negative impacts in regard to noise, location of the maintenance facility, and landscape buffering for the residential units. Regarding the chainlink fencing, it is only seen after you have entered the facility, as the wall on 50th Avenue blocks the view of the fence. The fence is used as a containment for the maintenance facility. Securing the facility will be accomplished by a security office and roving security guard. The facility will be locked down when not in operation and activity ceases. 22. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL, thanked the Commission for starting the hearing early to accommodate the crowd. He further stated the timing of these units was critical to get the construction completed during the off season time in order to not impact the resort community. They are trying to be responsive to the homeowner's concerns by making the changes that are possible, to lessen their concerns. KSL has studied their assets and found this resort facility to be the most cherished of their holdings. They would do nothing to minimize the value of this project. While reviewing the project, it was their determination that they did not believe additional hotel rooms were appropriate for this area. Therefore, the resort integrated concept was developed. It is designed to be between a resort and residential community to integrate into the area. Mr. Hosea went on to explain the concept and stated it was a $46 million dollar development which would give the City TOT revenue as well as property tax revenue in addition to the $1.3 million in building permit fees. The change of zone is required to have the ability to have the activities that occur within the residential uses. They will be restricted to residential uses within the Tourist Commercial areas. PC7-8-47 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 A plan would be given to the homeowners to resolve all the details. By pulling the maintenance facility back, it became evident that heavy landscaping was necessary to cover the wall on the eastern edge. They would also be increasing another wall area to 9-feet in height with heavy landscaping on the adjacent site towards the homeowners. No parking will be between the structure and the 9-foot wall. In addition, the doors facing north and west will remain closed. The maintenance access point is a right- in/right-out only, and they have moved it down 250 feet, which is across from the driving range. This will also eliminate the potential of noise for the residents across 50`h Avenue. 25. Mr. Chevis Hosea stated they would continue to discuss this further at the break with the homeowners and/or Commission in hopes of resolving as many issues as possible. What they are requesting tonight from the Commission was a conceptual approval. They will continue to work out the details with staff. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked if the revised plan had been shown to the neighboring property owners. Mr. Lynch stated they had seen the plan and it was acceptable to the residents. There is a sense of approval from them but, they will speak to this themselves. 27. Commissioner Tyler asked if this plan would provide the same number of required parking spaces. Mr. Hosea stated there is a loss of parking spaces, but there is an adequate number of parking spaces. They will lose 215 spaces, but will still have 300+ which meets their requirements. 28. Commissioner Tyler asked if there will be noise impact to the six new lots in the future. Mr. Hosea stated that any future home buyers for these homes, will be able to make that purchase decision, based on the maintenance facility being in existence at that time. If they don't want the location, they will not buy there. 29. Commissioner Kirk asked if the applicant had read and agreed with all the conditions as proposed by staff. Mr. Hosea stated there needed to be a discussion regarding the Conditions of Approval as they had some concerns regarding the economic obligations for the construction of the south half of 50th Avenue. PC7-8-97 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 34. Mr. Robert Monroe, 48-775 Avenida Fernando, stated he had a letter prepared by the attorney for the La Quinta Country Club. The letter was read and stated their objections to the maintenance facility proposed to be constructed directly across the street from the La Quinta Country Club. The early arrival of vehicles and the equipment to be used, would be disturbing to the neighboring residents. This would decrease the value of their property as well. There is a great amount of competition for golf club membership. La Quinta Country Club is looking forward to the development of residential homes in this area that would create a pool of potential golf memberships for their club. Lighting could also be a problem. In short, they are requesting that the Commission consider this application in light of the foregoing comments and deny the applicants the use of the property. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 6:14 p.m. and reconvened at 7:01 35. Mr. Andy Vossler. 34-940 Lago Circle, stated his opposition to the development of a maintenance facility to be constructed across from the La Quinta Country Club. His home is immediately across from this proposed development and he would like to see it moved to the south. He would suggest that the applicant, who owns a triangular piece of property between the three golf holes to the south of the proposed maintenance facility, consider using this property for the same purpose. If this location would not work, he would suggest they look into purchasing property somewhere else, possibly south of the channel. His concerns are for his family's comfort and safety as he does not agree with this use this close to his house. He has lived in this area for 15 years and has had two vehicles stolen from his house. Concerning the lighting, it has not been discussed to his satisfaction. If the Commission is considering approving this project in phases, he does not agree. It should be approved as a whole or require the applicant to find the best location for the project. He recognizes that KSL is for profit and they should be able to develop their property to its maximum value. Finally, it is his understanding that due to the reduced use of the two current maintenance facilities, there is a demand for this size of a building. This should also be considered. 36. Mr. Charles Owen, 49-757 Coachella Drive, and homeowner within the Santa Rosa Cove, and president of the Homeowners' Association for the Island II. This plan with such short notice, has not allowed time for anyone to review PC7-8-97 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 40. Mr. James "Buba" Lloyd, 77-313 Calle Mazatlan, stated he was not against KSL and does appreciate their organization. He has been a homeowner since 1988, when there were only 276 hotel units. Since then it has grown to 640 hotel rooms and now wants to increase by 119 with 205 keys which is a 32% increase and they expect their streets to handle this load. They currently have a serious stacking problem at the 50`h Avenue and Eisenhower Drive entry and it has been worse since the Mountain Course has been turned into a resort golf course with limited membership play and opened to the public. In his opinion, the density and zoning needs to be revisited, as well as the traffic and noise factors. He questions how La Casa is going to get all the service trucks in there for any special functions. They have to come down Avenida Fernando, through the Fernando Gate, down Avenida Mazatlan and through the project. They are taking away the ability to go north on Avenida Obregon. They have a maintenance and security contract with KSL that will have to be changed, but has not yet been done. This project should not be approved yet. Their ground water runoff will create a problem. What they are asking for is the time to review the documents associated with the project. 41. Dr. Frederick Kakis, 77-104 Calle Mazatalan, stated his property is the last one on Avenida Mazatalan. Initially he was opposed to this project as he shares the same concerns of his neighors for their property values, traffic, and enviromental concerns. Since that time he has met with KSL where they explained the project, and alleviated most of his concerns. He agrees with the other speakers, that a decision on this project should not be taken hastily. 42. Mr. Wayne Guralnick, 74-399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, speaking on behalf of the Lago La Quinta Homeowners' Association. He questioned Page 51 of the staff report, second paragraph, the mitigation measures being considered to negate the impact of the service trucks and equipment as well as the impact of the employees and noise issues. Who will enforce the mitigation measures. These are impossible to mitigate. The mandatory findings the Planning Commission are required to make are on Page 75 of the staff report. The Commission has to find that this project will not degrade the neighboring vicinities. They have not spoken with the developer so they don't know if they could mitigate the impacts. It is a commercial use incompatible with a residential use. He would like to have noise experts study the Noise Study to determine if this is true. How would any of the Commissioners like to have this project next to their home. PC7-8-97 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 majority of the traffic comes later in the morning with the housekeeping and restaurant employees. A fully occupied hotel, at the most, needs 60 employees for the housekeeping component. From there they have the food and beverage employees. Security is an issue to them as well. This development cleans up the area and gives a presence of security to improve the whole area. The La Casa, which is located at the southwest corner of the hotel property complex, is an older structure that is used mostly for meetings and hotel functions. Occasionally there are off -site functions; in that case, access will be allowed through the Santa Rosa gate. Access is still allowed through the hotel for their electric carts and vehicles with the different pathing methods they have worked out to accommodate this. It is their belief that they can control this issue to mitigate the noise and supply the area accordingly and respect the neighboring resident. 46. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to clarify they were proposing to sell the units at a price of approximately $300 a square foot. If so, what is the recent sale price of the residences in the vicinity. Mr. Hosea stated their recent polling showed the Tennis Villas were selling for $135-150,000 and they are approximately 1,200-2,000 square feet. Their units are 815 to 2,000 square feet. 47. Commissioner Woodard stated that if all the approvals were received at this meeting, what is their time frame for construction. Mr. Hosea stated they would like to start the first phase of construction in September with demolition in August and deliveries in March. The spa would be completed by the end of January. Commissioner Woodard asked if the approval was put off for three months, would the construction be during the season? Mr. Hosea stated that it would be. They would like to get the heavy construction work, such as the concrete and lumber trucks, etc. in while the residents are away. The construction would be to build themselves out of the area to be away from the surrounding homes, as the season begins. Commissioner Woodard asked if this was a realistic time frame. Mr. Hosea stated it was. 48. Commisioner Woodard.asked staff if the applicant did not get the approvals within their time frame, would the construction disturbance be an intimidation to the residents during the peak season. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that the hours of construction are governed by the Municipal Code. PC7-8-97 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 52. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to verify this. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that based on the map, there are 48 existing and built in the Medium Density Residential area. At a minimum, 200 are permitted leaving 152 to be built. Commisioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the issue of density because it appeared that the applicant was reducing the density, not increasing. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that a specific plan is a document that allows flexibility to the zoning designation and development standards that are in place on the site. The specific plan allows "X" number of units to be developed. If those areas are not identified, they oan take those units and spread them throughout the development anywhere in the specific plan area. Just because the underlying zone is Medium Density Residential does not diminish the fact that the specific plan allows a total number of units. The zoning district governs therefore, so it will be up to eight units per acre versus what the specific plan allows in its current configuration for this area. The zoning is there, but the specific plan governs. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the other issue it that the specific plan was approved for 1,500 residential units. With the specific plan and the recommendation for the General Plan redesignating to Tourist Commercial, we have reduced the number to 1,418. The density arrived at was by taking all the areas and their density specifications to arrive at the original 1,500 units. With the removal of the Low Density Residential and the MDR and changing it to TC, staff has reduced the amount of residential units allowed within the specific plan. They have also added one per ten acres for the hillside area to reach 1,400 units. Commissioner Woodard asked if they were to continue on with the same unit type as what is existing, how many units would they be allowed? Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they currently have 900 residences developed and they could have 1,500 units over the specific plan area. Commissioner Woodard asked if they continued to build the existing Tennis Villas in the subject area, how many units could be built. Would it be more or less than what they are proposing now. Mr. Forrest Haag, Forrest K. Haag, ASLA, Design and Land Planning, planner for the project, stated that it would be roughly 120 units. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the new units they are proposing allows them to rent them out on a daily basis like some of the other units currently within the Santa Rosa development. 53. Commissioner Woodard asked the applicant to explain what a tenant would do when he arrived to rent one of the units. Mr. Hosea stated they would check into the hotel and would receive all the amenities the hotel offers. PC7-8-97 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 not the facility is placed at this location, you still have the same access problems. Their position is that if they can put the use behind the wall they should not be penalized to take valuable fairway frontage to place a facility that will be just as hidden and operable as the triangular site. 60. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern about the people not having enough time to review the plans. The legal process that the City has to go through to notify people was used and executed properly. The developer is not required to meet with the individual neighboring communities. He can understand their resentment and it is a difficult project to review. During the public comment portion of the hearing, he wrote down the seven major issues that were raised. He hears and understand their complaints and the rebuttal to those complaints. However, he does believe that KSL has brought into the design and planning process, some of the best firms in the United States. Architecturally and planning -wise it is an excellent plan with a superb project. The issues are not architecture and design but the land uses. Based upon this, he will recommend approval based upon certain conditions. 61. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard, and after reviewing the documents, there are several issues that need to be resolved. Noise, density, street problems, and security. It is his opinion that those problems can be mitigated by the measures provided. He is in favor of the project. 62. Commissioner Tyler stated he understood that this maintenance facility will replace an older facility. Mr. Dalecio stated that was true. Commissioner Tyler stated that in his opinion, whatever changes come out of KSL, it will only enhance the historic property and it will be done in good taste. However, the current property owners purchased their properties with the idea that their amenities would be retained. Therefore the project must be looked at from this perspective. Regarding density, and although there may be fewer units, the proposed project does appear to be more dense than what is existing. The area along Avenida Mazatlan does not give the same perception of high density that the colored area presents. Another concern is the transportation in and out of this new complex with Avenida Mazatlan taking most of it, although there are gates at either end. The issue of how you can control the expansion of the traffic in and out of the gates is up to KSL and the homeowners. KSL talked about closing off Avenida Obregon and installing a gated entrance at the top of Avenida Fernando which is fine, but PC7-8-97 19 Planning Commission Meeting July 8., 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner, ABSTAIN: None. 67. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-040, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 97-054 subject to the Findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 68. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Revolution 97-041, recommending approval of Change of Zone 97-083, subject to the Findings. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioners Seaton and Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 69. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Revolution 97-042, recommending approval of Amendment #4 for Specific Plan 121-E, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 70. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Woodard/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-043, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 28545, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. PC7-8-97 21 Planning Commission Meeting July 8. 1997 Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 97-029; Development Agreement 97-002, Conditional Use Permit 97-034, Site Development Permit 97-603, and Tentative Parcel Map 28525, as being adequate and complete; recognizing the overriding considerations to certain adverse environmental impacts; and recognizing the significant adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided, but which can be reasonably mitigated, if the proposed project is implemented, and a recommendation to approve to divide an 87-acre multi -phased Mixed Commercial proposal consisting of an auto sales/service mall and a retail complex, subdivision of the site into ten parcels, a Conditional Use Permit to allow auto service/sales, review of the building elevations and development plans for five auto sales facilities, and a Development Agreement. Staff noted that the proposed La Quinta Centre Drive was in the process of being changed as La Quinta Center Drive was already in existence. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for a 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. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify whether this hearing was for all phases or just Phase I. Staff stated Phase I includes the Site Development Permit applications for the five dealerships; Phase 2 was for future auto sales or related uses and Phase 3 is a future retail center. Phases 2 and 3, of the site, are conceptual and would be brought back to the Commission when Site Development applications had been received. 3. Commissioner Woodard asked if conceptual buildings were to be approved. Staff stated the building schematics were before the Commission as a part of the Environmental -Aesthetics in relation to the view impact of the mountains. Staff stated that the computer simulated conceptual drawing that showed the development as it was initially proposed with the 50-foot height and the other buildings at 30-feet in height. Since staff had been working with the Environmental consultant new computer drawings had been drawn to show what the buildings would look like if: a.) reduced to 25-feet in height b.) reduced to 25-feet in height and staggered with a minimum 65 foot separation. PC7-8-97 23 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 8. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify whether the Commission was approving the setbacks that were part of the Environmental Assessment or a part of the Development Agreement and if the Development Agreement is going to set conditions for all three phases. His concern is that Phase I is being reviewed for site development and yet, the Commission is talking about setbacks on Phase III. Staff stated these were separate issues. The entire Specific Plan was being reviewed which deals with all three phases. Commissioner Kirk asked if the conditions would deal with setbacks as they relate to all three phases. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated they could to the extent the Commission wanted to add them. Presently, as drawn, the buildings have reached their maximum height and density. Therefore any requirements contained in the Specific Plan are also included in the Development Agreement. For example, should the Commission want to mitigate the view shed even further than what is required by the EIR, this is the Commission's prerogative. The staggering is not required by the EIR, but the Commission could decide to add the staggering to further mitigate the measure. The simulation is to visually show the Commission what the two alternatives would look like staggered. Should the Commission decide that further mitigation measures are needed, they may want to consider requiring the staggering on the setback for Phase III. This would then be included in the Specific Plan and Development Agreement. Commissioner Kirk asked if this could be deferred to Phase III. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that once a Development Agreement is approved, it grandfathers all elements put into place. 9. Commissioner Woodard asked if buildings 2 and 4 were staggered, could the Commission require the wall to be pushed back as well. Staff stated there was no wall proposed, it was a sidewalk. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission was to address Buildings 7 & 8, which he considered to be too big and long and is opposed to, at this time or later. Planning Manager Christine di Iorlo stated they would be addressed at a later time, during the Site Development permit review. Commissioner Woodard asked if the Commission's responsibility at this time was only to address those issues that dealt with the EIR. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that was true, except they must define the density, intensity, and height of the building to establish the maximum envelope. PC7-8-97 25 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 14. Staff displayed and discussed the elevations with the Commission. Commissioner Butler asked if Parcel 5, on Adams Street, was the dealership with the parking on the roof. It appeared to him that from the front you do not see the second story. ,Staff stated this pad did have plans for parking on the roof, and from the elevations, the front of the building is facing in towards the center of the project. The parking on the roof is not seen from the street. Staff continued to go through the different elevation plans. 15. Commissioner Tyler asked to see the elevations for the rear of the buildings facing Highway 111. Staff explained that the developer had submitted new elevations showing additional architectural details for Buildings 1 and 2. 16. Commissioner Butler stated that in his opinion the elevations facing Highway 111 would be more important than the front elevations, in some instances. He asked staff to estimate what the site line of the buildings would be from Highway 111. 17. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the heights of the buildings. Staff stated the architect would need to address this issue. 18. Commissioner Seaton asked if the front of the dealerships faced the circle, where did the service bays face? Staff explained the building did face the circle. Regarding the service bays, they would face different directions, depending on how the building was oriented on the site. 19. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained Parcel 1, or the future auto dealership building. She pointed out that added elements had been given to break up the building line. Commissioner Butler asked staff to indicate the line of site or what would be seen from Highway 111. 20. Mr. Randy Nichols, EIR Consultant, reviewed the EIR process and the findings contained within the EIR report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. PC7-8••97 27 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 center. Whatever that factor was if it was identified in the previous EIR, its inappropriate to use that same factor in this EIR. Commissioner Kirk asked if the sewage consumption factor was the same for an office building as a car dealership. Mr. Nichols stated that on a large scale master plan, if you go to the sewer service districts, on a master plan they do it in broad land use categories. An "X" number of gallons factor for general commercial. 24. Commissioner Tyler asked if Mr. Nichols had an opportunity to draw upon the traffic studies of any of the previously approved commercial projects. Mr. Nichols stated they had retained an independent contractor to prepare the traffic study, and they probably had reviewed the other recently prepared traffic study, but he is unaware as to their impact on this report. Discussion followed regarding the traffic study. 25. Commissioner Woodard asked why landscaping plans for the circular area of the site had not been submitted. Staff stated landscaping plans had been received for the interior of the site and a separate set for the Highway 111 and Adams Street. In regard to the landscaping plans for the circular area, the landscape architect would need .to address this. Commissioner Woodard asked how the Commission would address something when there are no plans. Community Development Director Terry Herman stated that a condition would be added to require this to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked why the sidewalks were not required to be meandering on the interior of the project; is there a reason for a change. Staff stated they were not requiring it for the interior streets even though they are public streets. Commissioner Woodard questioned why the City was requiring the meandering sidewalk for other developers and not here'? He then asked if there were any requirements for berms. Staff stated none had been required. Commissioner Woodard asked if the sign program would be brought back to the Commission. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it would. Commissioner Woodard questioned the parking of the circular driveway. Why would a traffic engineer allow cars to back out into a major intersection traffic? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that PC7-8-97 29 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 32. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio clarified some of the conditions: Page 63, Conditions #4 and 5, should be changed to refer to the west perimeter wall. Page 67, Condition #2 should read: "east, south, and west." and "All lights shall be shielded along the west property line." 33. Commissioner Woodard asked why there was no regional center monument sign plan. Staff stated the applicant would be conditioned to bring this back to the Commission for their approval. Chairman Abels recessed for a break at 10:08 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 p.m. 34. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Christine Clarke, representing STAMKO the developer, gave a history of the company and the property. She informed the Commission that the 1992 Draft EIR referred to in some of the letters received, was never put into a final form for distribution. She went on to give an overview of the project. She then introduced Mr. Bob Smith and Mr, Marvin Roos, engineers for the project, Mr. Chuck Shepard, landscape architect, Mr. Dave Stark owner of Mazda and representative for the dealers, Mr. 'Tom Walker architect for the dealers, and Mr. Gordon McCoy, lighting expert. Ms. Clarke went on to state that they had met with the residents of Lake La Quinta and they had discussed their concerns. The same process was held with the residents from Rancho La Quinta. From those meetings, five issues remain. The first issue was to have the auto body repair and painting placed at the east end of the site. This is not possible. On the north side of the property the service bays run north and south. The south side, Parcels 6,7,8, must run east and west due to residential property to the south. To resolve this issue she proposes to take the building on Parcel 5, and place a condition on Parcel 6 and 7, which are schematic and conceptual at this time, and require that these buildings be 100-feet from the wall. This will address this issue. The second concern is no loading or storing of vehicles on Adams Street. Exhibit 11 of the Specific Plan shows the cross section of Adams Street which stipulates that parking will not be allowed on Adams Street due to the bike path. What they have done is design the interior streets of the project with a lane in the middle where their trucks can be parked on the interior and unload. This way the trucks will not even enter the parcels. The third issue is a request that the owners install landscape lighting on Adams Street. The lighting on the backside of the development has its intensity in the center of the project. PC7-8-97 31 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 approval of the auto mall itself. Commissioner Woodard asked for an explanation on the monument signs. Mr. Roos stated the intent was to show a general entry monument. A sign program would be submitted at a later date. 36. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a dealer identified for the fifth parcel. Ms. Clarke stated her proposal is for the initial four dealerships. She will not add any additional dealerships until after this is approved. The layout is with the dealers themselves. Commissioner Tyler stated his opposition to parking display cars along Highway 111, as it would create a traffic nightmare. Ms. Clarke stated the dealers do not want the cars on the highway due to their own concerns of vandalism, etc. Commissioner Tyler inquired about the car display on the building rooftops. Ms. Clarke stated the parking on the rooftops was for storage and involved Parcel 5 only. 37. Commissioner Tyler asked Ms. Clarke to identify what the "regularly scheduled special events" would consist of. Ms. Clarke stated there would be special events that would take place on the interior of the site, coordinated between the dealers to create an activity to draw people to the dealerships. An example would be food booths, balloons, etc. Each vendor and event will have to apply to the City for a permit. Commissioner Tyler requested that the conditions stipulate that no public address (PA) system will be used. Ms. Clarke clarified that the special events would occasionally have a band present and they would use a PA system. She would prefer that the condition stipulate that whatever is limited should be for the operation of the facility and not for the events. Ms. Clarke asked that a change be made to Exhibit 17 to show nine identification signs. Commissioner Tyler stated that the plans call for one ground mounted dealership identification sign per franchises; what does that mean? Ms. Clarke stated this is a requirement of the manufacturers and it is on the interior of the project. Of the four dealers involved, there are 16 franchises and each franchise will have its own sign. Further, she requested that the signs apply to the dealership and/or franchise and are for the interior only. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that Condition #22 could be modified to read: "One wall mounted dealership and/or franchise sign on the interior only". Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodard about approving the circular parking. PC74.97 33 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 Commission approval". Commissioner Woodard asked Ms. Clarke to explain. Ms. Clarke stated that as the buildings are moving in and out, you can't fit all the signs on one spot, therefore the signs have to be placed on the building as they progress. Page 63, the shielded lights shall be for the "north, west, and south". Page 73, Item #31, delete "and used vehicle storage areas"; Page 75, Item #42 deleted as it is a duplication of #41; on Page 76, Item #49, she would like the Commission to consider the rear elevations at this meeting and change the condition from "prior to the issuance of the building permits" as she was asking that the building elevations be approved now, so they do not have to resubmit the plans for approval. Commissioner Woodard stated he had some changes he would like to see made to the elevations and the plans would have to be reviewed by staff and approved. Ms. Clarke stated she had no problem with this. Staff stated the condition would be rewritten to remove "revised" and add "shall be amended as submitted July 8, 1997, to include the additional design treatment for approval by the Director of the Community Development Department." Finally, the additional language "wherever convenient add the following condition........" as added by the Director of Public Works to the Tentative Parcel Map, she requested this language be added to the Specific Plan, Site Development Permits, and the Conditional Use Permit because there is language in each of these areas that is in conflict with the Development Agreement. 43. Commissioner Tyler asked the applicant to explain what she was requesting "and used vehicle storage areas" to be removed from the condition. Marvin Roos, engineer for the project stated that the condition has to do with which run off water is treated through a clarification system. They do not understand why used vehicle storage is needed as this is not a service area, it is a parking lot for used cars. All service areas will be treated with clarifiers. 44. Chairman Abels asked if anyone else in the audience would like to address the Commission. Mr. Roger Wilner was called, but did not come forward. Mr. Richard Zeilenga, Special EIR Counsel for the project, stated that Mr. Wilner is a member of the law office for Mr. Corrodo's, the city attorney for the City of Indio and staff had distributed the letter he submitted to the Commission. PC7-8-97 35 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 added five feet. Ms. Madison then asked that if Buildings 6 and 7 face to the west, as the service bays appear to be, will they face their project. Ms. Clarke stated the drawing are only conceptual and schematic and they are required to face north and south. Finally, Ms. Madison stated, they were concerned about the bands and boom boxes being noisy for their area. They hope the Commission will reconsider and give them the 8-foot block wall on Adams Street. 47. Jay Bayden, 47-415 Via Cordova, stated he had one question he would like to ask Ms. Clark regarding the median strip on Adams Street as to who is completing the strip. Ms. Clark stated she will have to complete the median all the way down to the south property line and the City will have to complete the remainder. Mr. Bayden asked about the wall down Adams Street coming across to the south. Ms. Clarke stated it would come across to the green belt. Mr. Bayden then asked if there was a possibility of a 35 mph zone. 48. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 49. Commissioner Woodard stated he had such empathy for the applicant for the amount of money and energy that had been put into this project, it does not deserve some of the issues it has had to deal with, but so be it. The conditions he would like to see added are that the parking on the center plaza be eliminated as he believes it is an accident waiting to happen and that space be dedicated to additional landscaping as opposed to more paving. Additionally, that the plans for this area be submitted for Commission approval and contain some type of art element. He then asked if there was a pedestrian access from the plaza to the site and that it be a protected walkway from the central plaza into each of the auto dealerships. Staff stated it is a pedestrian sidewalk. Commissioner Woodard asked that the sidewalk be eliminated and the area landscaped. Second, he has a conflict between berms and retention areas, one fights the other and you cannot have both. Is it possible to find a solution allows both? Staff stated that the landscape architect has indicated he will work to resolve this. Commissioner Woodard stated he was concerned with how this would be PC7-8-97 37 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 view level does make enough of a buffer to the Highway 111 corridor so the buildings will not be an eyesore. He was however, concerned that the EIR was requiring the Planning Commission to make a decision on the setback at this time. If so, he would like the 25 foot height limitations with the 50 foot setback on Highway 111 for the greatest view of the mountains. Discussion followed regarding the setbacks and the viewshed. Commissioner Butler stated he had no objection to the circular parking area; on Building #5 he was not aware of the parking on the roof. When you drive in, parked cars will be seen. Ms. Clarke stated they would not be seen as there will be a five and a half foot parapet wall around the entire building. 53. Commissioner Tyler asked if the proper language had been placed in the proper documents to allow future flexibility to position Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, in the retail area. Staff stated they had already revised the Specific Plan conditions. Mr. Randy Nichols stated the EIR recommends that building heights be limited to 25 feet and separated 150-feet. Based upon the exhibits submitted tonight, the EIR should be changed to reflect the Commission's decision. Commissioner Tyler stated there needs to be enough flexibility in the condition to allow the Commission the ability to do what needs to be done as well as something that is economically viable. Ms. Clarke stated her concern that the requirement for 150-feet between buildings makes this feel like a bowling alley. They presented their computer simulation to show that this needed space can be accomplished by staggering and lowering the buildings. Discussion followed regarding the building separations. Following discussion, Ms. Clarke asked that the line of site be acceptable and the building height be limited to 25-feet. 54. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if the Commission makes the determination that something along the lines of the computer simulation with the staggering of up to 90-feet per building is adequate, it requires a change to the mitigation measure in the EIR to be consistent with the findings. 55. Commissioner Tyler asked if there would be any landscaping on the interior streets. Ms. Clarke stated that they would not like to do meandering sidewalks as there is parking all along Auto Centre Drive and Auto Centre Way. Discussion followed regarding meandering sidewalks. PC7-8-97 39 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels. NO: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 60. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Seaton/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-049 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 97-029, subject to the findings and conditions as modified: a. To Exhibit 17 add a nine dealership sign shall be allowed; b. Add to Section 2.250.4.1.3. "General uses of public address/paging system"; C. To Section 2.50.4.1.1 delete the word "and display"; d. Add to Condition #5, "no building -mounted sign shall be allowed along Highway 111 and Adams street"; e. Add Condition #22, "building mounted and/or dealer/franchise identification signs and split on one or more building face and maintaining a minimum of 100 feet from Adams Street for Parcels 6 & 7; and f. Clarify Condition #19, that the mitigation measure would be amended to state that this is the best alternative to the view of the mountains. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NO: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. 61. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Seaton to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 97-050 recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 97-934, subject to the findings and conditions. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NO: Commissioner Woodard. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. PC7-8-97 41 Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1997 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler reported on the City Council meeting of July 1, 1997. Commissioner Tyler informed the Commission that he would not be in attendance at the next City Council meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on July 22, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. on July 9, 1997. PC7-8-97 43 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1997 CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022 (EXTENSION #1) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TIME EXTENSION FOR AN EXISTING USED VEHICLE SALES LOT (D.B.A. DESERT AUTO LIQUIDATORS) IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATION: 79-410 HIGHWAY 111 (NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 300- FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD) APPLICANT: MR. CLAYTON SUITT PROPERTY OWNERS: MR. AND MRS. NOAH THOMAS SUITT, JR. BUSINESS OWNER: MR. MOE NOURKHAH BACKGROUND: Proiect Approval On October 10, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a used vehicle sales operation at 79-410 Highway 111 for a maximum two year period, subject to Conditions (Attachment 1). A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes from that meeting is attached (Attachment 2). On October 17, 1995, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 95-022 as a Report of Action. Property History Desert Auto Liquidators opened for business in December, 1996, after required improvements to the property were made such as building a trash enclosure, restriping portions of the existing parking lot, installing irrigation and landscaping, removing illegal parking lot lights, and repainting the building and freestanding pole sign. In addition to these improvements, the property owner stabilized the rear portion of the site, which was illegally graded by the owner of the previous nursery business, to control dust and paid other fees as required to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for Mr. Nourkhah. The Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for widening of Highway 111 was accepted by the City Council on December 17, 1996, as required by Condition #6(C). Site Information The 2.7-acre property is rectangular with 200-feet of frontage along Highway 111. The used car sales lot is located on the southerly portion of the site. The properties surrounding the STRPCUP95-022/18/RESOCUP95-022EXT-18/CONDCUP95-022EXT./18 Page 1 of 3 site are currently vacant and designated Regional Commercial with Non -Residential Overlay District. Time Extension Request On July 21, 1997, Mr. Clayton Suitt, representing the Suitt Family Partnership, requested an extension of time for CUP 95-022. The letter states that it would be an economic hardship on their family and those employed at the car lot if this case is not extended. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment 3). Public Hearing Property owners within 500-feet of the site were sent a public hearing notice informing them of the applicant's request of a time extension. The public notice was also published in the Desert Sun newspaper as required by Condition #2 of the approval. Zoning Code Amendment The City Council recently approved Ordinance No. 307, an amendment to the Zoning Code (ZCA 97-056) prohibiting used vehicle sales facilities to locate in the Regional Commercial District unless associated with new car sales. The City Council will review the second reading of this Code amendment on September 16, 1997. If approved, ZCA 97-056 will become effective on October 16, 1997. Independent used car facilities will continue to be allowed in the Commercial Park District with a Conditional Use Permit. STATEMENT OF ISSUES: ISSUE 1 - General Plan/Specific Plan and Zoning Consistency The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as Mixed/Regional Commercial with a Non -Residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including car sales. This is a legal non -conforming use because the site improvements do not meet current requirements of the General Plan, specifically the 50-foot landscape setback along Highway 111, and Zoning Ordinance, namely signs, lighting and building setbacks. The use of the site for used car sales and its extension is currently permitted since it received conditional use permit approval. ISSUE 2 - Project Suitability Presently, only a smali portion of the site is utilized for the used car dealership. During review of CUP 95-022 in 1995, it was discussed that the car lot was an interim use for the property until ultimate development of the 2.7-acre parcel. Those individuals involved with CUP 95-022 have complied with the standards and requirements that were imposed in 1995 with the exception of the following: STRPCUP95-022/18/RESOCUP95-022EXT-18/CONDCUP95-022EXT./18 Page 2 of 3 The site is over parked with 54 display vehicles and lacks adequate paved parking areas for guests or employees. 2. Illegal parking lot lights have been installed along the east side of the site. 3. Illegal temporary signs are being displayed. 4. Additional minor landscaping improvements are needed. 5. Landscaping debris (i.e., plastic pots, etc.) exists to the north of the existing building in the existing Tamarisk trees. Staff Comments Staff supports a one year extension of time for this project provided the outstanding violations are corrected by September 1, 1997. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission is permitted to extend this project approval unless the Commission finds the applicant has not complied with the required Conditions. The proposed Conditions of Approval allow the used vehicle sales lot to remain open for business until October 10, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 97- , approving a one year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 95-022 (Extension #1), subject to Findings and Conditions as attached. Attachments: 1. Original Conditions of Approval 2. October 10, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) 3. Time Extension Request Letter Pre red bk EL t;r�bg_.T u 13 sociate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager STRPCUP95-022/18/RESOCUP95-022EXT-18/CONDCUP95-022EXT./18 Page 3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022 (EXTENSION #1) PERMITTING A USED VEHICLE SALES LOT AT 79-410 HIGHWAY 111 CASE NO. CUP 95-022 - CLAYTON SUITT (FOR MR. AND MRS. NOAH T. SUITT, JR.) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did on the 121h day of August, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an extension of time for an existing non -conforming used vehicle sales lot approved by the City in 1995 at 79-410 Highway 111, more particularly described as: A portion of the North'/2 of Section 29, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, SBBM (APN: 649-020-012) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, did on the 1711 day of October, 1995, accept the Report of Action by the Planning Commission issued for CUP 95- 022; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on the 101h day of October, 1995, on a 7-0 vote, approved the operation of a used vehicles sales lot at 79-410 Highway 111, subject to Findings and Conditions (Resolution 95-044); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, did on the 101 day of October, 1995, hold a public hearing on CUP 95-022 to consider a request to establish a temporary used vehicles sales lot in a CPS District on a portion of a 2.7-acre; and WHEREAS, said time extension request is not considered a project and does not require further environmental consideration under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit (Time Extension #1): Under the Conditional Use Permit, this non -conforming independent used vehicle sales business will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community because it is a temporary use, as Conditioned. Vehicle repair will not be permitted because it cannot be done inside a fully enclosed building designed for this type of use. 2. The Conditional Use Permit, as Conditioned, is consistent with the Zoning requirements of the City because the use of the property is considered temporary until the 2.7 acre RESOPCCUP95-022EXT(FINAL)-18 Page 1 of 2 Planning Commission Resolution 97-_ CUP 95-022, Extension #1 August 12, 1997 site is fully developed. Minor site improvements have been made to bring the site into conformance with many of the provisions outlined in the current Zoning Code. The use of the site will be permitted for a one year period, provided certain violations are corrected. 3. That the proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Public Resources Code Section 21082 and State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15301(a)), but mitigation measures have been complied with. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit 95-022 (Time Extension #1), subject to the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 1211 day of August, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California Page 2 of 2 Resope.137 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDIT�ONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022 (EXTENSION #1) AUGUST 12, 1997 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development of this site shall conform with the file for Conditional Use Permit 95-022 (Extension #1), unless otherwise amended by the following Conditions. 2. The approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for one year, expiring October 10, 1998, provided the following site modifications or improvements are made by September 1, 1997: A. Provide parking for guests and employees as depicted on the approved stripping plan and remove all vehicles from the areas approved for landscaping (i.e., gravel areas, etc.). B. Remove the illegal temporary banner mounted on the building and two other sandwich board signs at the project entryways. C. Remove the illegal parking lot lights along the east property line. D. Install adjacent to, or on, the chain link fence at the front of the property, plant materials which will screen said fence from view of Highway 111, per approval on October 10, 1995 (Condition No. 6 (E4)). E. Remove debris from the north side of the vehicle sales lot adjacent to the existing Tamarisk trees. If these improvements or modifications are not made by September 1, 1997, this case will expire on October 10, 1997. 3. That all the provisions of the Municipal Code shall be met or adhered to during the operation of the business. 4. Any on -site construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. 5. Maintain a portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. 6. Maintain a durable sign stating "This door to remain unlocked during business CONDCUP95022-18 1 Planning Commission Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 95-022 (Extension #1) August 12, 1997 hours" shall be placed on or adjacent to the front exit doors. The sign shall be in letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. 7. Maintain traffic flow along the existing "U" shaped drive shall be restricted to one- way in a westerly direction. The applicant shall post appropriate signs, as approved by the City Engineer, at the interior and exterior ends of each access point to Highway 111. 8. The applicant acknowledges that future improvements on Highway 111 will restrict access to this development to right-in/right-out access. 9. No automotive repair or service work shall be conducted at the site. This includes oil changes, tune ups, and transmission repair. Battery charging and washing vehicles are permitted. 10. Any expansion to this nonconforming lot, land use, or structure and/or subdivision of this parcel for land sale purposes shall require conformance with the applicable district regulations and City Subdivision Ordinance. 11. If any work is necessary with the State right-of-way, the property owner/developer must obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to any work beginning. 12. Advertising on each vehicle shall be limited to the price only. The advertising shall not exceed 5-inches in height and 12-Inches in length. All other forms of advertising shall be consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance or Municipal Code (Special Advertising). 13. No loading and/or unloading or vehicles shall occur off -site (i.e., along Highway 111). CONDCUP95022-18 2 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95-044 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED -EXfSIT uA" CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-022, MR. MOE NOURKHAH OCTOBER 10, 1995 1. The development of this site shall conform with the exhibits contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 95-022, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approval of this conditional use permit shall be valid for a period of two years, expiring October 10, 1997. Two months prior to the two-year expiration period, the applicant shall make a written request to the Planning Commission to review the used car lot operation for compliance with the conditions contained herein. The Commission may approve a time extension. The review shall be conducted as a public hearing and notices will be mailed to all adjacent property owners as prescribed. The City Council shall review all actions of the Commission, as a report of action (or equivalent). 3. That all the provisions of Chapter 9.88 of the Municipal Planning and Zoning Code shall be met or adhered to during the operation of the business. A City business license shall be obtained to conduct business from the existing on -site building. 4. Any on -site construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of a Business License, all existing parking lot lights shall be removed. 6. Prior to issuance of a Business License, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval the following items: A. A total of $1,200 shall be paid in accordance with the required mitigation fees for .the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City in the amount of $600 per acre of previously graded land. Conaprvl.337 Planning Commission Resolution 95-044 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 95-022 October 10, 1995 a. Submittal of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) that shall be implemented as required by staff. All previously graded areas shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. C. Process through the appropriate legal instrument, an irrevocable offer to dedicate sufficient Highway 111 right-of-way to effect an 86-foot half width from the existing centerline of the street, for approval by the Director of Public Works. D. Revise the site as follows: 1. Specify six guest and employee parking spaces including one handicap parking space with the dimensions of 16-feet in width and 19-feet in depth. 2. Provide a parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by the Community Development and Engineering Departments. 3. Specify the location, size, color and materials of the trash enclosure. E. Revise the landscape and irrigation plans as follows: 1. Specify that plant materials, proposed within the setback along Highway 111, shall be maintained at a height not to exceed 30- inches from the ground surface, except adjacent to chain link fence. 2. Specify the addition of a minimum of four 24"-box shade trees, along Highway 111, to the proposed plant palette. 3. Specify a total• of two trees, each will be located on either side of the eight space display area on the south side of the parking lot. 4. Provide adjacent to, or on, chain link fence at front of property, plant materials which will screen said fence from view of Highway 111. Conaprvl.337 2 Planning Commission Resolution 95-044 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 95-022 October 10, 1995 F. The plant materials and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans. G. Submittal of a sign elevation drawing indicating overall letter/figure design dimensions, colors materials, and proposed copy. No alterations shall be made to the existing freestanding structure. H. Submittal of a "letter of intent" with a color board that the building shall be repainted by December 10, 1995. The color board shall specify the use of desert earth tone hues. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 8. A durable sign stating "This door to remain unlocked during business hours" shall be placed on or adjacent to the front exit doors. The sign shall be in letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. 9. 'Traffic flow along the existing "U" shaped drive shall be restricted to one-way in a westerly direction. The applicant shall post appropriate signs, as approved by the City Engineer, at the interior and exterior ends of each access point to Highway 111. 10. The applicant acknowledges that future improvements on Highway 111 will restrict access to this development to right-in/right-out access. 11. No automotive repair or service work shall be conducted at the site. This includes oil changes, tune ups, and transmission repair. Battery charging and washing vehicles are permitted. 12. Any expansion to this nonconforming lot, land use or structure and/or subdivision of this parcel for land sale purposes shall require conformance with the applicable district regulations and City Subdivision Ordinance. Conaprvl.337 3 Planning Commission Resolution 95-044 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 95-022 October 10, 1995 13. If any work is necessary with the State right-of-way, the property owner/developer must obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans prior to any work beginning. They can be reached by calling (909) 383-4536. 14. The building address numbers shall be eight inches in height and mounted so that they are visible from Highway 111 (i.e., contrasting background). A supplemental address can be posted on the chain link fence if the building letters are not visible. 15. Advertising on each vehicle shall be limited to price only. The advertising shall not exceed 5-inches in height and 12-inches in length. All other forms of advertising shall be consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance or Municipal Code (Special Advertising). 16. No loading and/or unloading of vehicles shall occur off -site (i.e., along Highway 111). Conaprvl.337 4 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. C. Conditional Use Permit 95-022; a request of Mr. Moe Nourkhah for approval of a vehicle sales lot on a portion of a 2.7 acre site on Highway 111. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked staff to clarify the entrance to the site. Staff clarified the entrances and discussion followed. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked if this application had been sent to any State agencies. Staff stated the report had been sent to Cal Trans and staff had not received any reply. 4. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt this was a safety factor due to the location and cars entering the site. Staff stated the Public Works Department had reviewed the traffic circulation pattern and had no objections. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked about the lighting for the project. Staff stated there would be night lighting and that the current lighting was illegal. Therefore, the applicant would be required to install lighting that would conform to City Code. 6. Commissioner Newkirk confirmed that the building would have to be painted. Staff stated the project was conditioned to require the building be painted. 7. Commissioner Butler asked about loading and unloading of vehicles and whether a vehicle transporter could get into the property. Staff stated that if they cannot get into the site, they would have to unload at a different location and drive the vehicles to this location. 8. Commissioner Gardner asked if this was permitted. Staff stated they were uncertain about Cal Trans requirements and this was why the project was conditioned to prohibit loadning/unloading on Highway 111. 9. Chairman Abels asked what the distance was to Dune Palms Road. Staff stated Dune Palms was 300 feet to the east. Discussion followed as to the unloading and loading of vehicles. PCIO-10 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 10. Commissioner Barrows questioned the chain link fence and the requirement for the trees and shrubbery. Staff stated the trees and shrubbery were required for aesthetics and to buffer the view of the fence. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the size of the plants as she too was concerned about the aesthetics of the fence and perhaps it could be screened additionally, yet maintain the visibility of the building. Staff stated the fence could be required to be removed and replaced with another material. 11. Commissioner Adolph asked if this fence was temporary. Staff clarified it was a nonconforming use and the fence is existing. 12. Commissioner Barrows questioned the sign submittal and whether it would be submitted to staff for approval. Staff stated that the applicant was not changing the sign structure, but only the wording on the sign, therefore, it would be submitted to staff for review and approval. 13. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the sign being installed at the top of the grade. Staff clarified that the drawings had been submitted with the application, but all the information was not complete therefore, it would be approved by staff. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern about the height of the sign on the grade. He would like to see it installed below the grade or have the height of the sign lowered. Staff informed the Commission that the applicant was allowed to keep the sign as it was, as his request was only to change the wording on the sign. 14. Chairman Abels asked for clarification of the hours of operation. Staff clarified what the applicant had submitted. 15. Commissioner Gardner questioned Condition #2, Staff clarified it was to make sure the applicant was complying with the Conditions of Approval. 16. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Suitt, owner of the property, addressed the Commission and gave a history of the site. Mr. Suitt stated he had no objection to the conditions as imposed by staff. He would like to request that rather than dedicating the 26 feet at this time, that since it was his intent to acquire the properties to the west, east, and north of this site and develop the entire project and he would like to dedicate the land at that time. 17. Commissioner Barrows asked about the chain link fence. Mr. Suitt stated it was for security purposes and he saw no other way of installing any other type of fencing. Commissioner Barrows stated she would like to see the view shed improved. Mr. Suitt stated they would see what could be done. PCIO-10 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 18. Commissioner Butler suggested that for purposes of security, the applicant consider constructing pillars with a cable stretched between them to improve the aesthetics. This would allow security and have a low profile. Mr. Suitt stated that allowing easy access would only increase the potential for problems. Discussion followed regarding problems the applicant had incurred at other locations. 19. Staff stated that they were not requiring the dedication at this time, just an irrevocable offer for the dedication. 20. Mr. Greg Shannon, spoke on behalf of the applicant and stated that the fence would be heavily planted and the business would be closed by 5:00 P.M. on Sundays. Regarding Condition #6B, dust control, the applicant is requesting that an inspection be done by the City to determine what was being asked of the applicant. In reference to the vehicle transport, the applicant does not use - the vehicle transports. This is a temporary use until development occurs. With regard tc the existing lights, he is requesting they be removed as the new ones are installed. 21. Commissioner Adolph asked if the same lights would be on when the operation was closed. Mr. Shannon stated they would be security lighting only. 22. Mr. Shannon stated the applicant would also like to see the traffic flow reversed. 23. Mr. Robert Tyler, 44-215 Valletta Drive, stated his concern about the Conditions of Approval. He felt the traffic pattern would be a safety hazard, especially across Highway 111. He felt the Commission must insist upon a right turn in and out. He was also concerned about the lights being on 24- hours a day. If the applicant agrees to using security lighting only at night, he would like to see that in writing. 24. Chairman Abels asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if the access to the site was across a double/double yellow line. Staff stated it was a double/double line and it was illegal to cross. He further informed the applicant that when the raised median was built, there would be no left turn lane and the egress/ingress would always remain a right turn in/out. PCIO-10 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 25. Commissioner Butler asked if signs could be placed in the median to notify drivers that a left turn was illegal. Staff stated this was a request they had received at the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center, but staff has determined that a sign in the median would not be beneficial as it would be difficult to see at night and would end up being run over. 26. Chairman Abels asked if the Cliffhouse entrance now allowed a left turn. Staff stated that if it was changed, it was done so by Cal Trans. Discussion followed regarding the traffic flow. Staff stated that when the School District builds their Administration Center there would be a traffic signal installed at Dune Palms Road. 27. Commissioner Adolph asked Engineering staff to review the striping on Highway 111 in front of the proposed site as he felt the left turn was allowed. Staff would review the site. Discussion followed. 28. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public hearing. 29. Commissioner Barrows stated her appreciation that the applicant's would install additional landscaping, but she would like to see additional screening requirements added to the Conditions of Approval. 30. Commissioner Adolph stated he agreed with the applicant that something is better than what is there. He was however, concerned about the traffic safety and this was not a permanent use that the City would desire, but it would help to enhance the site. 31. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 95-044 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-022, with the added condition that the fencing be landscaped (added to E.4.). Commissioner Adolph asked if the conditions should be reviewed by a law enforcement agency. Staff stated that the Sheriff's Department had reviewed the application and had no objections. 32. Commissioner Anderson asked if the 86-foot dedication was to be required. Staff stated this was an irrevocable dedication that was not required at this time, but would be when further development occurs. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Pclo-10 8 r I r-, 7, , rr" L tir, I , - ' ojr-. , - C, - :, , , , , — — I July 21. 1997 ATTACHMENT 3 Mr. Jerry Her= Community Development Director City of La Quints FAX. (760) 777-7155 4W E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs. CA qw., (760)779.1600 Dear Mr. Herman. gilded. tier this letter FIq r, iir frffms%l mquest to have our currently approved Conditional Use i ,ded. 17he subject property addyess is 79-410 Highway 111, and is the sue of apre-owned pfT, I W ui WO busess. ow, this project was developed over the last eighteen months at a considerable both time and money. Our goal his always been to cooperate With the City of 1.4 QuAlIta. as c various departments that we have worked xith, To have the business forced out of operation Would be devastating. Not only for us, but also for the families that depend on this as 'Arce of income. Thank you again for youz assistance to resolving this matter, Sincerely, 4 Clayton sp CC: Tom Suitt . . . . . . . . . 4 1 4 6 1 0 b . * 0 6 a . i BI #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: August 15, 1997 CASE NO.: Sign Application 97-387 APPLICANT: Gary Wright (Architectural Neon and Sign Co.) for The Beerhunter REQUEST: Approval to modify existing signs for sports pub and grill. LOCATION: 78-483 Highway 111 at Washington Street ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined this Sign Application is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311, Class 11 of the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. ZONING: CC - Community Commercial District BACKGROUND: SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Beerhunter Sports Pub and Grill in the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street and has been in operation since 1995. The Planning Commission approved the existing signs on the north, east, and west sides of the building in April, 1995. REQUEST The applicant wishes to modify the building mounted sign on the east side of the building, facing Washington Street and replace the building mounted sign on the north side facing Highway 111 with a freestanding monument sign (see exhibits). On the dormer of the east elevation is a 14' by 1' non -illuminated channel letter sign reading "SPORTS PUB & GRILL". The request is to replace it with an internally illuminated sign reading "BEERHUNTER SPORTS PUB & GRILL" on two lines. "Beerhunter" will be individual red plexiglass letters one foot high by 12 feet long with "sports pub & grill" a cabinet sign with rounded corners. The background will be opaque hunter green with yellow letters. The cabinet will be 10 inches high by 11'3" long. This sign will be 5" deep and will have the raceway or wiring system hidden behind the wall. The total size is 24 C:perptsa97-387 square feet, 10 square feet larger than the existing sign. The Code permits a maximum 50 square foot sign, maximum 8 feet high, mounted on the wall of the building, subject to approval. On the wall of the building facing Highway 111 is a 30" high by 4'-3' long (10.6 square feet) internally illuminated logo sign. Because of its small size and location under an eave, the request is to replace this with a 5` high by 7'-4" long (36.7 square feet) monument sign adjacent to the east side of the existing stucco screen wall in the lawn. The sign has 9" by 10" columns on each side topped with a brick cap that matches the screen wall cap. The depth of the sign is 9-10 inches. The sign face area is approximately 3'-10" high by 4'-6" long (17.2 square feet) and will contain the name and logo with a opaque brown background. The supporting structure will match the beige color of the building. Due to the existing berming, some earth will be excavated so that the columns are approximately the same height as those on the adjacent screen wall. The Code permits the same type and size sign as the east side. APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS Planned sign programs (3 signs or more) permit certain sign adjustments to the Code requirements. For the east facing sign, the maximum height of 8 feet can be modified "in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter (Signs) or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure". For the freestanding sign, its alternative location can be allowed upon the finding that it is "necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by an unfavorable orientation of the front wall to the street or parking lot or an exceptional setback". STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE: Issue 1 - Need for modified signs The applicant has requested to modify the signs on the north and east sides of his business because he believes they are inadequate. The "SPORTS PUB AND GRILL" sign on the east side does not identify the business as "The Beerhunter". The logo sign on the north side facing Highway 111 at 10.6 square feet is difficult to see. Issue 2 - Existing sign criteria The sign criteria for this center pertinent to this request is as follows: Ma*or or chain store tenants - "....it being understood and agreed that these occupants may have their usual identification signs on their buildings, as the same exist from time to time on similar buildings operated by them in California, provided however, there shall be no C:perptsa97-387 roof top signs that are flashing, moving or audible and provided said signs are architecturally compatible and have been approved by the project architect". The property manager has submitted a letter indicating that they agree to this request, subject to approval of the final plans (attachment 1). REQUIRED FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the sign on the east side of the building facing Washington Street are as follows: 1. The sign location will be above 8 feet. However, this location has been the location of previous signs and the current sign. 2. A location lower than 8 feet would place it on a narrow wall surface due to berming against the building; 3. The sign design is architecturally compatible with the building. The findings necessary to approve the new freestanding sign on Highway 111 are as follows: 1. The building is not perpendicular to the street and has limited wall space which makes it difficult to see the existing sign on the building from the east and north. 2. The screen wall to the west of the sign makes it difficult to see from the west. 3. A setback varying from 30-50 feet from the curb makes it difficult to see because of landscaping, etc. 4. The sign is architecturally compatible with the building. CONCLUSION: The findings necessary to approve this sign application can be made. The signs will provide improved identification, be architecturally compatible, and have negligible impacts on the surrounding properties. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 97-_, approving Sign Application 97-387, subject to the attached conditions. Attachment: C:perptsa97-387 Letter from M & H property Management Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner miffed by: Christine di lorio, Panning Manager C:perptsa97-387 MINUTE MOTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION 97-387 THE BEERHUNTER AUGUST 12, 1997 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Approval of this sign application shall expire and become void one year from date of approval unless it is installed, or extended pursuant to Municipal Code requirements. 2. The height of the freestanding sign columns shall match the height of the adjacent wall columns. 3. The wall shall be placed on private property ( not in Highway 111 right-of-way) 4. The background of the cabinet and freestanding signs shall be opaque. 5. Prior to sign fabrication, final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval to determine compliance with conditions. Cxonappsa97-387 ATTACHMENT 1 M ASH I'1v101TRT1' INC. June 25,1997 Mr. Gary Wright ARCHITECTURAL NEON 74990 Joni Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: THE BEER HUNTER (32-27) 78-483 HIGHWAY 111 LA QUINTA, CA Dear Gary: 44-425 Town Center Way, Suite C Palm Desert, C.:iitornia 92260 11h:(760)341-7522 Fax: (760) 341-7521 M & H Property Management will approve the addition of a sign for The Beer Hunter either as an adjunct to the existing wall or as a free standing sign. This approval is subject to Landlord review of the final specifications pertaining to the dimensions including height, width, depth, exact location and material of the sign. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, M & H PROPERTY MANAGEMENT dz��A'a� Bonnie Loza Property Manager m STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 12, 1997 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-590 - AMENDMENT #1 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SITE AND BUILDING AREA REVISIONS FOR PARCEL 3 OF TPM 28422, RELATING TO THE APPROVED SELF - STORAGE USE PROPOSED BY LAPIS ENERGY. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF DUNE PALMS ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 (47-250 DUNE PALMS ROAD) AS SHOWN ON ATTACHMENT 1 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: ARCHITECT: BACKGROUND: JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. (MS. KIM TRAVIS) LAPIS ENERGY ORGANIZATION, INC. MR. JULIAN SAUNDERS (ALLSTATE SELF -STORAGE) RON MARTIN AND ASSOCIATES (MR. RON MARTIN) SAME AS APPLICANT On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit 96-590, one of four applications filed by the applicant for the referenced site. This approval was granted based on Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1997. Approvals were also granted for a Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Parcel Map. On April 8, 1997, the Planning Commission approved minor modifications to Parcel 1 of the Site Development Permit, which contains the Lapis fueling station, convenience store and restaurant uses. Those modifications involved relocating the separate CNG pumps to the main fueling pump island, deleting the CNG canopy, and rotating the main pump island and canopy 90 degrees. An 800 square -foot equipment building was also moved to a location 10 feet away from the east property line, across from the main canopy on the west. C:\corel\perpt\lapamdt 1. wpd It was determined by the Commission that these modifications did not result in significant project changes based on the Conditions of Approval, and therefore the modifications were approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant proposes revisions to the existing approval for the self -storage warehouse parcel. These revisions are illustrated in the attached plan and elevation reductions immediately following this report; larger 1 1 " x 17" exhibits have been included in the Planning Commission packets. The following elements highlight the extent of the proposed changes: • Adding a second internal storage building of 30,900 gross square feet, increasing the overall building area for Parcel 3 from 66,810 to 92,700 square feet, • Reducing the staggered 10 foot average setback along the east property line to zero, • Minor architectural, siting and parking changes, primarily related to the on -site manager's office/quarters. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES• Issue #1 - Additional Storage Building The revised project now includes a Building C where the previous outdoor RV storage area was proposed, as shown on the overall site plan. This building addition, along with other modifications affecting the overall building area, increases the current building area by 25,900 square feet, or 39%. This exceeds the allowable floor area, as dictated by the specific plan, of 66,810 square feet. A specific plan amendment is required to allow this increase. In addition, Building C replaces "36 full-size RV spaces" as called for and approved in the Specific Plan for Lapis (SP 96-028). While these full-size spaces were shown on the approved plans as approximately 10' x 60', the largest spaces proposed are 12' x 40' (4 count), 12' x 35' (2 count) and 14' x 35' (1 count). As the RV spaces and total building area for Parcel 3 have been set forth in the approved specific plan, these two revisions cannot be approved without a specific plan amendment. Issue #2 - Layout Redesign The revised site layout for the self -storage facility proposes a zero -setback along the easterly property line. This is allowable under the approved specific plan for the overall project; the conditions of approval require that the specific plan document be revised to incorporate all provisions of SDP 96-590. The zero setback is also consistent with the original approval, which allows the east retail building on Parcel 2 to be located at the property line as well. C:\corel\perpt\lapamdt 1. wpd Another significant change in siting relates to staggering of the elevations along Dune Palms Road. While the revised elevations still incorporate the concept of varying building setbacks to relieve the effects of the linear building design, it is done to a lesser degree. Along Dune Palms Road, the current approval incorporates four separate structures and several varying building recesses, ranging from 15 to 29 feet from the ultimate Dune Palms right-of-way. The revised proposal uses three recess treatments along a single structural elevation, with the building facings varying from 20 to 31 feet from the ultimate right-of-way for Dune Palms (see Attachment 2). The revised site plan reflects a minimum of 20-foot landscaped setback for Dune Palms Road. Issue #3 - Architectural and other site changes The proposed architecture is similar to that previously approved for the entire specific plan area. The manager's office has been redesigned and reduced in total size from 3,037 to 2,300 square feet, with its overall height at 23 feet as required by Condition 83 of the site development permit approval. The architectural aspects of this building constitute the most significant changes, with elimination of some of the contemporary features, such as the glass block areas, rounded stucco columns and cornice treatments previously approved. This brings about the issue of compatibility with the overall specific plan architecture. Attachment 3 presents the current and proposed architecture for the office/manager's building, while Attachment 4 illustrates the contemporary style approved for the auto retail parcel adjacent to the north of this site. The roof and building lines are consistent, but features such as window and door treatments characterize a somewhat different appearance than that associated with the proposed manager's office architecture. The roof lines and treatment for the storage structures are similar to those previously approved, and the same colors/materials as employed for the overall project are proposed for these revisions. Concrete masonry units (split -face block) are proposed for the wainscot areas, also consistent with Condition 83. Attachment 5 illustrates the proposed and existing approved elevation along Dune Palms Road. A landscaping plan has not been submitted. Staff has directed the applicant to incorporate landscaping design with the overall plan in preparation for the entire specific plan area. This will come before the Planning Commission for approval at a later date. The applicant has slightly redesigned the parking area, resulting in one additional stall for a total of six. The applicant will have to revise his grading and drainage plans as may be required by Public Works. With the exception of adding Building C, staff does not have any concerns with the changes as proposed. They do not significantly affect the concept, intent or provisions of the originally approved project. The Planning Commission can approve these new revisions without approving Building C; the applicant will have to go CAcorel\perpt\lapamdt 1. wpd through the specific plan and site development permit amendment processes later, or amend this request and begin that process now. By approving the balance of the request, the applicant can continue to work through the building permit process during these amendment requirements. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Minute Motion 97-. approving Site Development Permit 96-590, Amendment #1, as proposed, excluding the addition of Building C. Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site plan comparison along Dune Palms Road 3. Elevation comparison of manager's office 4. Elevation approved for Parcel 2 (auto retail/service uses) 5. Elevation comparison along Dune Palms Road CAcorel\perpt\Iapamdt1.wpd a A eIL s ppap �{❑�CQ�) N{NV N H'PN�LLQ �P N thth U,th ;;0§ R& th 9 N SS8 Q is U C z O Q W .J W R O w F z_ J Q U a r z O a J W 0 a N J If W z 0 N M ti !f3 w X r 00 gillt} 1! U a . !kill �ta�eslP���areeeta Ilia ��9is:Ya�aaaR9aaaaaaa a a498 ��� icy ':► • _. - ---ate-- --- - -• G I; ° r -- O! I tL J J� • v , ----- U-1 +ar-----r.---�ar�--zr—•arm—,�ax��ar+---�—�•ar+-rtrrl-ar-•r �I lie- +-dr+—r� .. :'ar•�:r-+sir+.Yar•-+.far•��araitf-artr- it 'I I m ° � • U.J. � o I : L lz 1I �-y I O ,�LU ILL- ,/ + -a'�-4- •r+---a-+-+-ar-+ IZ LLI + ce; DI J ATTACHMENT #1 LOCATION MAP SP 96-028; CUP 96-029 SDP 96-590; EA 9 -328 TPM 28422 Hr"AY III tirrE `T 4e171 AW. LOCATION MAP ATTACHMENT 2 CURRENT APPROVAL PROPOSED LAYOUT awl ------------ ------ kcm ti TIN - - - - - - - - - - - - DUFF MID- ATTACHMENT 3 z O Q w J w .. cc O cr w z F- cn Q w 0 w a) O a O cc a. z O w J w r. } H z w v N z e w C7 O �z J � U m � LLI J CC Z N LL J 0 � h— L p oz o � Q av Qo ATTACHMENT 4 Q � C c 0 m lu 0 Z z c <I 5 Cl) -------------- -- O l,il CL Q a LT1 I pi i- F, 11 T 1r1 Olam- LLI LU 0 cr LU z C.? LLJ cc II 0 W W z w Lij 0 cc a- i 5 ATTACHMENT 5 ITEM VI I I. B. c&t, z ��IIV 5 4 c OF TNti TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 12, 1997 SUBJECT: HILLSIDE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97-057 BA KGROUND AND OVERVIEW: During the April 1, 1997, City Council meeting, concerns and questions were raised regarding development in the City's hillsides, specifically those areas zoned H-C Overlay and designated OS on the General Plan. Council concerns focused on the goals of the City regarding development in the hillsides and clarifying the definition of "toe of slope" and "alluvial fan". The question was also raised regarding opportunities for annexation in the hillsides. Council directed staff to review the existing Hillside Conservation Regulations (Section 9.140.040 of the Zoning Ordinance) and report back to the Council with recommendations at the earliest opportunity. The initial focus is on data gathering and analysis, and recommendations. The following tasks were identified by staff at the beginning of the study: 1. Obtain and review copies of other cities and counties hillside ordinances for good ideas. 2. Ask responsible agencies for their permitted uses/restrictions in H-C Overlay zoned areas/ OS designated areas. 3. Identify ownership of H-C Overlay parcels. 4. Create a map of ownership/jurisdictional responsibility of H-C Overlay/OS parcels within and adjacent to La Quinta (See large display map). 5. Identify opportunities for annexation of adjacent hillside areas. 1 The stratus of each task is as follows: Staff contacted the California League of Cities to obtain a list of cities and counties that have hillside ordinances. Approximately 50 of those agencies were contacted by fax and telephone to request copies. The majority of those contacted responded. Staff reviewed these ordinances for "good ideas" that might work in La Quinta, and comparison purposes. The vast majority of other cities use a slope averaging method, rather than the "toe of slope". Many of these cities are in areas of rolling hills that have existing development. Their hillside ordinances tend to focus on standards for permitting hillside development rather than conserving or preserving hillside or mountains environments and resources. La Quinta's H-C Regulations appear to be conservative and restrictive in comparison with these other cities. A close look at the ordinances of two Coachella Valley cities (Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage) in comparison to La Quinta's ordinance appear more restrictive. The Indian Wells ordinance is discussed below. The Rancho Mirage ordinance requires proposed hillside development to go to a vote of their residents. There are four levels of governmental jurisdiction (federal, state, county, and local) found in -the hillsides in and adjacent to the City of La Quinta. Each agency within these four levels of government has their own hillside land use management policies and planning documents. Each jurisdiction has the authority to determine the land uses within their respective boundaries. Public: land areas have been categorized by the level of conservation management programs and prescriptions associated with each area. Level One's primary management objective is species habitat protection or preservation of land in its natural state. An example of a Level One entity in the La Quinta area is the BLM- managed Wilderness Area, and the Wildlife Area under the California Department of Fish and Game jurisdiction. Level Two consists of multiple use, but some resource protection prescriptions. The BLM-managed Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area (non Wilderness), and the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy lands are locally found Level Two entities. Level Three includes multiple use lands, such as other BLM lands. Staff has contacted the following agencies that have been identified as having an ownership of or jurisdiction over various parcels within the H-C Overlay Zoning District: 2 California Fish & Game- State jurisdiction powers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service- Federal jurisdiction Bureau of Land Management- Federal ownership/jurisdiction Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy- Ownership/jurisdiction City of Indian Wells- Jurisdiction within city limits County of Riverside- Jurisdiction within county limits Information has been received from all of these agencies. Staff has reviewed this information to determine what their land use management policies are, and how each agency's policies might affect development in the H-C Overlay Zoning District. Staff is looking for consistency/inconsistency issues with each agency with the goal of ensuring that the City's regulations are consistent with these agency's regulations, whether within La Quinta or adjacent to the City limits. There are state and federal agencies with far-reaching jurisdiction. Several agencies overlap in their jurisdictions. Each agency is discussed with respect to their purpose, jurisdiction, and land use policies for the hillsides. • _ .- .u- P The purpose of the California Fish and Game Commission is to protect fish, wildlife, native plants, and their habitats for sustainable management. The Fish and Game Code stipulates the jurisdiction of the Commission to be all public or private lands in the State of California, with police powers of the State. Section 2800 of the Fish & Game Code discusses Natural Community Conservation Planning, whereby regional or areawide protection and perpetuation of natural wildlife diversity is a priority, while allowing compatible and appropriate development and growth. California Fish and Game does not have a specific land use designation map, but rather policies that extend over the entire state. Fish and Game jurisdiction is found over all of the hillsides within and adjacent to La Quinta that are not under federal ownership. -•217111 .114 • 1 Fish and Wildlife Service is a federal agency whose jurisdiction includes all federal agency or privately owned property. The FWS is primarily concerned with the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitat for the benefit of all people. Another FWS mandate is that the FWS provide comments on any public notice issued for a federal permit or license affecting the nation's waters. The FWS is also responsible for administering portions of the Endangered Species Act. In a letter to the City from FWS (Attachment 1), comments specific to the City's Hillside Conservation Regulations is the relevancy of the impending proposal to list the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep as an endangered species. Hillside development threatens the Bighorn by contributing to habitat loss and degradation, and loss of dispersal (migration) corridors. The FWS requests that the opportunity to comment on all 3 projects, including general plan amendments and zone changes proposed within La Quinta. In addition to the Bighorn sheep, development within the City has the potential to impact other listed species such as the threatened desert tortoise, Coachella Valley Fringe toed lizard, proposed endangered Coachella Valley Milk Vetch, and proposed endangered triple -ribbed milkvetch. The FWS commended the City for limiting development within bighorn sheep habitat, and recognizing the need to assess impacts to native flora, fauna, and wildlife movement corridors associated with development in the H-C district. The FWS is preparing a map of bighorn sheep habitat and has ipromised to provide a copy to the City when completed. As a general guideline, the FWS specifies all hillsides, alluvial fans, and canyon bottoms within the City as potential habitat for the bighorn sheep. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the federal agency designated by the Department of the Interior (DO1) that manages 270 million acres of public lands in the West and Alaska. Some of this land is within and adjacent to the City of La Quinta. Specific to La Quinta, the BLM manages (owns) all or portions of 8 sections of land within the City limits, and all or portions of 10 sections of land immediately adjacent to the City limits. The types of land uses permitted by the BLM consist of hiking, horseback riding, camping, mining by permit, and livestock grazing by lease or permit. The acquisition of private lands into public ownership is best exemplified by the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area (NSA) (Attachment 2), a multi -agency effort shared by the BLM, the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, the California Wildlife Conservation Board, the Agua Caliente Indian Tribe, Morongo Indian Reservation, Nature Conservancy, and the Friends of the Desert Mountains. The NSA consists of approximately 200,000 acres of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, with 91,000 acres administered by the BLM. Land Ownership primarily occurs in a checkerboard pattern, and approximately 30% of the land in the NSA is privately owned. The purpose of the NSA is to protect the area's outstanding scenic, wildlife, recreational and wilderness values. The land use policy of the BLM managed NSA is one of protection for the public good. No bicycles, hang gliders, motorized or mechanical vehicles, equipment, boats, or aircraft are allowed. Hunting, fishing, and non-comimercial trapping are allowed under state and local laws. Horses or other recreational livestock are generally allowed but may require a special permit. The NSA includes all or portions of four sections of lands within the City of La Quinta (Sections 25, 30, 29, and 5) near the southwestern city limit boundary. iml• 1 l •� l The Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy was created by the state legislature in 1991 as ,a regional public agency for the specific purpose of acquiring and holding in 0 trust open space in the mountainous lands surrounding the Coachella Valley (Attachment 3), and of providing for the public's enjoyment and use of those lands consistent with the protection of cultural, scientific, scenic, and wildlife resources. The Conservancy is directed by a 20 member Governing Board, including a representative from the City of La Quinta. The Conservancy views the privately held lands in the hillsides and mountains as important gaps in the protection of biological, scenic, cultural, and recreational resource values in the mountains. A program of land acquisition is administered by the Conservancy that is a multi -agency partnership among local, state, and federal governments, and citizens and businesses of the Coachella Valley. The Conservancy divides the Coachella Valley into seven units. The City of La Quinta and adjacent lands are found within Units C: Northern Santa Rosa Mountains Unit, and D: Southern Santa Rosa Mountains Unit. Private land holdings in the La Quinta area are a high acquisition priority. Both units include the mountainous areas in and around the City of La Quinta. There are several sections of land with "paper subdivisions" divided into lots of 20 to 40 acres in size. These lots have little likelihood of actual development ever occurring because of lack of access. Land values in 1991, for this area, were estimated to be $300 to $400 per acre. The Conservancy states that the sheer number of owners in the "paper subdivisions" argues against outright acquisition. Alternative strategies include approaching owners about making gifts of the land for tax benefits, or facilitating an exchange program whereby owners might trade their parcels for more developable land which the Conservancy might acquire on the valley floor. City if Indian Wells: The City of Indian Wells has a Hillside Management Ordinance in their Municipal Code (Chapter 22.04). It includes development policies and procedures, specifies "toe of slope" as the dividing line for development, and contains detailed design standards (architectural and landscape guidelines) (Attachment 4). Hillside Management areas in Indian Wells, adjacent to the La Quinta City limits, are found in Sections 25, 24, 35, 2, and 30. The Indian Wells General Plan contains a "Natural Preserve" land use designation. Density allowed in this designation is 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. Land with this designation is found in Sections 25 and 30, along the northwest boundary of La Quinta and Indian Wells. Development is subject to the restrictions of the Indian Wells Hillside Management Ordinance. Development on slopes 20% or greater is prohibited. All land areas with 20% or greater slopes shall not be graded in any manner except at the specific discretion of the City Council. Development and limited grading can only occur if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety, environmental, and aesthetic 5 impacts will be avoided, and that a minimum amount of development is in the spirit of and not incompatible with, the purposes and policies set for the in the Hillside Management Chapter. Another Indian Wells land use designation is the OP (Open Space) category assigned to both private and publicly owned lands that are to be maintained in a natural state. Development is prohibited in these areas. : .- Land use designations and policies for the unincorporated areas of Riverside County are found in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989), and the community and regional plans contained within it. Areas adjacent to the City of La Quinta, within County jurisdiction, are in three County planning areas: the Eastern Coachella Valley Planning Area (ECVP), the Western Coachella Valley Planning Area (WCVP), and the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan (REMAP). ECVP areas are found adjacent to the south and southeast of the City limits, and REMAP areas are found along the western and southwestern boundary of La Quinta. The only area where the WCVP is found adjacent to the City of La Quinta is in Section 11 and 14, along the west side of the City limits, south of the Indian Wells City Limit. The ECVP, WCVP, and REMAP boundaries are indicated on the large map that will be displayed during the study session. Of the two sections of land that are still within the WCVP, Section 11 is designated as "Mountainous Area", and Section 14 is designated as "Wildlife and Vegetation". Section 11 is privately owned with a developable density of 1 dwelling units per 10 acres. This land is within the State Game Refuge. Section 14 is owned by the BLM and has a density of 0 dwelling units per acre. Both sections of land are under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, and the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area. Development in this area would be difficult or prohibited. The "Mountainous" land use designation is found in the steep hillsides to the west and south of La Quinta. The exact boundaries are based on detailed topographical and hydrological data submitted by a project proponent. The development of institutions and other quasi -public facilities may be found consistent with the Mountainous designation as long as it is consistent with the Open Space policies and does not jeopardize public health, safety, and welfare. The Open Space policies state that while certain land developments may be desirable and necessary for the future of a planning area, it is equally important to plan for the quantity and quality of Open Space. The Open Space aspects of the REMAP General Plan should adhere to the principle that 3 open space land is a limited and valuable resource that must be conserved whenever possible. A strong commitment upon the part of public agencies to the policy of not extending or developing public services, facilities, utilities, and other capital improvements prematurely into Mountainous lands will accomplish much to preclude unwarranted development. Residential densities should not exceed .05 dwelling units per acre or 100 persons per square mile. In most areas the density will be significantly less. Ownership of each HC Overlay zoned/OS parcel within the City and hillside parcels adjacent to the City has been identified. This information is provided on one of the thematic layers of the large display map. A map has been prepared that identifies each HC Overlay zoned/OS parcel in the City and the Ownership of those parcels, as well as ownership of Open Space designated parcels. The map identifies agency jurisdictional boundaries, land use designations for land adjacent to the City of La Quinta, and hillside areas within the City that can be developed. Staff has concluded that there is minimal land available for development within our Hillside Conservation Overlay. Opportunities for annexation of adjacent hillside areas are possible. Local cities have successfully annexed public -owned land into their city limits with the purpose of preservation of hillsides and conservation of the natural habitat and resources. The land use goals of the cities were compatible with those of the public agencies that owned the land, and those agencies that had jurisdictional mandates over the property. These annexations involved lengthy periods of time to process and some were not successful in the first attempts. A case in point is the annexation, approximately 10 years ago, by the City of Rancho Mirage of land owned by the BLM that is part of the Bighorn Sheep Reserve. Annexation was approved because the conservation goals of the City were compatible with those of the Reserve. Some cities annex public owned lands for the perceived benefit of the public relations of having a featured nature preserve within their boundaries. Annexation of privately owned lands that have state and/or federal jurisdictions over them would require that these state and/or federal agencies support the annexation if their land use policies were compatible with those of the city's, all the while 7 recognizing the land owner's property rights. In some cases, the existing property rights prior to inclusion in a state or federal land management plan area, continue to exist and take priority. However, federal law typically supercedes state law, which supercedes local haw. There are no hillside areas within La Quinta's existing Sphere of Influence. To expand the City's Sphere of Influence into hillside or mountainous areas with the intent to annex would require the cooperation of state and federal agencies as the property owners and approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Thus, the opportunities for the City of La Quinta to annex land adjacent to the western city limits is possible providing that the City's planned land use is compatible with those of the land owner and responsible agencies having jurisdiction over the land. Staff discussion with LAFCO staff regarding this issue includes the caution that if the City were to annex land under public ownership, the City might be required to share in the liabilities of said land. [0 1. Merge this information into the General Plan Update studies as it needs to be considered in the general plan environmental documentation and land use planning. If an Environmental Assessment for proposed amendments to the Hillside Conservation Ordinance were prepared, it would likely identify several gaps in information that will require an EIR and special studies to answer. Merging hillside issues into the City-wide general plan effort should answer these environmental questions. 2. It would be beneficial to identify the potential areas of hillside development by hiring a qualified geologist to do a toe of slope delineation map, unless the City chooses to go with an slope averaging method. From this effort a definition can be developed for the development -related "toe of slope" and "alluvial fan", and added to Section 9.280- Definitions, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. Ensure that the City's H-C Ordinance is compatible with adjacent and overlapping agencies land use policies, as much as possible, to be a "good neighbor" policy, and comply with state and federal policies on hillside conservation. E:3 Attachments: 1. FWS letter 2. National Scenic Area map 3. Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy map 4 Indian Wells Hillside Management Ordinance Prepared by: LESLIE MOURIQUAND Associate Planner 9 Sub fitted by:140010" / A/, t CH ISTINE DI IORIO Planning Manager JUL-22-97 TUE: 8:05 FISH AND WILDLIFE FAX NO, 760431590/ ?,02 ATTACHMENT 1 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Field Office _ 2730 Loker Avenue west Carlsbad, California 92,M8 JLJ u�y,, 2.,:kC�t997 Leslie Mouriquand City of La Quinta Development Services P.O. BOY. 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Re: City of La Quinta Hillside Conservation Regulations Dear Ms. .4curi quand: This letter is in response to your request for comments frcm the Ti. S. Fish and wild+ifa service (Service) to assist in the City of La Quintals (City) evaluation of its present Hillside Conservation Regulations. Currently, no revisicrs to the Hillside Conservation Regulations are proposed. As understood by the Service, the City is reviewing its existing regulations to determine consistency with neighboring jurisdiction'a hillside ordinances, and to measure the success of the regulations at regulating hillside development. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of Public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for the benefit of people. Our mandates further require that we provide comments on any public notice issued for a Federal permit or license affecting the naticn's waters (e.g. Clean water Act). The Service is also responsible for administering significant portions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to consult with the service should it be determined that their discretionary acts may affect a listed threatened or endangered species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (e.g harm, harassment, pursuit, injury, kill) of federally listed wildlife sl;ecies. "Harm" (i.e., "take") is further defined to include habitat mCdification or degradation where it kills or injures wildlife by impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding or sheltering. "Take" can only be permitted pursuant to the pertinent language and provisions in Section 7 (federal consultations) and Section 10 (a) of the Act. Of' relevance to the City's review of its Hillside Conservation. Retgulaticns is the proposal to list the Peninsular Ranges population Of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sop. crerrnobates) as an _ _.. v _ r i an HINU W l LVL 1 h L FAX N0, 7604315901 P,3 0„ Ms . Leslie Mouricquand 2 endangered species. The Peninsular Ranges desert slopes of the Peninsular Rangesfxomopulathe io noccursPalm along Springs, California, into northern Baja California, Mexico, Hillside development threatens the Peninsular bi to habitat loss and degradation, and loss of�dispersal rn by tcorridors, On May 9, :992, the Service published a rule status for the Peninsular Ranges 8r°posing endangered dei sheep (hereafter referred to as bighorntsheep).thFinaSert actioghonnthe listing proposal has been upheld until the limited budget, other endangered species assignmentsdrivenb lety a orders, higher listing priorities, and a 199y budgetary moratorium listing actions. on withHOWQaver, now that funding has been restored, with a final determination the Service is proceeding ent for the bighorn sheep. A second public period, opened due to the length of time that elapsed since publication of the listing proposal, recently closed The Service expects to make a final determination regardingythe 1997. bighorn sheep in the near future. Thus, the Service would like to emphasize and remind the City of the need to provide the Service an Opportunity includIng general plan amendmentsandzoning co to comment de on all projects, within the City's 'Jurisdiction, If the bighorn sheep is listedoasd endangered, the publishing of the final rule designating official listing could occur during the course of review of the Hillside Conservation Regulations, or the �1 p:roje!cts proposed within the CityP arming or implementation of the City has the • Potential Additionally, development within al to impact other listed species such as the threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus a ass,izii Coache1 a valley friroge toed lizard g ) and threatened senaitive species currently `tea Ilornata), and other the proposed endangered a under consideration for listing, such as lErnti g ed Coachel?a valley milk vetch (Astragalus ginosus var. coachellae) and proposed endangered triple -ribbed milkvetch (Aatrag'alue ericar�natus}, With respect to the specific provisions of the Hillside Conservation Regulations, the Service commends the City for limiting developmert within bighorn sheep habitat:, and recognizing the need to assess impacts to native flora, fauna, and wildlife movement corridors associated with any development within the Hillside Conservation district, Provisions for the transfer of development rights also demonstrate the foresight of the City in providing for hillside cortservation, while allowing individuals to benefit from private property ownership, The Service encourages the city to maintain the sta.ndaxds established by the Hillside Conservation Regulations to VU riZ)n HNO WILDLIFE FAX NO. 7604315901 Ms. Leslie Mouriquand 3 assist in the conservation of the bighorn sheep. However, foride the Hillside Conservation Regulations alone may the protection of bighorn sheep habitat within ythetcip'ty, Alluvial fans with less than 20 percent slope, and alluvial fans which may exceed 20 percent slope but are otherwise protected by a flood control structure, are developable under the Hillside Conservation Regulations. Projects on alluvial fans and in canyon bottoms have potential to impact bighorn sheep by removing dispersal corridors, the watering areas, and feeding areas used during the breeding season. .Alluvial fans, in particular, are used by ewes during the breeding :season for browse. These areas provide a uni species that are unavailable to 4ue coRplement of plant e sheep are not corstraired to areas of greatersthan 20 pe areas used by and/or areas above flood control structures. Percent elope The ,Service is currently in the process of preparing maps which delineate bighorn sheep habitat. when these -naps are completed, they Will be available as a reference for the City to utilize. As a general guideline, all hillsides, alluvial fans and canyon bottoms within the City are potential habitat for bighorn sheep. The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City,s review of its Hillside Conservation Regulations. Should the City theRrOService Ose any revisions to these regulations as a result of its review, the Sis wiling to provide further comments at that time. Please contact Ken Corey or Will Miller at 760/431-9440 should ycu have any questions, Sincerely, Gail C. K betich ield Office Supervisor 1-6-97-xc-249 CC: :Patty wolf, CDFG Kevin Bre:uzan, CDFG ATTACHMENT 3 San Bernardino National Forest San Berta tC17n0 ^;= il{vcf91* oury '.y Dewt Not s rm Joshua Yret National Monument Mt Cakuf A Thermd Sea _ . �v!„de Cuumy San Qitge County .. .. .. �� • . N 0 2 4 w 6 MILES s Ansa•Borrego Desert State Park Mecca Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy !=ti,'J 0696 94.L 09L ]We%o WH Zb: 60 3111 L6-6Z—ini' .0 ATTACHMENT 4 INDIAN WELLS (MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 22 RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Chapters: 22.04 Hillside Management 22.12 Lighting Standards CHAPTER 22.04 HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT Sections: 22.04.000 General. 22.04.005 Purpose. 22.04.010 Intent. 22.04.020 Policies. 22.04.030 Applicability. 22.04.035 Pre -Existing Approvals 22.04.040 Permitted Uses. 22.04.041 Development Entitlement. 22.04.050 Initiating a Project. 22.04.060 Filing Requirements. 22.04.065 Required Findings. 22.04.070 Design Review. 22.04.075 Submission Requirements. 22.04.080 Subdivision of Hillside Areas. 22.04.085 Definitions. 22.04.090 Development Guidelines. 22.04.092 Design Standards. 22.04.095 Interpretation of Standards. 22.04.100 Element Conflict. 22.04.110 Waivers. 22.04.120 Violations. 22.04.125 Penalties. 22.04.130 Transfer of Development Rights. 22.04.000 General. Because of the unique and peculiar problems inherent in the development of hillside areas, special standards and conditions for hillside development must be considered. The regulations, development standards, and design guidelines set forth in this Chapter are intended to satisfy those needs. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994) March, 1995 TITLE 22-1 l INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.005 Purpose. It is the purpose of this Chapter to define those mountain and foothill areas as follows: 22.04.005(a) Undevelopable Areas. For those areas which are not developable, from either a public safety or engineering perspective, and to prevent inappropriate development on them; and, 22.04.005(b) Developable Areas. For those areas which are developable, ensure that development enhances rather than detracts from or ignores the natural topography, resources, or amenities of the hillsides. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.010 Intent. The regulations, development guidelines, and design standards set forth in this Chapter are not meant to slow or stop development but are intended to: 22.04.010(a) Balance public and private interests while preserving the mountains and {foothills as a resource; 22.04.010(b) Allow for the reasonable development of hillside lands where appropriate; 22.04.010(c) Ensure that such development is sensitive to the fragile hillside environment; 22.04.010(d) Assure that any permitted development will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of design or location; and 22.04.010(e) Protect the public from hazards associated with hillside development. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.020 Policies. The regulations, development standards, and design guidelines set forth in this Chapter are based on the following policies: 22.04.020(a) To minimize the adverse impacts of grading, 22.04.020(b) To encourage the maximum retention of hillside natural vegetation, and hydrology; 22.04.020(c) To preserve and maintain existing wildlife through the retention of natural habitats, and the migratory routes of animals; 22.04.020(d) To take into account hazards associated with hillside development, in order to protect lives and property; 22.04.020(e) To discourage mass grading of large pads and excessive terracing; March, 1995 TITLE 22-2 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.020(f) To encourage innovative architectural, landscaping, circulation, and site design; 22.04.020(g) To encourage the maximum retention of natural topographic features such as, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines, hill- tops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, natural plant formations, ravines, canyons, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas; 22.04.020(h) To promote development that will relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of the design or location; 22.04.020(i) To provide for safe circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and within hillside area, and to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles necessary to serve hillside areas; 22.04.0200) To encourage in hillside areas an alternative approach to conventional flatland practices of development; and 22.04.020(k) To balance public and private interests while preserving the hillsides. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.030 Applicability. The regulations, development guidelines, and design standards contained in this Chapter apply to each and every parcel of land within the City meeting the definitions of "hillside" area as defined in Section 22.04.085(w), and are in addition to any of those existing regulations set up by a parcel's particular zoning district [land use category]. 22.04.030(a) "The Toe of Slope" Designated as Dividing Line. In general, the dividing line between a designated "hillside" area and other land uses is meant to follow and be bounded by "the toe -of -slope". The area above "the toe -of -slope" includes not only hillsides, but also alluvial fans which are not protected by flood control structures, and drainage ways and stream courses which have some potential for flooding. 22.04.030(b) Mandatory Regulations for Hillside Areas. Except as specifically provided elsewhere in this Chapter, the regulations, guidelines, and standards expressed within this Chapter, shall apply to any and all disturbance of natural terrain, grubbing, ,grading, or new use. In addition, every new building and premises or land in a designated "hillside" area shall be used for or occupied only in accordance with this Chapter. 22.04.030(b)(1) The regulations, within this Chapter shall apply to all new buildings and structures, or parts of. Unless specifically exempted, every building and structure shall be erected, constructed, established, altered, enlarged, maintained, moved into or within a "hillside" area only in accordance with accordance with regulations set forth in this Chapter. (Ord. 356 § 1, 1995; Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). March, 1995 TITLE 22-3 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.035 Pre -Existing Approvals. Not withstanding any other provisions in this Chapter, any pre-existing project, or permit approved prior to the adoption of this Chapter, shall be exempt from the requirements of this Chapter. _22.04.035(a) Revocation. In the event of a expansion or revision to any pre-existing project or approval, the exempt status of that project or approval shall be considered revoked. Upon revocation, any alterations, additions, enlargements, or new building and premises, or land shall be in compliance with those provisions established within this Chapter. _22.04.035(b) Minor Modifications. Unless specifically noted elsewhere in this Chapter, minor modifications shall not be considered sufficient grounds to revoke the exempt status of a pre-existing project, approval, or permit. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.040 Permitted Uses. For any parcel of land within a "hillside" area, the permitted uses shall be determined by a parcels particular zoning district [land use category]. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.041 Permitted Development. Within a "hillside" area, the type and amount of development allowed on a lot or parcel of land, shall be determined by a parcels particular zoning district [land use category]. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.050 Initiating a Project. 22.04.050(a) Conditional Use Permit Application. Prior to initiating any "project" on any parcel within a "hillside" area, the property owner(s) or assignee(s) shall submit a Conditional Use Permit Application in accordance with the provisions of Section :21.100.040 of the Municipal Code plus any additional requirements as specified by this Chapter and obtain a Conditional Use Permit. 22.04.050(b) Definition of "Project". For the purposes of this Chapter a "project" :shall include any work that results in any alteration of the hillside area, all permanent or temporary applicable uses, structures, or development, along with every tentative subdivision map, parcel map, reversions to acreage, or lot merger application filed for approval within a designated "hillside" area. As used in this subsection the phrase °alteration of the hillside area" includes any activity that scars, scrapes, destabilizes, rearranges material, alters the color, or removes any material from the hillside area. (Ord. 356 §2, 1995; Ord. 335 §1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.060 5!!Rg Requirements. In addition to those fees, plans, maps, or other information required by a Conditional Use Permit Application, an applicant shall be responsible for any additional materials required by this Chapter. 'To initiate a "project" on any lot or parcel within a "hillside" area the property owner(s) or assignee(s) shall be required to submit the following information in the number and at the scale specified by the Community Development Director: March, 1995 TITLE 22-4 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.060(a) Required Reports. The following reports shall be prepared by a California licensed Engineer (licensed in the appropriate discipline), unless specifically waived by the Community Development Director and City Engineer based on a site visit to the proposed site: 22.04.060(a)(1) Hydrology. Hydrology, drainage, and flooding report for all sites; 22.04.060(a)(2) Conceptual Drainage Plan. A conceptual drainage and flood control plan describing planned drainage improvements. 22.04.060(a)(3) Soil Survey. Soil survey of the sites proposed attesting to stability of all sites, and the appropriateness of the construction method proposed; 22.04.060(a)(4) Underlying Geology/Engineering Report. Underlying geology/ engineering report, attesting to stability of all sites; 22.04.060(a)(6) Seismic Analysis. Seismic analysis attesting to the stability of the site(s) and addressing the potential of material above the site(s) impacting the site(s); 22.04.060(a)(6) Access Plan. Access plan demonstrating the feasibility of providing access routes to the proposed site(s), in addition to the scarring effects of the grading necessary to install such roads; 22.04.060(a)(7) Utility Plan. A utility plan demonstrating the feasibility of providing water for domestic and fire suppression purposes, sewer, power, and other utilities, especially with regard to the scarring effects of the grading necessary to install such utilities; 22.04.060(a)(8) Conceptual Grading Plan. A conceptual grading plan for the construction site(s) and access routes with sufficient information demonstrating the feasibility of such grading in addition to the scarring effects of undertaking such grading activities. The conceptual grading plan should include the following items: 22.04.060(a►(8)(1) Area boundaries; 22.04.060(a)(8)(ii) Areas to be left undisturbed (not graded); a2.04.060(a)(8)(iii) Areas which will not be developed; 22.04.060(a)(8)(W) Areas of proposed cut and fill (in contrasting colors) clearly showing where cut and fill exceed depths established in the hillside development guidelines. Additionally, the areas of cut and fill, calculated as a percentage of the total site area, shall be included on the plan; 22.04.060(a)(8)(v) Contour shall be shown for existing and natural land conditions and proposed work. Existing contours shall be depicted with a dashed line with every fifth contour darker, and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line according to the following schedule: March, 1995 TITLE 22-5 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE Slope: 2% or less to 19.9% Maximum Interval Feet: 2 Slope: 20% or greater Maximum Interval Feet: 5 22.04.060(a)(9) Slope Analysis Map. A slope analysis map for the purpose of determining the amount and location of land as it exists in its natural state falling into each slope category as specified below. For the slope map, the applicant shall use a base topographical map of the subject site, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than one inch (1 ") to one - hundred feet (100') and a contour interval of not more than two feet (2') provided that the contour interval may be five feet (5') when the slope is more than twenty feet (20'). This base topographical map shall include all adjoining properties within one -hundred and twenty feet 0 20') of the site boundaries. Delineate slope bands in the range of 0 up to fiive percent (5%), five up to ten percent (5 - 10%), ten up to fifteen percent (10 - 15%), fifteen up to twenty percent (15 - 20%), twenty up to twenty-five percent (20 - 25 %), twenty-five up to thirty (25 - 30%) percent, and thirty percent (30%) or greater. Also included shall be a tabulation of the land area in each slope category specified in acres. The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each slope category should be sufficiently described and presented so that a review can be readily made. 22.04.060(a)(10) Sly Profiles. Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles to clearly illustrate the extent of the proposed grading. A minimum of three (3) slope profiles shall be included with the slope analysis. The slope profiles shall: 22.04.060(a)(10)(1) Be drawn at the same scale and indexed or keyed to the slope analysis map, grading plan and project site map; 22.04.060(a)(1000 Show existing and proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures. Proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures shall be drawn with a solid, heavy line. Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a thin or dashed line; 22.04.060(a)(10)(iii) The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project site boundary to clearly show impact on adjoining properties within one -hundred and fifty feet (150') of the site boundary; _22.04.060(a1(10)(iv) The profiles shall be drawn along those locations of the project site where: IA) the greatest alteration of existing topography is proposed; (B) the most intense or bulky development is proposed; (C) the site is most visible from surrounding land uses; and, ID) at all site boundaries illustrating maximum and minimum conditions. 22.04.060(b) Required Studies. As part of the application process the following studies shall be filed with the Director of Community Development: (March, 1995 TITLE 22-6 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.060(b)(1) Natural Features Map. A natural features map identifying all slope banks, ridgelines, natural drainage courses, rock outcroppings, existing vegetation and other natural features determined to be worthy of consideration for preservation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing geologic hazards. Each feature depicted shall be noted for its visual (V) significance, environmental function (E) or both. 22.04.060(b)(2) Review, !!y B1R!R ist. All development shall be subject to a review by a qualified biologist, who shall address the following: (i) natural vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the project; (ii) wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g., for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species; (ill) plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within designated hillside areas. _22.04.060(b)(3) Review �y Archaeologist. All development shall be subject to a review by a qualified archaeologist, who shall address the following: (I) a through examination of the site for archaeological remains; (H) a plan for the salvage of any significant findings; (III) a review of the site for any significant historic or cultural resources. 22.04.0601b►(4) Preservation Plan. A plan for the preservation of all areas slopes to remain in natural state including the designation of all water courses both natural and man- made, with plans for the preservation and/or reintroduction of drought tolerant plants. 22.04.060(b)(5) Conceptual Landscape Plan. A conceptual landscape plan which addresses entryway treatments, streetscapes and other overall landscape elements. 22.04.060(b)(6) Other Analytic and Illustrative Techniques. To aid in the analysis of the proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions or both the following items shall be required: (i) a topographic model; ()i) a line of sight or view analysis; (III) photographic renderings; (iv) or any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a project. 22.04.060(c) Additional Required Items. As part of the application process the following items shall be filed with the Director of Community Development: 22.04.060(c)(1) Statement of Conditions for Ultimate Ownership and Maintenance. A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including street, structures, and open spaces; 22.04.060(c)(2) Topographic Map of Possible Future Design. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e. custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan which shows possible future house plotting, lot grading, and driveway design for each parcel proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale as the conceptual grading plan; March, 1995 TITLE 22-7 a INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.0601c)(3) Illustrative Building Elevations. When unit development is proposed, Illustrative building elevations, that show all sides of the proposed structure(s) and which accurately depict the building envelope for each lot, shall be provided. 22.04.065 Required Findings. In addition to those findings required for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in Section 21.100.040(d) or for a Specific Plan in Section 21.100.030(d), prior to recommending approval or approving the proposed development, the Planning Commission and City Council shall find that: 22.04.065(a)The proposed development concepts and plans are compatible with the natural topography of the site; 22.04.0651b) That the proposed development will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural habitat; and, 22.04.0651c) That the proposed development conforms with the spirit and intent of the Development Guidelines and Design Standards as set forth within this Chapter. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.070 Design Review. In addition to those submittal requirements required in Chapter 21.60, Architecture and Landscape Review, an accurate architectural rendering and/or scale model showing just how the completed structure (house, accessory structures, roads, etc.) and lot will appear after all construction is completed, including landscaping shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Architecture and Landscape Committee (ALC). (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.075 Additional Submission Requirements. In addition to those submittal requirements required in Chapter 21.60, Architecture and Landscape Review, an accurate architectural rendering and/or scale model showing just how the completed structure (house, accessory structures, roads, etc.) and lot will appear after all construction is completed, including landscaping shall be submitted for review and approval by the City's Architecture and Landscape Committee (ALC). (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.080 Subdivision of Hillside Areas. 22.04.080(a) Preliminary Grading Plan Required. In order to assure compliance with the provisions of the Hillside Management Program, a preliminary grading plan shall be submitted, along with every tentative subdivision map and parcel map filed for approval with the City. This preliminary grading plan will be required to show at least one practical, usable, and accessible building site which can be developed, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, for each proposed lot or parcel. Unless otherwise excluded, this submittal requirement shall apply to every property within or partially within a designated "hillside" area. 22.04.0801b1 "Donor Parcel" Excepted. The requirements of this section shall not apply to those individual parcels of a subdivision map or parcel map designated a "donor March, 1995 TITLE 22-8 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE parcel" as per Section 22.04.130, Transfer of Development Rights. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.085 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter certain terms and words are defined as follows: 22.04.085(a) Balance. The cutting and filling of a site which does not require the export or import of earth material. 22.04.085(b) Borrow. Earth material acquired from an off -site location for the use in grading on a site. 22.04.085(c) Building Pad. A specific location on a site designed to accommodate construction of a residence or other building. 22.04.085(d) Compaction. Reforming and consolidation of fill to provide structural strength. 22.04.085(e) Contour or Contour Line. A line drawn on a plan which connects all points of equal elevation. 22.04.085(f) Contour Grading. A grading concept designed to result in earth forms which resemble natural terrain characteristics. Horizontal and vertical curve variations are often used for slope banks. Contour grading does not necessarily minimize the amount of cut and fill occurring. 22.04.085(g) Cut. The mechanical removal of earth material. 22.04.085(h) Cut and Fill. The excavating of earth material in one place and depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place. 22.04.0850) Daylight Line. The line between finished grade and natural terrain drawn by connecting the points where proposed contours meet existing contours. 22.04.085(j) Development. Any activity which results in an alteration of either land or vegetation. 22.04.0851k) Development Right or Credit. A potential entitlement created by a land use designation and by adoption of a land use [zoning] category, applying to a parcel of land, to construct one dwelling unit per a given number of square feet or per a given number of acres, which can only be exercised when the development right or credit has been transferred pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, from a sending parcel to a receiving parcel, and all other requirements of law are fulfilled. 22.04.08591► Drainage. A general term applied to the removal of surface or subsurface water from a given area either by gravity or by pumping; commonly applied to surface water. March, 1995 TITLE 22-9 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.085(m) De -vegetation. A re -vegetation process, this process generally consists of a site analysis, species count, evaluation, and after construction a replanting phase. This process involves evaluation of the project site to determine which plants best represent the habitat; the distribution of the typical plant grouping; and the determination of which plants should be replaced by reseeding and which plants will be dug out, boxed or canned, and replaced after construction. 22.04.085(n) Excavation. Any act by which soil or rock is cut into, dug quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, or relocated. 22.04.0851o) Effective Bulk. The effective visual bulk of a structure when seen from a distance or from above or below. 22.04.085(p) Elevation. Height or distance above sea level. 22.04.085(q) Erosion. The process by which the soil and rock components of the earth's crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces such as wind, water, ice, and gravity. 22.04.085(r) Export. Excess earth material that is removed from a grading project and deposited off -site. 22.04.085(s) Fill. A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. 22.04.085(t) Finish Grade. The final elevation of the ground surface after development, which is in conformance with the approved plan. 22.04.0851u) Fractions of Development Rights or Credits. Development rights or credits may be transferred as a fraction carried to the second decimal place, rounded up or down to the second place following the rule of the third decimal being 0-4, round down; 5- 9 round up to the next digit in the second decimal place. When applied to the receiving parcel, the number of credits (carried to the second decimal place) will be spread across the acreage of the receiving parcel and will be translated into an increment of additional development entitlement carried to two decimal places per acre. 22.04.085(v) Grading. To bring an existing surface to a designed form by excavating, filling, or smoothing operations; the process of rearranging the existing topography. 22.04.085(w) Hillside Designation. For the purposes of this Chapter "hillside" area shall be construed to mean: (1) all of that area within the City boundary lines designated as a "hillside" area as illustrated in the General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element; (2) all of that area above the "toe -of -slope" as defined in Section 22.04.085(zz). It shall be the prerogative of the City Council to designate other areas as "hillside" area, based upon the natural topography of the area, supplemented by contours shown on plans, as submitted in conjunction with an appropriate development permit or other application or tentative tract map. (March, 1995 TITLE 22-10 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.085(x) Impervious Covera e. Area on a lot covered by materials that will not allow incident rainfall to pass into the native soil and ground water system. 22.04.085(y) Knoll. A small round hill or mound. 22.04.085(z) Land Disturbance. Any activity involving the clearing, grading transporting, filling, and any other activity which causes land to be exported to the danger of erosion. 22.04.085(aa) Mass Grading. The movement of large quantities of earth over large areas. Disruption of the majority of the on -site surface terrain is common and often results in a successive pad/terrace configuration. Modification or elimination of natural land forms may result. 22.04.0851bb) Minimal Grading. A grading concept designed to minimize excavation and filling. Allows the movement of earth for projects such as individual building foundations, driveways, local roads, and utility excavation. The concept is associated with roads; conforming closely to natural contours and with structures being built on natural terrain. 22.04.085(cc) Natural Drainage. Channels formed by the existing surface topography of the earth prior to changes made by unnatural causes. 22.04.085(dd) Natural Slope. A slope which is not man-made. A natural slope may retain natural vegetation during adjacent grading operations, or it may be partially or completely removed and replanted. 2,2.04.085(ee) Pad. A level area created by grading to accommodate development. 22.04.085(ff) Percent Slime. The relationship of a slope's vertical to horizontal height with the horizontal specified as 100 (e.g. 30%). 22.04.085(gg) Prominent Ridge. A ridge or hill location which is visible from a major, primary, or secondary arterial, collector street, or Highway 111, which forms part of the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land at least three -hundred feet (300') horizontally behind it, or is so designated by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission based upon a review of the site. 22.04.085(hh) Receiving Parcel. A parcel to which potential entitlement for residential development is transferred up to the limits pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter, and exists in addition to any potential entitlement created by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Indian Wells and land use category which applies to the parcel. 22.04.0850() Retention Facility. A facility which provides for storage of storm water runofff and controlled release of this runoff during and after a flood or storm. March, 1995 TITLE 22-11 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 221.04.08519) Re -vegetation. A landscape technique, the primary purpose of which is to replace original plants to an area that has been disturbed. Re -vegetation can be accomplished by reseeding with seed collected from plants of the same species or purchased from a native seed company, cuttings taken original or same species plants or from a process called devegetation. 22.04.085(kk) Ridge. A long, narrow, conspicuous elevation of land. 22.04.08501► Ridgeline. The line and adjacent slopes comprising the top of a hill topography. 22.04.085(mm) Scar. A visible cut in a hillside or ridge with a slope greater than 1- 1,12:1 in which all topsoil has been removed and vegetation will be unable to establish itself after is significant period of time (5 years). 22.04.085(nn) Sediment Basin. A barrier or dam built at suitable location to retain rock, sand, silt, or other materials. 22.04.085(oo) Sending Parcel. A parcel, from which all potential entitlements for residential development are transferred (by means of sale, or transfer to another parcel) and thereby extinguished. 22.04.085(pp) Site. Any plot, parcel, or parcels of land. 22.04.085(gq) Slope. An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of the vertical distance (rise), or change in elevation, to the horizontal distance (run). The percent of any given slope is determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by 100. 22.04.085(rr) Slope Height. The actual true vertical height difference from the toe of a slope to its top (not along the slope's face). 22.04.085(ss) Slope, Man -Made. A manufactured slope consisting wholly or partially of either cut or filled material. 22.04.085(tt) Slope Ratio. The relationship of a slope's horizontal length to vertical height, with the height specified as 1 (e.g. 2:1 or 3/4:1). 22.04.085(uu) Slope Transition. The area where a slope bank meets the natural terrain or a level graded area either vertically or horizontally. 22.04.085(vv) Stabilization. Remedial grading done to assure safety of cut or fill slopes (e.g. buttresses). 22.04.085(ww) Structure. Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the March, 1995 TITLE 22-12 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE ground, including but not limited to tennis courts, fences, walls, swimming pools, sheds, and buildings. 22.04.0851xx► Storm Water Runoff. Water that results from precipitation which is not absorbed by the soil or plant material. 22.04.085(yy) Swale. A topographic depression designed usually to direct and carry runoff. 22.04.085(zz) Toe of Slope. The toe -of -slope may be located using the following criteria (more than one criterion may apply): the dividing line between steeper rock formations and more gently sloping alluvium, i.e. where there is a noticeable break in the angle of slope from .steep to shallow; or, where the angle of natural slope exceeds ten percent (10%); or, the point where water -borne alluvial material begins to collect to a depth of one foot or more. 22.04.085(aaa) Topography. A general term to include characteristics of the ground surface such as plains, hills, mountains; degree of relief, steepness of slope, and other physiographic features. 22.04.085(bbb) Valley. The continuous bottom of a hilly topography. 22.04.085(ccc) Vegetation. All plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses, and grasses. (Ord. 356 § 1, 1995; Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.090 Development Guidelines. The following Hillside Development Guidelines are intended to promote the appropriate development of hillside areas. These guidelines are not intended to be a set of rigid objectives. Nor, are they meant to prescribe a particular method or design in a hillside area. Their purpose is to make explicit key design concepts and establish a overall design framework. And, to provide direction to encourage development which is sensitive to the unique topographic features and characteristics common to hillside properties. 22.04.090(a) Site Design. 22.04.090(a)(1) Location of Development. Development within hillside areas should be located in a manner that will: 22.04.090(a)(1)(1) Preserve significant topographic features of a hillside area in essentially their natural state; 22.04.090(a)(1)(ii) Minimize the disruption of existing plant and animal life; 22.04.090(a)(1)(iii) Minimize the scarring effects of grading for roads, building pads, or taut and fill slopes; March, 1995 TITLE 22-1 3 0 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.090(a)(1)(iv) Provide a safe means of entrance and exit for vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and within hillside areas; 22.04.090(a)(1)(v) Orient development to the site so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum; 22.04.090(a)(1)(vi) Preserve views of significant visual features as seen from both within and outside of a hillside development; 22.04.090(a)(1)(vii) Preserve any significant public vista or view, particularly those seen from public places and rights -of -way in the valley below; 22.04.090(a)(1)(viii) Preserve the natural hillside hydrology; and 22.04.090(a)(1)(ix) Maximize the conservation and preservation of native plant materials and areas of historic significance. 22.04.0901a1(2) Location of Dwelling Units and Structures. Dwelling units and structures should be located in a manner that, will: 22.04.090(a)(2)(i) Limit the extent of grading alterations; 22.04.090(a)(2)(ii) Retain outward views from each unit; 22.04.090(a)(2)(iii) Retain natural skyline profiles; 2.2.04.090(a)(2)(iv) Retain the natural silhouette of the hillside; 22.04.0901a1(2)(v) Complement one another and the natural landscape; 2,2.04.0901a1(2)(vi) Relate to the surrounding topography and not be conspicuous or obtrusive; and 22.04.090(a)(2)(vii) Incorporate innovative building techniques and other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces and protect natural hillside features. 22.04.090(b) Driveways and Parking. Private driveways and parking areas should be designed and located in a manner that will: 22.04.090(b)(1) Minimize unnecessary grading, paving, or site disturbance; and 22.04.090(b)(2) Result in better building sites and lesser amounts of land coverage. 22.04.090(c) Public/Private Roads. Where road construction is permitted in hillside areas, roads should be located in a manner that will: March, 1995 TITLE 22-14 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE _22.04.090(c)(1) Minimize the amount of site disruption caused by roadways and the associated grading required for their construction; 22.04.0901c)(2) Preserve the physical and visual character of a hillside; and 22.04.0901c1(3) Conform to the natural land form. 22.04.090(d) Architecture. The form, mass, and profile of the individual buildings and architectural features should be designed to: 22.04.090(d)(1) Blend with the natural terrain; 22.04.090(d)(2) Preserve the character and profile of the natural slope; _22.04.090(d)(3) Take into account the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of over -building or crowding; and 22.04.090(d)(4) Minimize the blocking of views. 22.04.090(e) Lighting. In hillside areas; all exterior lighting should be designed and oriented to: 22.04.0901e)(1) Preserve the character of the hillside environment; and 22.04.090(e)(2) Minimize the visual impact of such lighting. 22.04.090(f) Walls and Fences. Walls, garden walls, screen wall or fences or similar such structures should be compatible with the surrounding topography and not be conspicuous or obtrusive. 22.04.090(g) Retaining Walls. Vertical retaining walls and other support structures should be kept as low as possible and blend with the surrounding natural terrain. 22.04.090(h) Landscaping. Within hillside areas, the protection and preservation of native species and natural areas should be undertaken to the maximum extent possible. Where the introduction of landscaping is undertaken: _22.04.090(h)(1) Plant materials should be selected appropriately based upon their adaptability to the climatic, geologic, and topographical conditions of the site; _22.04.090(h)(2) Irrigation system design should follow design principals in support of water conservation practices; _22.04.090(h)(3) Selection of water efficient and low maintenance plant material should be undertaken to the maximum extent possible; _22.04.090(h)(4) Fire prevention needs should be addressed in areas that are fire prone; and March, 1995 TITLE 22-15 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.0901h)(5) Plant materials should be selected appropriately based upon their ability to screen structures to the fullest extent possible at maturity while relating to the surrounding topography and not be conspicuous or obtrusive. 22.04.0900) Grading. All grading operations (:including filling, clearing, or excavation] should be designed to: _22.04.090(i)(1) Preserve, match, or blend with the natural contours and undulations of the land; _22.04.090(1)(2) Minimize the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building pads, or cut and fill slopes; _22.04.090(i)(3) Assure that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute rnini►num; 22.04.0900)(4) Avoid grading and clearing operations on steep or hazardous terrain; 22.04.0900)(5) Assure that grading and clearing operations are limited to those areas of proven stability; 22.04.090(i)(6) Employ, where feasible, devegetation, re -vegetation or land form landscaping to manufactured slopes to create visually interesting and natural appearing terrain; 22.04.0900)(7) Avoid, where possible, padding or terracing of building sites in the hillside areas; 22.04.0901()(6) Encourage the maximum retention of significant stands of trees, native vegetation, and habitat corridors; and 22.04.0900)(9) Encourage the retention of natural topographic features, prominent landmarks, and areas of historic or archaeological significance. 22.04.090U) Drainage. Where construction is permitted in hillside areas, development should be designed and located so that: 22.04.0900)(1) The design, scope, or location of drainage structures or improvements should not adversely affect any proposed lots, adjacent properties, or the physical and visual character of a hillside; 22.04.09002) Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to fullest extent possible; 22.04.09011)(3) Drainage structures -or improvements, where required, should relate to the surrounding topography and not be conspicuous and obtrusive; and March, 1995 TITLE 22-16 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.090(j)(4) Site disturbance for the construction of any required drainage structure or improvements should be minimized. 22.04.090(k) Public Safety. Where permitted in hillside areas, only that development which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare should be encouraged. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). _22.04.092 Design Standards. Within the framework of the previous development guidelines, the following design standards have been prepared to give more specific direction. These minimum standards shall apply to any use, development, or alteration of land subject to regulation by this Chapter. 22.04.092(s) Zoning Requirements. Within any designated hillside area the following minimum standards are to be observed: 22.04.092(a)(1) The maximum permitted density for a piece of land shall be determined by a parcels particular zoning district [land use category]. 22.04.092(a)(2) The minimum permitted lot size for a piece of land shall be determined by the parcels or areas particular zoning district [land use category]. 22.04.092(b) Development Control. The following shall serve to provide direction, in a general sense, to the appropriate development of hillside areas, based upon the percent of the natural slope: 22.04.092(b)(1) 0 _ 9.99% Slope. Development with grading is permitted. However, existing land -forms must retain their natural character. Padded building sites are allowed, but custom foundations, split level designs, and clustering is expected to mitigate the need for large padded building areas. 22.04.0921b►(2) 10 _ 14.99% Slope. Some grading may occur, however natural topographic features shall retain their natural land form. Padded building sites may be allowed, but shall be limited to padding for the structure only. Structures are expected to conform to the natural land form, techniques such as split level foundations of greater than 18 inches, stem walls, and clustering may be required to reduce grading. In conjunction with an approved specific -plan, projects which include special design features, such as significant common areas or recreational facilities, paseos, etc., the City Council may consider padded building sites adjacent to those special feature when it is found that said grading creates a better relationship between that special design feature and the adjacent lots. 22.04.092(b)(3) 15 _ 19.99% Slope . Development is limited to no more than the less visually prominent slopes and then only where it can be shown that safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts can be avoided. Structures shall blend with the natural environment through their shape, material and colors. The construction of residential dwellings and (March, 1995 TITLE 22-17 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE structures with multiple foundation levels shall be mandatory. Design techniques such as split level foundation or stepped foundations are expected. The use of post and beam construction, pole foundation, or similar construction methods shall be discouraged. 22.04.092(b)(4) 20% Slope and Over. This is an excessive slope condition and development is prohibited. All land areas with 20% or greater slope shall not be graded in any manner except at the specific discretion of the City Council. Development and limited grading can occur only if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety, environmental, and aesthetic impacts will be avoided, and that a minimum amount of development is in the spirit of, and not incompatible with, the purposes and policies set forth in this Chapter. 22.04.092(c) Permitted Building Area. The following standards shall apply to all properties except as modified by any additional provisions contained elsewhere within this Chapter: 22.04.092(c)(1) Maximum building envelope size: Forty percent (40%) of lot area or 10,000 square feet, whichever is less. 22.04.092(c)(2) Maximum total lot disturbance: Fifty percent (50%) of lot area or 25,000 square feet, whichever is less. For the purposes of calculating maximum total lot disturbance, site disturbance shall include all areas disturbed for the purpose of constructing primary or accessory structures; service utilities, driveways, roadways, parking areas; walkways, decks, pools, or spas; fences, screening, or walls; accessory equipment including but not limited to heating, venting, cooling, solar; radio or television masts or antennas; all ornamental trees, shrubs and landscape areas; in addition to all graded areas. The total shall include disturbed areas both inside and outside the building envelope. 22.04.092(c)(3) Maximum Total tract Disturbance. Maximum total tract disturbance for public improvements: Seven percent (7%) of tract area. All improvement -related disturbance shall be included in this calculation, including central water facilities, utilities, streets (public or private), stormwater management facilities as well as areas of grading and vegetation removal. 22.04.092(d) Setbacks. 22.04.092(d)(1) Minimum spacing between building envelopes on adjacent lots: fifty feet (501. 22.04.0921d)(2) Minimum spacing between building envelopes and tract boundary or off -site public street: fifty feet (50'). 22.04.092(d)(3) No building envelope shall be placed closer than fifty feet (50') to any lot line. _22.04.092(d)14) Minimum spacing of building envelope from on -site public streets: twenty feet (20'). March, 1995 TITLE 22-1 8 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(e) Site Design. 22.04.0921e►(1) Sensitivity to Natural Terrain. To the extent possible, the design of building sites shall be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures shall be located in such a way as to minimize necessary grading and to preserve natural features, including, but limited to ridgelines, ridgecrests, skyline profiles, hilltops, arroyos, ravines, canyons, slopes, drainage patterns, prominent stands of native plant materials, rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas. 22.04.092(e)(2) Archaeological or Paleontological Sensitivity. Where possible, development shall be directed away from those areas with high archaeological or paleontological sensitivity, unless effective mitigation measures can be implemented. 22.04.092(e)(3) Sensitivity to Wildlife Habitats and Migratory Routes. Where feasible, structures shall be located in such a way as to avoid significant habitats and migratory routes of wildlife. 22.04.092(e)(4) Wildlife Corridors. Where achievable, development projects shall plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within a development. Such corridors shall remain as undevelopable open space and be preserved by being designated as common open space or through such techniques as conservation easements. 22.04.092(e)(4)(i) Access to wildlife corridors shall be controlled where public areas of the development are adjacent to such areas. Signage shall be erected to deter human and pet intrusion on foot into wildlife corridors. 22.04.092(e)(4)(ii) Where feasible, buffers shall be included in any wildlife corridor site design. These buffers may include the use of physical barriers utilizing appropriate landscape materials (primarily native plants), with a primary goal of controlling human and pet encroachment. 22.04.092(e)(4)(iii) In areas where roads are permitted to traverse known wildlife corridors, such as over a natural drainage channel, the road design shall include the use of corrugated pipe not less than four feet (4') in diameter to allow the wildlife corridor to continue beneath the road. 22.04.092(f) Building Location. 22.04.092(f)(1) View Opportunities. In hillside areas, the design of lots and plotting of residential dwellings shall, where feasible, be oriented to allow view opportunities. It should be understood however, that existing site constraints such as surrounding land uses„ significant topography features, or hazardous areas may restrict building .placement and may limit such views. March, 1995 TITLE 22-19 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.O4.O92(f)(2) View Corridors from Downslope Lots. Whenever possible, dwellings units and structures, parking areas, and associated landscaped areas shall be arranged in a manner which preserves or enhances view corridors from downslope lots. 22.O4.O92(f)(3) Skyline Profiles. In order to retain skyline profiles, no point on any structure subject to the provisions of this document shall be closer to a ridgeline than one - hundred and fifty feet 0 50') measured horizontally on a topographic map or fifty feet (501 measured vertically on a cross section. 22.O4.O92(f)(4) Natural Hillside Profile. In order to retain the integrity of the natural hillside profile, the following techniques are to be taken into consideration: _22.O4.O92(f)(4)(i) Whenever possible, the natural ridgeline shall be used as a backdrop for structures. _22.O4.O921f1(4)(ii) Whenever possible, graded areas shall be designed with manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures, thereby, hiding any graded slope behind the structure. _22.O4.O92(f)(41)(iii) When appropriate, landscape plant materials should be used as a supplement or substitute for a ridgeline backdrop in the event that a natural ridgeline is altered. _22.O4.O92(f)(5) Excessive Slope Conditions. In excessive slope conditions (fifteen percent [15%] slope and greater), minimum spacing requirements for building envelopes adjacent to a street (public or private) may be reduced to a minimum of 19 feet from back of curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive, in order to minimize rear yard grading. 22.O4.O92(f)(6) Site Planning Techniques. Whenever possible, development projects shall incorporate clustering, variable setbacks and building heights, multiple building orientations, and other site planning techniques to preserve open space, protect natural features, and allow view opportunities. 22.O4.O92(g) Building Envelopes. 22.O4.O92(g)(1) To promote a more sensitive building design and reinforce the natural slope profile, the permitted building envelope for all structures within a hillside area shall be as follows: 22.O4.O92(g)(1)(i) Permitted Height. An overall maximum height of eighteen feet (18') is permitted, as measured from the average percent slope of the building site. 22.O4.O92(g)(1)(ii) Calculation of Avera a Percent Sloes. The method for computing average percent slope of the building site shall be calculated extending a line through the mid -point of the building site perpendicular [at right angles] to the natural slope prior to any site disturbance. For each pair of contour lines which intersects [crosses] the mid -point March, 1995 TITLE 22-20 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE line, calculate percent slope between each elevation point. Next, add together all of the calculated percent slope numbers, then divide this figure, by the total amount of contour lines, intersecting the line through the mid -point of the building site. 22.04.092(g)(1)(iii) Downslope Height Restrictions. The maximum height of any downslope building envelope plane shall not exceed fifteen feet (151 in height and shall extend up and toward the interior of the building envelope at a thirty-seven and one-half (37%0) degree angle to a maximum height of eighteen feet 081 as measured from the average percent slope of the building site. 22.04.092(g)(2) Location of Building Envelopes. Unless otherwise approved, building envelopes shall be located on the most suitable areas for development. 22.04.092(g)(2)(1). In general, building envelopes shall not be located on: hill tops, ridge lines, ravines, canyons, steep slope areas (over 20% slope); rare or endangered species' habitats; areas subject to rock fall, landslides, or other such hazards; prominent knolls, rock outcroppings, or natural drainage courses. 22.04.092(g)(2)(0) The presence of sensitive or hazardous areas on a building site shall require the reduction of the "permitted" building envelope in order to mitigate adverse environmental or aesthetic impact of grading and construction. 22.04.092(h) Building Pad Design. On building sites where excessive slope conditions exist (fifteen percent (15 %) slope and greater) to minimize grading, site disturbance, and preserve desired hillside characteristics, the following provisions are to be observed: 22.04.092(h)(1) The maximum building envelope size shall be reduced by ten percent 0 0%); 22.04.092(h)(2) All dwelling units constructed shall not exceed five -thousand square feet (5000 sq. ft.) in usable floor area, excluding garages or other on -site parking requirements; and 22.04.092(h)(3) In order to preserve the character and profile of the natural slope, the construction of residential dwellings and structures with multiple foundation levels shall be mandatory while post and beam or similar construction shall be discouraged. 22.04.09211) Clustering. Clustering of residential structures shall be undertaken as a means of directing development away from environmentally sensitive areas or as a means of preserving existing natural features, open space or limiting the total amount of site disturbance. _22.04.092(i)(1) Open Space Management Plan. Clustering shall be permitted upon the submission of an acceptable open space management plan in conjunction with a specific plan along with a conditional use permit for a residential cluster development. March, 1995 TITLE 22-21 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(i)(2) Common Intent Form of Land Ownership. The common intent form of land ownership, where an individual may own either the airspace or land under the individual unit with common areas owned and controlled by a an organization consisting of all individual owners, shall be required for the use of the cluster option. 22.04.092(i)(3) Single Family Dwelling Units. Attached single family dwelling units may be permitted under a clustering option; however, no more than two (2) individual units may be attached when using the cluster option. 22.04.092(1)(4) Density of Development. The density of a development shall not exceed that allowed in a parcels or areas particular zoning district [land use category] when using the cluster option. 22.04.092 ) Lot Design. Where applicable, "panhandle," double frontage, and other unorthodox lots shall be permitted so long as it can be adequately demonstrated that the design will eliminate excessive cuts and fills and that no lot will be adversely affected by any other lot so arranged. 22.04.092(k) Accessory Buildings and Structures. 22.04.0921k)(1) Uses Within Building Envelopes. In hillside areas all accessory or ancillary buildings, equipment, uses, or structures shall be located within building envelopes except as otherwise permitted elsewhere within this document. 22.04.092(k)(2) Uses Outside Building Envelopes. Unless otherwise restricted, any septic: system, well, driveway or walkway may be located outside building envelopes. 22.04.0920) Recreational Open Space. In areas where the slope exceeds fifteen percent (15%) slope it is recommended that a minimum of one -hundred square feet (100 sq. ft.) of usable recreational open space be provided for each dwelling unit. 22.04.092(m) Parking Requirements. 22.04.092(m)(1) Minimum On -Site Parking Requirements. The following on -site parking standards shall be the minimum acceptable for residential structures within hillside areas: 22.04.092(m)(1)(1) Parking for single family residential uses shall be located on the same parcel of land as the residential building which the parking is to serve. 22.04.092(m)(1)(ii) All required parking shall be provided off-street and in no cases may parking lanes be provided on any roadway (public or private) except as approved in conjunction with a specific plan along with a conditional use permit for a residential cluster development. 22.04.092(m)(2) Parking Standards. March, 1995 TITLE 22-22 INDIIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.0921m)(2)(i) Single -Family Detached Dwelling Units. Two (2) enclosed spaces, plus two (2) uncovered spaces. The uncovered spaces may be incorporated within a parking area shared by spaces for other units provided, however, that in no case shall the total number of spaces so located together be less than the same of the separate requirements for each unit and shall be located no farther than one -hundred feet (1001 from each dwelling unit entrance. 22.04.0921m)(2)(ii) Single -Family Attached Dwelling Units. For each dwelling unit, one enclosed space, plus one-half (%:) uncovered space for each bedroom more than one in each unit. In cases where a one-half (Y2) space occurs in a total figure, the standard shall be increased to the next whole figure. 22.04.092(m)(2)(iii) Guest Parking. In addition to the standards set forth [above], a minimum of one (1) guest space shall be provided for every ten (10) dwelling units, or a fraction thereof. 22.04.092(m)(2)(iv) Uncovered Parking Spaces. Uncovered parking spaces may include areas such as driveways outside garages, except that each required space shall be accessible at all times. 22.04.092(m)(2)(v) Enclosed Off -Street Parking. Enclosed off-street parking shall be provided for the parking and/or storage of boats, detached camper trailer tops, motorhomes, campers and other trailers. The use of any required enclosed or uncovered off-street vehicle parking, shall be for automobiles and golf carts only. 22.04.092(n) Open Space. 22.04.092(n)(1) Minimum Standards for Open Space. In order to retain the integrity of the natural character of the hillsides, the following minimum standards are to be observed: 22.04.092(n)(1)(1) Conservation Easements Required. Conservation easements shall be required for all areas located outside building envelopes; central water facilities, or storrnwater management facilities; utility easements, corridors, or facilities; parking areas, driveways or street right-of-way widths (public or private). 22.04.092(n)(1)(ii) Required Conservation Easement Referenced on Subdivision or Parcel Maps. All subdivision or parcel map plats shall contain a reference to any required conservation easement. 22.04.092(n)(1)(iii) Massing and Linkage. Whenever possible, open space and conservation easements areas shall be designed with massing and linkage as guiding principles. Open space and conservation areas should be contiguous both on site and off tract. 22.04.092(n)(1100 Contiguous Linkage. Whenever possible, an open space and conservation easements shall be designed to provide contiguous linkages throughout the March, 1995 TITLE 22-23 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE .parcel under development, and between adjacent parcels where trail systems, vistas, or view corridors are designated. 22.04.092(n)(2) Ownership and Maintenance of Open Space and Conservation Easements. 22.04.092(n)(2)(1) Dedication. Where possible, open space and conservation easements areas may be offered, through dedication, to a not -for -profit land trust, conservancy, or similar organization whose charter allows for the ownership of such lands with the intent to preserve the natural open space of the hillside area in perpetuity. 22.04.092(n)(2)(ii) Maintenance in Perpetuity. If, however, the public agency, land trust, conservancy, or similar organization does not accept such an offer (or if such an offer is not made), the developer shall make provisions for the ownership and care of the open space in such a manner that there can be necessary protection and maintenance thereof. Such area shall be provided with appropriate access and shall be designated as separate parcels which may be maintained through special fees charged to the residents of the subject development or through an appropriate homeowner's association or maintenance district. Where necessary and appropriate, maintenance in perpetuity shall be guaranteed through the bond of the developer. 22.04.092(o) Driveways and Other Parking. 22.04.092(o)(1) Designs. Whenever possible, combinations of collective driveways, cluster parking areas, and parallel parking bays shall be used to attempt to optimize the objectives of minimum soil disturbance, minimum impervious cover, excellence of design, and aesthetic sensitivity. 22.04.0921o)(1)(1) Collective Private Driveways. Collective private driveways shall be encouraged where their use will result in better building sites and lesser amounts of land coverage than would result if a public road were required. 22.04.0921ol(1)(ii) Cluster Parking Areas or Off -Street Parking Bays. Cluster parking areas or off-street parking bays shall be encouraged where considerations of terrain or aesthetic quality would reduce the desirability of collective driveways. 22.04.092(o)(2) Driveways Serving a Single Residential Structure. All driveways to serve a single residential structure shall be a minimum of twelve feet (12') wide and shall be constructed of concrete surfacing of approved thickness or as established and approved by the City Engineer for the safety, health, and welfare of the persons who shall use the driveway. 22.04.092(o)(3) Entrance to Driveway. Driveways shall enter public/private streets maintaining adequate line -of -sight. March, 1995 TITLE 22-24 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(o)(4) Number of Driveways. The number of driveways accessing off -site public streets shall be kept to a minimum. Minimum spacing of access points to off -site roads: two -hundred feet (200') minimum. 22.04.092(o)(5) Common Driveways. In hillside areas, the use of common driveways shall be encouraged wherever feasible. 22.04.092(o)(5)(i) Where lots will access an off -site public street, common driveways shall be used where appropriate to minimize the number of curb cuts required. 22.04.0921o)(5)(ii) The maximum number of units served by a common driveway shall be four (4). 22.04.092(o)(5)(iii) Minimum common driveway width: twelve feet (12') with two - foot (2') graded and stoned shoulders. 22.04.092(o)(51(iv) Maximum length of common driveway: 1,000 feet 22.04.092(o)(5)(v) All lots using common driveway shall provide a driveway maintenance agreement to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 22.04.0921o)(6) Turnouts. All driveways in excess of 500 feet shall provide a 10' x 30' turnout. The exact location of the turnout shall be determined by the Fire Department with the review of the Planning Commission. 22.04.092(o)(7) Driveway Grades. 22.04.092(o)(7)(1) Driveway Design Considerations. In hillside areas, proper driveway design considerations shall be employed appropriate for site conditions. Such design considerations as vertical curves, parking landings, reduced grades, coarse paving material, or grooves for traction may be necessary. 22.04.092(o)(7)(ii) Driveway Grades. Driveway grades above ten percent (10%) shall be permitted up to a maximum of fifteen percent (15 %), provided they are aligned with the natural contours of the land, if determined necessary to achieve site design, and if all safety considerations have been met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 22.04.092(o)(7)(iii) Parking Landings. Parking landings shall be utilized on all drives over iten percent (10%) grade. 22.04.092(p) Roadways. In order to minimize the amount of site disruption caused by roadways and the associated grading required for their construction, the following provisions, where possible, are to be considered: March, 1995 TITLE 22-25 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.0921p)(1) Conformity to Natural Topography. Road alignments, driveways, collective driveways, and parking areas shall conform as closely as possible to natural topography to minimize the extent of cuts and fills. 22.04.092(p)(1)(i) Street alignments where possible shall be parallel to contours in valleys or on ridges. Where a location between a valley and ridge is unavoidable, directional pavements shall be split, with the principal of grading being half cut and half fill versus all fill or all cut. 22.04.092(p)(2) Road Design. Roads should be designed to create the minimum feasible amount of land coverage and the minimum feasible disturbance to the soil; 22.04.092(p)(2)(1) Reduced road sections, split sections, or other design alternatives shall be considered in the lay -out of hillside streets to reduce grading. 22.04.0921p1(2)(ii) Where appropriate, variations in road design, construction, or rights -of -way standards shall be considered to keep grading and cut slopes to a minimum. 22.04.092(p)(2)(iii) Roads shall not greatly alter the physical and visual character of a hillside by creating large notches in ridgelines 'or by defining wide straight alignments. 22.04.0921p)(2)(iv) Where -public or private road construction is permitted in hillside areas, the extent of vegetation and visual disruption shall be minimized. 22.04.0921p)(2)(iv)(A) Whenever possible, existing vegetation shall be retained as medians or as buffers within the unimproved right-of-way. 22.04.092(p)(2)(iv1(S) Where roadway improvements will inadvertently disturb the natural terrain, the combined use of retaining structures, re -vegetation and regrading to approximate the natural slope shall be used to restore the affected site. 22.04.092(p)(2)(v) In no case will unnecessary cuts or fills be allowed in order to create [or gain access to] additional lots or building sites. 22.04.092(p)(3) Roadway Width Requirements. 22.04.0929p)(3)(i) Within hillside areas, roadways shall not exceed two (2) lanes with a traveled way which shall not exceed thirty-two feet (32') in width, exclusive of on -street parking, parallel parking bays, sidewalks, or bikeways. 22.04.0921p)(3)(ii) In order to reflect a rural, rather than a urban character, a minimum local street standard of twenty-four feet (24') without sidewalks shall be utilized in hillside areas whenever possible. 22.04.0921p1(3)(iii) One-way streets shall be permitted and encouraged where appropriate for the terrain and where public safety would not be jeopardized. The traveled (March, 1995 TITLE 22-26 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE way shall not exceed sixteen feet (16') in width, exclusive of on -street parking, parallel parking bays, sidewalks, or bikeways. 22.04.092(p)(3)(iv) The width of any roadway graded section shall extend three feet (3') beyond the curb back or edge of pavement on both the cut and fill sides of the roadway. If a sidewalk or bikeway is to be installed parallel to the roadway, the graded section shall be increased by the width of the sidewalk or bikeway plus one foot (1') beyond the curb back. 22.04.092(p)(3)(v1 All cut and fill slopes shall be within the roadway right-of-way or roadway easement. If necessary, slope maintenance easements for roadway cuts and fills may be required by the City Engineer. 22.04.092(p)(4) Roadway Design Alternatives. To minimize the amount of site disruption caused by roadways and the associated grading required for their construction, the following design alternatives upon approval, may be considered: 2_2.04.092(p)(4)(1) Horizontal alignments may provide curves with less than one - hundred and fifty feet (150') centerline radius. 22.04.092(p)(4)(ii) Various designs for turning and backing types of cul-de.-sacs may be substituted for circular turnarounds. 22.04.092(p)(4)(iii) Required paving width of the traffic lanes may be modified when roadway turnouts are provided, developed, and paved in the public right-of-way. 22.04.092(p)(4)(iv) Centerline of the paving may be offset from the centerline of the right-of-way to provide parking bays in the right-of-way. 22.04.092(p)(5) Curbing For stormwater management purposes, standard vertical curb (6") and gutter shall be installed along both sides of the roadway. 22.04.092(p1(6) Access Points on Off -Site Public Roads. The minimum distance between access points on off -site public roads is two -hundred feet (200'). Access points shall include individual and common driveways and on -site public roadways. 22.04.092(p)(7) Intersections. Whenever possible, streets shall intersect at as near to a right angle as possible. Intersecting streets shall be no more than 15 degrees (15°) skew. Streets shall intersect each other on outside rather than inside horizontal curves. _22.04.092(p)(8) Emergency Parking and Turnarounds. Within hillside areas, the intermittent widening of streets for emergency parking and turnarounds at convenient places shall be encouraged. _22.04.092(p)(9) Unpaved Access Roads. In no case shall unpaved access roads be permitted within any designated hillside area. (March, 1995 TITLE 22-27 INDIAN WELLS (MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(q) Street Grades. Within a project, street and private access way grades shall conform as closely as possible to natural topography. 22.04.092(q)(1) Collector and Arterial Streets. Hillside collector and arterial street grades shall not exceed eight percent (8%). 22.04.092(q)(2) Local Streets. Hillside residential street grades shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%). 22.04.092(q)(2)(i) Hillside residential street grades exceeding twelve percent (12%) shall have a maximum length of six hundred feet (600'). 22.04.092(q)(2)(ii) Street grades above fourteen percent (14%) shall require concrete pavement. 22.04.092(r) Architectural Guidelines. Because of the unique and peculiar problems inherent in the development of hillside areas, special consideration in the design of such architectural elements as a buildings style, form, size, color, material, and roofline must be considered. To ensure that development within hillside areas is suited to the natural hillside surroundings and that it enhances rather than detracts from or ignores the natural topography and amenities of the hillsides, the following provisions are to be observed: 22.04.092(r)(1) Visual Bulk. The main bulk and overall massing of a structure shall be minimized through consideration of the following: 22.04.092(r)(1)(1) Detach parts of a dwelling such as a garage or guest house. 22.04.092(r)(1)(ii) Low profile buildings shall be used, where feasible. 22.04.092(r)(1)(iii) Where feasible, the use of variable setbacks, building heights, and multiple building orientations shall be incorporated into a project design. 22.04.092(r)(1)()v) Large roof overhangs, cantilevers, patios, or decks on downhill elevations shall be avoided in order to reduce the massive appearance from below. 22.04.092(r)(1)(v) The use of split -pad or stepped slab foundations shall be encouraged. Due to the effective bulk when seen from afar the use of pole or stronger foundations shall be strongly discouraged. 22.04.0921011)(vi) Unless design considerations prohibit otherwise, all buildings and structures shall be terraced to follow the slope. 22.04.092(r)(1)(vii) The width of a building, measured in the direction of the slope, shall be minimized in order to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better "fit" the March, 1995 TITLE 22-28 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE structure to the natural terrain. Building protrusions which are perpendicular to the contours should be stepped or inset in to the hillside. 22.04.092(r)(1)(viii) Earth immediately around the building should strike the walls at approximately the angle the natural terrain slopes. 22.04.092(r)(1)(ix) Where possible, graded areas shall be designed with manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures, thereby, hiding the slope behind the structure. 22.04.0921011)(4 If feasible, underground or below grade rooms shall be considered to reduce the effective bulk of a structure and to provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable spaces. 22.04.092(r)(1)(xi) Exterior structural supports and undersides of floors and decks not enclosed by walls will be approved only if it is proven that no alternative type of construction is feasible and that fire safety and aesthetic considerations have been adequately addressed. 22.04.092(r)(1)(xii) As a means of 'effectively breaking -up building mass the incorporation of decks, patios, and balconies shall be encouraged. 22.04.092(r)(1)(xiii) In steeper slopes, the roofs on lower levels of a building should be used for the deck open spaces of upper levels. This technique, can not only provide needed recreational open space in steeper slopes but permits for the integration of multi - roof and wall planes as a means of breaking up large wall and roof masses, and thus adding human scale to structures. 22.04.092(r)(1)(xiii)(A) Decks where provided, shall be a minimum of six feet (6') in width, to provide adequate usable area and to effectively break-up the building mass. 22.04.092(r)(1)(xiii)(B) Patios, terraces, and decks shall be unroofed and shall not exceed four -hundred (400) square feet. 22.04.092(r)(2) Exterior Finishes. Within hillside areas, exterior finishes of all dwelling units and structures shall blend in with natural hillside surroundings [background]. 22.04.092(r)(2)(i) In selecting exterior finishes reflective materials or finishes shall be avoided. Earth tone colors shall be utilized as much as possible. 22.04.092(r)(2)(ii) Contrasting color accents shall be kept to a minimum, particularly on the down hill view side. 22.04.092(r)(2)(iii) Contrasting colors should only be used at accent elements, such as doors, window frames, or other such architectural details. (March, 1995 TITLE 22-29 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(r)(2)(iv) Use of natural materials, such as rock in walls, fences, or as a finishing treatment is encouraged. 22.04.092(r)(2)(v) Large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs, or paving areas shall be avoided. 22.04.092(r)(2)(vi) All paint products, awing fabric or other color elements should be durable and fade resistant. 22.04.092(r)(2)(vil) Within hillside areas architectural treatment shall be provided to all sides of a structure. Elements of the architectural treatment used on the front facade shall be repeated on all sides of a structure with additional emphasis on those elevations visible from adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. 22.04.092(r)(3) Facade and Roof Articulation. As a means of softening and blending structures in with the natural hillside surroundings, facade and roof articulation shall be utilized. 22..04.092(r)(3110 The articulation of facades may be used by the integration of varied texture, relief, and design accents on building'walls. 22.04.092(r)(3)(10 In all cases, long uninterrupted exterior walls shall be avoided on all structures. 22.04.092(r)(3)(ill) Wall planes shall not run in one (1) continuous direction for more than fifty feet (50') without an offset. 22.04.09201(3)(10 Where possible, both vertical and horizontal roof articulation shall be; utilized. 22.04.092(r)(3)(v) Where feasible, the roofline at the top of a structure shall not run in continuous plane for more than fifty feet (50') without offsetting or jogging the roof plane. 22.04.092(r)(3)(vi) Roof articulation may be achieved by changes in plane of no less than two feet six inches (2' 6"). 22.04.092(r)(3)(vii) Nearly vertical roofs (A -frame type roofs), roofs covered with reflective materials (copper roofs, etc.), illuminated roofing, or piecemeal mansard roofs (used on a portion of the building perimeter only) shall be strongly discouraged. 22.04.092(r)(3)(viii) Wood, asphalt, or fiberglass roof shingles shall not be permitted. 22.04.092(r)(3)(ix) To ensure that roofs do not dominate the hillside environment, the roof sllope shall be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope. The use of gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided. March, 1995 TITLE 22-30 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(r)14) Projections. Structural appendages and projections such as, but not limited to, eaves, cornices, overhangs, canopies, architectural buttresses, wing walls, fireplaces, and the like, which do not provide additional floor space, may project out of the building envelope not more than thirty inches (30"). 22.04.092(r)(4)(1) Chimneys, masts, air conditioner vents (disguised as chimneys, etc.), antennas, and the like, may not project more than thirty inches (30") above the maximum building height allowable in a hillside area. 22.04.092(r)(4)(11) If higher projections are required by Table 37-B of the Uniform Building Code, than those minimum heights as specified shall be the maximum allowable height projection. 22.04.0921r1(5) Equipment Screening. In hillside areas, all mechanical equipment including, but not limited to, heating, venting, cooling, solar, pool equipment and antenna, whether on the roof, side of structure, or ground, must not be visible from outside the property. The method of screening must be architecturally compatible to the principal building in terms of materials, color, shape, and size. The screening design or method shall blend with the principal building design. 22.04.092(r)(5)(i) In the event that roof mounted equipment is necessary, mechanical equipment shall be located below the highest adjacent vertical element of the building. 22.04.0921r1(5)(ii) Where roof mounted individual equipment is provided, a continuous screen shall be required. 22.04.0921r1(6) Vents and Other Roof Protrusions. Roof flashing, roof sheet metal work, vents, and other roof protrusions shall be finished to match the adjacent materials and/or colors. Roof vent pipes shall be ganged camouflaged (screened), whenever possible. 22.04.092(r)(7) Mailboxes. The architectural character shall be similar in form, materials, and colors to the surrounding buildings. Mailbox locations must be approved by the U.S. Postal Service. Unless otherwise approved, the overall height of the structure [including the box] shall not exceed forth -eight inches (48") and eighteen inches 0 8") in depth. 22.04.092(r)18) Detached Accessory Structures. Detached garages, and accessory structures shall be designed as an integral part of the principal structure and shall be similar in materials, color, and detail. Prefabricated metal (aluminum) carports shall not be used. 22.04.092(r)(9) Ancillary Structures. The design of ancillary structures (cabanas, storage sheds, gazebos, etc) shall be architecturally compatible with the main structure Nlardh, 1995 TITLE 22-31 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE through the use of: similar building materials and colors; similar wall, roof, or trellis design; or by fence or wall. _22.04.092(r)(10) Solar Panels. Solar panels shall be integrated into the roof design, flush with the roof slope. Frames shall be colored to match roof colors. Natural aluminum finish shall not be permitted. Whenever feasible, ancillary solar equipment [pumps, piping, storage tanks, electrical conduit, etc] shall be screened so as to preclude viewing of equipment from adjacent residences, public ways, and golf courses (public or private). 22.04.092(r)(11) Skylights. Skylights shall be integrated into the roof design and should not be obtrusive. The use of stark white or other highly reflective glass or other transparent, translucent or opaque glazing materials shall be avoided. Frames shall be colored to match roof colors. 22.04.092(r)(12) Antennas. Whenever possible, all antennas shall be placed in attics or building interiors. It is recommended that all new structures be pre -wired to accommodate cable reception. 22.04.092(r)(12)(i) Satellite dish antennas are specifically prohibited on roofs and should be considered early in the design process in terms of location and any required screening. 22.04.092(r)(12(ii) Roof mounted antennas may be considered if equipment wells are designed as a integral part of the structure. In such cases, antennas shall be located below -the adjacent vertical element of the building (roofline) or the maximum permitted building height, which ever is the more restrictive. 22.04.092(s) Signage. Resident identification signs shall be permitted at entrances to driveways. Permitted signs will be limited to a maximum height of four feet (4'). Each individual name sign shall not be more than two (2) square feet in area. 22.04.092(t) Utilities. All new service utilities such as power, telephone, and cable transmission lines, both on -site and off -site, shall be placed underground. 22.04.092(t)(1) Public utilities easements shall be placed within a public or private street right-of-way. 22.04.092(t)(2) Easements outside of a street right-of-way, shall be permitted, only if it can be demonstrated that the placement would not result in unnecessary or undesirable site cutting and grading. 22.04.092(u) Central Water Facilities. Where water tanks, towers, pumping stations or other central water facilities are used, their visual impact shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible. March, 1995 TITLE 22-32 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(u)(1) Whenever feasible, water facilities shall receive a naturalizing treatment such as native rock, colored concrete, or stone veneer so that the facilities appears as an integral part of the hillside environment. 22.04.092(u)(2) Where water facilities are required, they shall be designed in as small an area as possible. 22.04.092(u)(3) In order to minimize the visual impact of water facilities the following concepts, where feasible, are to be considered: 22.04.092(u)(3)(1) 'Unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance shall be minimized. 22.04.092(u)(3)(ii) Contour grading with natural land form planting to soften hard edges left by cut and fill operations shall be utilized to the maximum extent possible. 22.04.092(u)(3)(iii) Appropriate plant materials shall be used, where feasible, to screen water facilities or other related structures. 22.04.092(u)(3)(10 Water facilities or structures shall not be placed on top of ridge lines or hilltops. 22.04.092(v) Concrete Structures. Within hillside areas, visible concrete structures, :such as curbing, driveways, culverts, walls, drainage channels, and outlet structures shall not be constructed and left in the standardized stark light grayish color. To minimize the visual impact of these structures, the use of dyed, colored, or textured concrete as will as other natural materials is required. 22.04.092(w) Lighting. Within hillside areas, all exterior lighting shall be low scale and low intensity. 22.04.092(w)11► The use of low or high pressure sodium light fixtures shall be prohibited. 22.04.092(w)(2) Street lighting shall be provided only where site -specific safety conditions warrant. Where street lighting is required, its location and intensity shall be subject to the Planning Commission's review. 22.04.092(w)13) Exterior lighting shall be located and shielded so as to direct light away from adjoining lots, buildings, and streets (public or private). 22.04.092(w)(4) All exterior lighting shall be hooded or screened as to direct light downward and should not impact adjacent property owners in terms of glare and privacy. 22.04.092(w)(5) The illumination of hillside slopes with area wide lighting [search, spot, or flood] lighting fixtures shall be subject to Planning Commission's review. (March, 1995 TITLE 22-33 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE For any exterior lighting a recommendation from a qualified biologist as to the possible effects of proposed lighting levels on wildlife movement and mountainous habitat area within hillside areas shall be subject to Planning Commission's review. This report shall contain recommendations as to the other possible lighting alternatives [if any], fixture placement, wattage, and hours of operation. 22.04.092(w)(9) Any architectural, landscape, or accent lighting [lighting used for decorative effects] shall be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise in order to protect Palomar Observatory from light pollution. Common recreational areas [club house, common pool areas, etc.) may be lighted while those facilities are actually in use. This requirement shall exclude outdoor lighting used for illuminating walkways, or other outdoor security lighting as permitted. 22.04.092(x) Fencin . Unregulated fencing can produce a significant intrusion onto the hillside's visual character. To assure that any permitted fencing occurs in a manner which protects the hillside's natural and topographic character, the following provisions are to be observed: 22.04.092101) All fences and walls shall be compatible with the natural surroundings of the area and shall not dominate a view. 22.04.092(x)(1)(1) Building materials and color schemes of all fences and walls shall be consistent with the desert environment. 22.04.092(x)(1)(ii) Where possible, walls shall incorporate varying design and natural materials. 22.04.092(x)(1)(iii) Contour grading and landscape techniques shall be incorporated in the design and construction of any fence or wall to mitigate its visual impact. 22.04.092(x)(1)(iv) Unless otherwise required, authorized fencing shall be kept as low as possible and blend in with the surrounding natural terrain. 22.04.092(x)(1)Iv1 The use of open view (wrought iron or similar materials) shall be encouraged, so long as adequate residential privacy is maintained. 22.04.09402) In no case will perimeter fencing of a parcel or lot be permitted. 22.04.09403) Hazardous or sensitive land areas located outside building envelopes shall inot be fenced. 22.04.092(04) Fencing may be constructed on the perimeter of or within the building envelope area of a lot. However, to prevent significant intrusion onto the hillside's visual character, fencing shall be limited whenever possible to those areas immediately adjacent to a structure to provide private outdoor areas. (March, 1995 TITLE 22-34 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(x)(4)(1) When permitted, walls and fences shall be designed as an integral part of the building in order to minimize the visual impact on surrounding area. 22.04.092(x)(4)(111 Both sides of all walls and fences shall be architecturally treated. 22.04.092(x)(5) Wood fences and chain link mesh or wire fences shall not be permitted except as necessary to temporarily enclose hazardous areas or for temporary security fencing pursuant to section 21.50.020 or 21.50.030 of the Municipal Code. 22.04.092(y) Retaining Walls. To minimize the visual impact and site disruption caused by the construction and use of retaining structures, the following minimum standards are to be observed: 22.04.092(y)(1) Within a Building Envelope 22.04.092(y)(1)(1) Building Site. For the establishment or soil stabilization of a building site 22.04.092(y)(1)(1)(A) Upslope. One (1) wall per lot not exceeding five feet (5') in height. Otherwise, terraced retaining structures shall be utilized. 22.04.092(y)(1)(i)(8) Downslope. One (1) wall per lot not exceeding four feet (4') in freight. Where an additional retaining portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions then the use of terraced retaining structures shall be utilized. 22.04.092(y)(1)(1)(C) Other Conditions. On lots sloping with the street, and other configurations not discussed above, one (1) retaining wall, not to exceed 3 1 /2 feet in height may be used where necessary. 22.04.092(y)(1)(ii) Driveway. For establishment or soil stabilization of a driveway the following provisions are to be observed: _22.04.092(y)(1)(ii)(A) Within hillside areas, no more than two (2) retaining walls shall be permitted to establish or for soil stabilization adjacent to a driveway. _22.04.092(y)(1)(ii)(B) Within permitted building envelopes retaining walls, not to exceed four feet (41 in height nor one -hundred feet 000') in length, shall be permitted adjacent to a driveway. _22.04.092(y)(1)(ii)(C) Outside of permitted building envelopes retaining walls, not exceed three feet (3') in height nor one -hundred feet (100') in length, shall be permitted adjacent to a driveway. 22.04.092(y)(2) Within Street Rights -of -Way. Where retaining walls are proven to be absolutely necessary adjacent to roadways or within street right-of-ways, they shall be limited to three feet (3') in height in order to avoid obstruction of motorist's and pedestrian's field of view. Otherwise, terraced or stepped structures shall be utilized. March, 1995 TITLE 22-35 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(y)(3) Terraced or Stepped Retaining Structures. The use of terraced retaining structures shall be considered on an individual case by case basis. Terracing is not to be used as a typical solution within a development or project. Where more than one (1) retaining wall is proven to be absolutely necessary, terraced or stepped structures shall be utilized, which are separated by a minimum of three feet (3") with appropriate landscaping. 22.04.0921y)(4) Design of Walls. Whenever possible, vertical retaining walls should be kept as low as possible and blend with the surrounding natural terrain. 22.04.092(y)(4)(1) In no case shall individual vertical retaining walls exceed three feet (T) in height. 22.04.092(y)(4)(ii) Mitigation measures shall be required for any retaining wall, terraced, or stepped retaining structure visible from any downhill elevation, public/private roadway or open space. 22.04.092(y)(4)(iii) Where necessary techniques such as contour grading, landscape buffering, or facing the retaining structures with aesthetically pleasing materials such as native rock, colored concrete, textured concrete, or other suitable materials shall be used. 22.04.092(z) Landscaping. Hillside development, no matter how minor, often results in the loss of native vegetative cover. Often this loss is a direct result of the construction process itself. Further losses of some native species often results do to the introduction of invasive non-native plant species as a result of the landscaping efforts of homeowners. In company with this, the use of exotic and non-native ornamental plants which do not reflect the texture, color, or scale of the natural landscape often results in a substantial loss of the visual character and setting of the hillside habitat. In order to assure that the natural conditions and beauty associated with the hillside habitat is maintained, the following provisions are to be observed: 22.04.0921z)(1) Introduced and Ornamental Plant Materials. The use of ornamental plants in designated open space areas, open space easements, or conservation easements is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise permitted, the use of ornamental plants within a hillside area on the exterior of any building or structure is strictly prohibited. The use of non-native (ornamental plant) materials shall be limited to specific designated areas within a permitted building envelope only. 22.04.092(z)(1)(i) Ornamental plant materials shall be limited to those areas such as small walled -in yards, including walled or partially enclosed patios and court yards; entry areas, corridors, breezeways; atriums, or other partial enclosures (by roof or wall) attached to the principal building; or similar features to those listed above. Movable planting boxes, pots, and similar features are excluded from these requirements. March, 1995 TITLE 22-36 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(z)(1)(iii► In no case will non-native invasive plant species be used in any landscape plant palette. Controlled invasive species shall include the following: • Acacias (Acacia Spp.) • Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Giant reed (Arundo donax) • Hottentot -fig (Carpobrotus edulis) • Garland chrysanthemum (chrysanthemum coronarium) • Pampas grass (Cortaderia atacamensis) • French broom (Cytisus monspessulans) • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) • Crystal ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum) • Small -flowered ice plant (Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum) • Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae) • German ivy (Senecio mikanoides) • Pink periwinkle (Vinca major) • Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) • Gorse (Ulex europaeus) 22.04.092(z)(2) Ornamental Landscape 'Design. Within hillside areas, the design of ornamental landscapes shall: 22.04.092(z)(2)(i) Preserve the appearance of the natural skyline and contours of the natural slope; 22.04.092(z)(2)(ii) Shall be capable of blending in with the natural landscape, and help to soften the effects of buildings, walls, pavement, and grading; 22.04.092(z)(2)(iii) Include plant material comprised of a blend of native and ornamental vegetation. Non-native plant material must be compatible with the natural setting and require minimal watering; 22.04.092(z)(2)(iv) Limit the amount of turf area in any landscape design. The creation of lawn areas shall be limited to five -hundred (500) square feet. 22.04.092(z)(3) Removal of Native Vegetation. Removal of native vegetation shall be avoided wherever possible, and the amount of plant material removed shall be limited to the minimum required for construction. Where necessary, selective thinning of native vegetation may be allowed (required) to reduce fire hazards. 22.04.092(z)(3)(1) Prior to the undertaking of any ground disturbance existing vegetation shall be evaluated by qualified personnel experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of devegetation and re -vegetation. 22.04.092(z)(3)(ii) To the maximum extent possible, existing native vegetation, shall be retained for re-establishment upon the completion of construction activities. Mardrn, 1995 TITLE 22-37 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(z)(3)(iii) Whenever possible, existing mature trees shall be incorporated into the project to the maximum extent feasible. 22.04.092(z)(3)(iv) Every effort shall be made to conserve topsoil which is removed during construction for later use on areas requiring re -vegetation or landscaping, e.g., cut and fill slopes. 22.04.092(z)(3)(v) If any existing vegetation is not suitable for retention and is removed, re-establishment of a compatible plant material shall be required at a ratio of at least 1:1. 22.04.092(z)(3)(vi) Upon completion of any construction disturbed areas beyond any completed roadway, driveway, building or structure foot print, shall be reestablished (revegetated) with native plants and re -grade slopes so that the presence of hillside vegetation and forms are maintained. 22.04.092(z)(3)(vii) The re-establishment plant palette shall be designed to include the existing mix, distribution and densities of the plants on site. 22.04.092(z)(3)(viii) The landscape palette shall be limited to only those plant species native to this area of the Coachella Valley. 22.04.0921z)(4) The developer shall be fully responsible for any destruction of native vegetation proposed for retention. He shall carry the responsibility both for his own employees and for all subcontractors from the first day of construction until the notice of completion is filed. The developer shall be responsible for replacing such destroyed vegetation. 22.04.092(aa) Grading. All general grading guidelines and standards adopted by the City shall apply to hillside development unless modified by this Chapter. Title 18, Excavations and Land Fills, of the Indian Wells Municipal Code should be reviewed for applicable provisions. All persons performing any grading and excavation operation shall put into effect all necessary safety precautions to minimize erosion, protect any natural drainageways, and other natural features, protect the health and welfare of all persons, and protect private and public property from damage of any kind. Within hillside areas, all man-made slopes shall be adapted to conform to the surrounding terrain and shall be given proper aesthetic treatment. 22.04.092(an)(1) Hillside Grading. In order to maintain the natural character, environmental and aesthetic values associated with the City's distinctive hillsides, all grading and clearing operations, shall be designed wherever possible, to follow the following provisions: March, 1995 TITLE 22-38 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(aa)(1)(i) Whenever possible, grading operations shall conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of land sculpturing [contour grading or landforming] to blend graded slopes and benches with natural hillside topography. 22.04.092(aa)(1)(ii) "Landform" grading shall be applied where it offers maximum visual and environmental benefits. 22.04.092(aa)(1)(ii)(A) "Landforming" shall be applied to all slopes: adjacent to public or private streets; highly visible and permanently exposed slopes; along parks, golf courses, or other open space areas; or areas visible from down slope views, as well as to all slopes greater than one -hundred feet (100') in length or eight feet (8) in height. 22.04.092(aa)l11(ii)(B) Landforming shall be accomplished by the use of variable slope ratios, undulating of tops and toes, screening of terraces and downdrains, varying of surface features, and by landscaping. 22.04.092(aa)(1)(iii) In hillside areas, all excess excavated material shall be removed or otherwise placed to become an integral part of the site development. 22.04.092(aa)(1)(iv) The maximum horizontal distance of disturbed soil surface shall not exceed seventy-five feet (75'). 22.04.092(aa)(1)(v) Grading shall be phased so that prompt re -vegetation or construction will control erosion. 22.04.092(aa)11)(vi) Where possible, only those areas which will be built on, resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed. 22.04.0921aa)(1)(vii) Top soil shall be stockpiled during rough grading and used on cut and fill slopes. 22.04.092(aa)(1)(viii) No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled and in addition, erosion treatment provided where slopes exceed fifteen percent 0 5 %). _22.04.092(aa)(1)(ix) Slopes within City -maintained landscape easements shall not exceed a maximum grade of 3:1 or 33 1 /3 percent. 22.04.092(aa)(2) Excavations. Cut slopes shall not exceed a vertical height of twenty feet (20') unless approved by the Planning Commission. Cut slopes shall be no steeper than two (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical; subsurface drainage shall be provided as necessary for stability. 22.04.092(aa)(3) Fills. March, 1995 TITLE 22-39 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(ae)(3)(1) No finished fill slope shall exceed a vertical height of twenty feet (20') unless approved by the Planning Commission. 22.04.092(aa)(3)(ii) Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical; fill slopes shall not be located on natural slopes steeper than 2:1 or where fill slope toes out within twelve feet 0 2') horizontally of the top of an existing or planned cut slope. 22.04.092(aa)(3)(iii) Fill shall not exceed a depth of five feet (5') at any point except where the Planning Commission determines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading, or other unusual circumstances, indicate that such grading would be reasonable and necessary. 22.04.092(sa)(4) Man -Made Sloes Landscaping. On graded slopes, landscaping shall be utilized as to minimize the "engineered" look of new slopes. New slopes shall reflect and reinforce the overall visual character of the site, and be consistent with the characteristics of surrounding hillsides: 22.04.092(aa)(4)(1) Plant material height in manmade slopes shall follow contour intervals of slope as much as possible. 22.04.092(aa)(4)(H) Landscaping shall be applied in patterns similar to that which occur in surrounding terrain. 22.04.092(aa)(4)((1)(A) Trees and shrubs should be clustered in swales and valleys where moisture concentrates. 22.04.092(as)(4)(ii)(B) Shrubs should be heavily concentrated along the drainage flow of each swale and thinned to each side. 22.04.092(aa)(5) Building Pad Grading. 22.04.092(aa)(5)(1) Buildings must be designed to conform with the building site and mountain topography rather than altering the site to conform to the building. 22.04.092(aa)(5)(1)(A) in no case shall the site be graded to accommodate the project. 22.04.0921aa)(5)(()(113) In no case shall excessive slope stabilization to reduce rockfall hazards shall be permitted. Grading and clearing operations shall be limited to those areas of proven stability and free of rockfall hazards. 22.04.092(ae)(5)(ii) Natural hillside features shall be protected to the greatest extent feasible in the sitting of individual lots, building pads, or roadways. These features shall be shown on the grading plan with appropriate protection and/or relocation notes. Natural features, shall include, but are not limited to the following: March, 1995 TITLE 22-40 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.0929aal(5)(ii)(A) Ridgelines, ridgecrests, skyline profiles, hilltops, arroyos, ravines, canyons, steep slope areas (over 20% slope), natural drainage courses; 22.04.092(aa)(5)(ii)(B) Prominent stands of native plant materials, trees with four inch or larger trunk diameters; 22.04.0921an)(5)(ii)(C) Rock outcroppings, view corridors, and scenic vistas; 22.04.0924aa)(5)(ii)(D) Areas subject to rock fall, landslides, or other such hazards; 22.04.092(aa)(5)((1)(E) Rare or endangered species habitats and migratory routes of wildlife; and, 22.04.092(aa)(5)(ii)(F) Areas of high archaeological or paleontological sensitivity. 22.04.092(aa)(6) Cut and Fill Setback (Requirements. To encourage maintenance of slopes for erosion control and aesthetics, top and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back: 22.04.0921aa)(6)(1) From property boundaries a distance of three feet (3') plus one - fifth (1/5) of the height of the cut and fill, but not exceed a horizontal distance of ten feet 00T _22.04.092(aa)(6)(ii) Cut and fill slopes shall not be divided horizontally by property lines. Cut and fill slopes occurring on a side or rear lot line shall be made a part of the downhill lot. 22.04.092(sa)(7) Lot Padding. Lot padding, when permitted, shall be limited to the boundaries of the structure's foundation and a usable rear yard area of fifteen feet 0 5') and a side and front (access way) of seven feet (7') minimum adjacent to and between the structure and top or toe of slope. If it is physically unfeasible to design a reasonable usable yard area due to conflict with other grading standards, then other forms of usable open space should be considered such as: decks, patios, balconies, or other similar forms of built structures designed to fit the natural topography. 22.04.092(aa)(7)(1) When pad and terrace grading techniques are permitted, the pad configuration shall be softened with variable, undulating slopes created to give a more pleasing and natural appearance. 22.04.092(aa)(7)(ii) In no case shall successive padding and/or terracing of building sites be permitted. 22.04.092(aa)(8) Erosion Control. In order to limit the impact of grading activities on adjacent developed or undeveloped properties, the following provisions are to observed: 22.04.092(aa)(8)(1) All graded areas shall be protected from wind and water erosion through acceptable slope stabilization methods such as vegetation establishment, wind IMarc:h, 1995 TITLE 22-41 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE fencing, chemical or water suppression, soil binders, or other adequate anti -erosion devices ,such as temporary debris basins, desilting basins, or netting. 22.04.092(aa)(8)(ii) Whenever possible, construction shall be scheduled to minimize :soil disturbance between the period of November 1 and April 15 during which heavy rainfall may occur. 22.04.092(aa)181(iii) During this period no grading work in excess or two -hundred and 'fifty (250) cubic yards shall be authorized to start in any single grading site under a permit where the City Engineer determines that such work could endanger the public health or :safety. 22.04.092(aal(8)(iv) In no event shall the existing "natural" vegetation ground cover The destroyed, removed, or disturbed more than fifteen (15) days prior to grading or construction of the required site improvements. 22.04.092(aa)(8110 Within hillside areas, grading permits shall only be issued when a plan for erosion control and slit retention has been approved by the City Engineer and Building Official, without regard to time of year. 22.04.092(sa)(8)(vi) Whenever possible, only those areas which will be build upon, resurfaced, or landscaped shall be disturbed. 22.04.092(aa)(8)(vi() Whenever feasible, vegetation sufficient to stabilize the soil shall be established on all disturbed areas as each stage of grading is completed. 22.04.0921aa)(9) Objects of Antiquity. Within any hillside area, no grading, filling, clearing of vegetation, operation of equipment, or disturbance of the soil shall take place where any historic or prehistoric ruins or monuments, objects of antiquity, or geological landmarks or monuments are present. - Whenever during excavation there are uncovered or become apparent any historic or prehistoric ruins or monuments, or objects of antiquity, or geological landmarks or monuments not previously accounted for in the grading plan all work in the immediate area shal!I cease until the Director of Community Development can determine what precautions should be taken to preserve the historic artifacts. 22.04.092(bb)Drainage. 22.04.092(bb)(1) Minimum Drainage Standards. In order to retain the integrity of the natural character of the hillsides, the following minimum standards are to be observed: 22.04.092(bb)(1)(i) Whenever possible, natural drainage courses shall be protected from grading activity. 22.04.092(bb)(1)(ii) Alterations of major drainage ways shall be prohibited except for approved road crossings and drainage structures. March, 1995 TITLE 22-42 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(bb)(1)(iii) In instances where crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection shall be preferred over steel and concrete systems. 22.04.092(bb)(1)(iv) Whenever possible, natural drainage features shall be incorporated as an integral part of a project design in order to enhance the overall quality and aesthetics of a site. 22.04.092(bb)11)(v) Where appropriate, natural drainage features shall be incorporated into a project's open space network. Natural drainage courses should be used to provide contiguous linkages throughout the development parcel, and between adjacent parcels or along with major public trail systems or vista corridors. 22.04.092(bb)(1)(vi) Whenever possible, the design and location of drainage structures shall be such that their placement is not conspicuous or obtrusive. 22.04.0921bb)(1)(vii) Visible drainage channels, brow ditches, swales and similar structures shall receive a naturalizing treatment including native rock, colored concrete, and landscaping so that the structure appears as an integral part of the environment. 22.04.0921bb)(2) Site Drainage. _22.04.092(bb)(2)(1) Whenever possible, water runoff shall be returned to its natural course before leaving the property. _22.04.0921bb)(2)(i)(A) All building pads with cut and fill shall be constructed to carry surface waters to the nearest practical street, stormdrain, or natural watercourse approved by the City Engineer as a safe place to deposit such waters. 22.04.0921bb)(2)(i)(B) Where recommended by the Soils Engineer, eaves or ground gutters shall be provided to receive all roof water and deliver it through a non -erosive device to a street, or watercourse. 22.04.0921bb1(2)(i)(C) Natural drainageways shall be riprapped or otherwise stabilized below drainage and culvert discharge for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge without channel erosion. 22.04.0921bb)(2)(ii) Debris basins and energy dissipating devices shall be provided, wherre necessary, to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken in the hillside areas. 22.04.0921bb)(2)(ii)(A) Whenever such stormwater management facilities are required, they shall be designed in as small an area as possible. 22.04.092(bb)(2)(110I13) Retention basins, if required, shall need landscaping plans. Where feasible, landscaping materials that enhance wildlife habitat shall be utilized. March, 1995 TITLE 22-43 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(bb)12)(P Curb, gutter, and pavement design shall be such that water on roadways is prevented from flowing off the roadway in an uncontrolled fashion. 22.04.092(bb)12)(iv) Within hillside areas the use of cross lot drainage shall be minimized. In situations where this is not possible using conventional design, optional techniques including, but not limited to, single loaded streets and reduced densities shall be considered. Extensive use of cross lot drainage shall be subject to Planning Commission review and may be considered only after demonstration that this method will not adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is absolutely required in order to minimize the amount of grading which would result with conventional drainage practices. Where cross lot drainage is utilized, the following shall apply: 22.04.092(bb)(2)(iv)(A) Project Interiors. One lot may drain across one other lot if an easement is provided within either an improved, open V-swale gutter which has a naturalized appearance, or within a closed drainage pipe which shall be a minimum 12 inches in diameter. This drainage shall be conveyed to either a public street or to a drainage easement. If drainage is conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained by a homeowners' association; otherwise, the drainage shall be conveyed to a public easement such as a public alley, paseo, or trail. The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. 22.04.092(bb)12)(iv)(B) Project Boundaries. On -site drainage shall be conveyed in an improved open V-swale gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or within an underground pipe in either a private drainage easement, which is to be maintained by a homeowners' association, or it shall be conveyed in a public easement such as a public alley,, paseo, or trail. The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. 22.04.0921bb)(3) Off -Site Draina a Facilities. All off -site drainage facilities conditioned as part of project approval shall be installed prior to commencement of on -site grading. 22.04.0921cc) Public Safety. 22.04.0921cc)(1) Building She With Potential Hazards. Within any designated hillside area, structures for human occupancy shall not be placed on those lands identified as being subject to flooding, landslide, rockf all, seismic or wildfire hazards. Where special construction methods or techniques may reduce the potential hazards of a building site, development may be permissible upon the approval of the Community Development Director, City Engineer and Fire Marshal. Any allowable development shall only be permitted if it is consistent with the guidelines and standards set forth in this document. March, 1995 TITLE 22-44 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(ccl(2) Unbuildable Lands. Within any designated hillside area, structures or construction improvements shall not be placed on those lands indicated as unbuildable: 22.04.092(cc)(2)(i) Slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) slope are identified as unbuildable. 22.04.092(cc)(2)(ii) Property inaccessible for emergency vehicles necessary to serve hillside areas are identified as unbuildable. 22.04.092(cc)(2)(iii) Property inaccessible to adequate water supply and pressure necessary to serve hillside areas are identified as unbuildable. 22.04.092(cc)(3) Fire Protection. As part of the project review process, the Fire (Department shall inspect the site to identify any unique conditions that may require special fire prevention precautions. The specifics for Fire Prevention Standards are contained in Chapter 16.32 of the Indian 'Neils Municipal Code which require, among other items: 22.04.092(cc)(3)(i) Cul-de-sac streets to be no greater than 500 feet in length without :secondary access. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(ii) Water flow duration, commonly called fire flow, is two (2) hours for up to 1,500 gallons per minute, for single-family detached residences. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(iii) Fire hydrants must be within two -hundred feet (200') of all portions of a single-family detached residence. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(iv) Street grades shall not be permitted which exceed fifteen percent (15 %) slope. 22.04.092(cc)(31(v) All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within one -hundred and fifty feet 0 50') of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(vi) Dead-end roads in excess of one -hundred and fifty feet (150') shall be provided with a minimum forty-five foot (45') radius turn -around. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(vii) Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(viii) All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses. 22.04.092(cc)(3)(ix) Shake shingle roofs are not permitted in the City of Indian Wells. March, 1995 TITLE 22-45 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE These guidelines are only a small representation of the existing Fire Code Guidelines. It is important that contact be made with the City Fire Department staff to adequately address fire prevention requirements. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.095 Interpretation of Standards. If ambiguity arises concerning interpretation of the provisions contained in any development guideline or design standard, the Director of Community Development shall review to determine compliance with the provision(s) in question, or may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Such interpretation may be appealed by the applicant [aggrieved party] or any member of the City Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 21.06.110, Appeals, of they Indian Wells Municipal Code. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.100 Element Conflict. Where conflicts in regulations occur, the regulations, development guidelines, or design standards set forth in this Chapter or in a approved Conditional Use Permit or Specific Plan approved pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.110 Waivers. 22.04.1101a1 Council Authority to Modify Requirements. The City Council may reduce, modify, or waive those particular requirements of this Chapter which would not result in hazard to life or limb, hazard to property, adverse affects on the safety, use, or stability of a public way, facility, or drainage channel, or adverse impact on the natural environment. 22.04.110(b) Procedure for Requesting a Modification. To request the modification of any of the provisions of this Chapter, the applicant shall submit a request, in writing, together with all required fees and required application materials set forth in this Chapter. The request shall itemize each provision for which a modification is sought and shall state the reason(s) for which the modification is requested. 22.04.110(b)(1) The City Council may approve and/or modify a request for modification in whole or part, with or without conditions. At their discretion, the City Council may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this Chapter. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.120 Violations. 22.04.120(a) General Violations. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain, defaces, grades, grubs, scars, or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain in the hillside area without prior City approval of plans for such work, subject to this Chapter, shall have created a public nuisance which shall be abated. Abatement may include the property owner undertaking the restoration (under City supervision and monitoring), or that failing, City contracted restoration of the disrupted area. The property owner may be charged the cost of the restoration together with the direct costs of supervision and monitoring of the restoration. If the property owner fails to March, 1995 TITLE 22-46 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE reimburse the City the costs incurred, a lien against the property for payment may be instituted and collected. 22.04� Specific Violations. Within a designated "hillside" area no person shall fail, refuse, or neglect to comply with the following provisions: 22.04.120(b)(1) All orders issued by the Building Director, City Engineer, or Director of C:ominunity Development pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; 22.04.120(b)(2) All conditions imposed on grading permits, building permits, Conditional Use Permits or Architecture and Landscape Review approval pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; and 22.04.120(b)(3) All rules and regulations of the office of the City Engineer or designee with respect to grading which were in effect at the time the grading permit was issued. (Ord. 356 § 1, 1995; Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.125 Penalties. 22.04.125(a) Separate Offense For Each Day of Violation. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Chapter, permit, or City approval shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day, or portion thereof, during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, permit, or City approval is committed, continued, or permitted. 22.04.125(b) Withholding of Building Permit, Inspections and Certificate of Occupancy. 'The issuance of a building permit, performance of building permit inspections, or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld for property on which violation of the provisions of this Chapter exists, until such violation has been corrected or mitigated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee. 22.04.125(c1 Misdemeanor Penalties. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction of any such violation such person shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 22.04.125(d) Other Remedies. In addition to any other remedies for violation of City Ordinances in force, the City may bring and maintain any action permitted by law to restrain, correct, or abate any violation of this Chapter and in the event that legal action is brought by the City, reasonable attorneys fees and court costs shall be awarded to the City and shall constitute a debt owned by the violator to the City. The City may place a lien on the affected property in the event any debts so incurred are not timely paid. (Ord. :335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). 22.04.130 'Transfer of Development Rights. The purpose of "transfer of development rights" is to provide a procedure whereby the potential development of an area, which March, 1995 TITLE 2247 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE stands to suffer adverse environmental impacts, can be credited and then transferred to another more appropriate area in order to preserve the character and identity of the former area. 22.04.130(a) Transfer Entitlement. For any parcel of land within a designated hillside area, the potential residential development rights or credits [transfer entitlement], shall be determined by a parcels or areas particular zoning district [land use category]. 22.04.130(b) Sending Parcel. Sending parcels from which potential residential development rights or credits can be sold or transferred shall be limited to only those lands designated as "hillside" area as illustrated in the General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element Figure COS-1. 22.04.130(c) Receiving Parcel. 22.04.130(c)(1) Owner May Transfer. Any owner of property within a designated hillside area, with residential development entitlements, may transfer development rights from a hillside area: 22.04.130(c1(1)(() To a more appropriate [developable] parcel of hillside land on the basis of one (1) residential unit per forty (40) acres; or, 22.04.130(c)(1)(ii) To a parcel of land outside of the designated hillside area [valley floor) on the basis of one and one half (1.5) residential units per forty (40) acres. 22.04.130(c)(2) Property Receiving Transfer. The property receiving the transfer of development rights may be: 22.04.130(c)(2)(i) A subdivided portion of the same property; or, 22.04.130(c)(2)(ii) By means of sale or transfer to an adjacent property; or, 22.04.130(c)(2)(iii) By means of sale or transfer to any area of the City which has been designated with a land use category of Medium Density Residential [RMD] or higher, provided the increase for any particular parcel does not exceed 20% of the zoning district [land use category] density designation. 22.04.130(c)(3) Development Entitlement. Additionally, any owner of property within a designated hillside area may at their discretion sell, bequeath, or transfer the development rights of the property, in accordance with Chapter 22.04, Hillside Management, Sections 22.04.000 through 22.04.120, and Section 22.04.130, Transfer of Development Rights, to any governmental jurisdiction or any nonprofit organization whose charter allows for the ownership and/or transfer of development rights. Upon obtaining development entitlement any governmental jurisdiction or nonprofit organization may retain, sell, or transfer acquired development rights in accordance with Section 22.04.130, Transfer of Development Rights. March, 1995 TITLE 22--48 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.130(d) Incentives for Participation. In order to provide incentives to encourage transfer of development rights transactions the City Council intends to negotiate development incentives with developers proposing projects on properties which apply development rights or credits. The City Council shall review with the prospective developer(s) the following matters as incentives: 22.04.1301d)(1) Streamline permit processing for projects on receiving site properties; 22.04.130(d)(2) Fast track processing of development plans; 22.04.130(d)(3) Fee reductions; 22.04.130(d)(4) Waiver of City fees; 22.04.130(d)(5) Relaxation of City standards, including density increases; 22.04.130(d)(6) Combinations of the above; and, 22.04.130(d)(7) Any additional valid proposals submitted. 22.04.130(e) Density Bonuses. Transferred development rights or credits shall not be become a part of the base on which density bonuses granted for providing affordable housing or other such density bonuses which may be from time to time adopted in other enabling legislation are figured. 22.04.130(f) Initiating a Transfer . To initiate a "transfer of development right" for any parcel within a hillside area, the property owner(s) or assignee(s) shall follow those procedure and standards as outlined in all of the following: 22.04.130(f)(1) Requirements. 22.04.130(f)(1)(i) Transfer of development rights or credits shall take place under the guidance of the City and shall be documented by means of recordation. 22.04.130(f)(1)(ii) The sending parcels, from which development rights are being removed must: 22.04.130(f)(1)(ii)(A) Remove all development rights or credits at the same time (residual development rights or credits cannot be left on the property); 22.04.130(f)(1)(ii)(B) Be mappable; according to the Subdivision Map Act requirements, i.e., a legal description and a total acreage will be required to be recorded. March, 1995 TITLE 22-49 INDIAN WELLS (MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.130(f)(1)(ii)(C) If a property consists of both undevelopable and developable portions, a subdivision shall be required to separate developable from undevelopable portions of the property to allow transfer of rights from the undevelopable portion to the developable portion. 22.04.130(f)(1)00(13) Record a document which acknowledges that all development rights or credits for the described parcel have been extinguished and that no further residential development can occur on the parcel. 22.04.130(f)(1)(iii) The receiving parcel, to which development rights or credits are being transferred must: 22.04.130(f)(1)(iii)(A) Be mappable according to the Subdivision Map Act requirements, i.e., a legal description and a total acreage will be required to be recorded; 22.04.130(f)(1)((ii)(B) Record a document of affixture (or attachment) which has been attested to by the City Clerk of the City of Indian Wells, attaching the transferred development rights or credits to a specific parcel, in perpetuity, following the sense of the example of language contained in Section 22.04.130(k), Documentation. 22.04.130(f)(1)(iv) Documents of transfer and affixture must be recorded. Evidence of the Recordation must be supplied to the City Clerk of the City of Indian Wells within thirty (30) days of the date of attestation by the City Clerk. 22.04.130(f)(2) Review Procedure. 22.04.130(f)(2)(i) Five (5) copies of transfer documents shall be filed with the Director of Community Development. 22.04.130(f)(2)(ii) Upon filing with the Director the required number of copies, one (1) copy shall be immediately forwarded the City Engineer, City Attorney, or any other officer, department, or agency as deemed necessary. 22.04.130(f)(2)(01) Each of the officers, departments, or agencies which are the subject of the document distribution shall be requested to report to the Community Devellopment Director their findings, requirements and/or recommendations within fifteen ('15) working days. 22.04.130(f)(2)(iv) if the transfer documents are found to be in correct form and the matters shown thereon are sufficient, the Director of Community Development shall endorse approval thereon and transmit it to the City Council for consideration. 22.04.130(f)(2)(v) Endorsed transfer documents shall be placed on the City Council Consent Calendar. Any City Council Member or any interested person may remove the item from the Consent Calendar for discussion or may request that the item be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. It the item is removed from the Consent Calendar, the City Council shall hold at least one (1) public hearing and the requirements of March, 1995 TITLE 22-50 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE Section 21.100.100, Public Hearings, shall apply. If the item remains on the Consent Calendar, the item shall be deemed approved when the Consent Calendar containing that item is approved. 22.04.130(f)(2)(vi) The City Clerk shall only attest to a transfer of development rights or credits upon receipt of written authorization from the City Manager. 22.04.130(f)(3) Required Findings. Prior to recommending approval or approving the proposed transfer of development rights, the following findings must be made: 22.04.130(f)(3)(1) That the benefit to the community from relocating development off the sending site exceeds that cost to the community that would result from additional development on the receiving site. 22.04.130(f)(3)(ii) That there are costs associated with additional development allowed through transfer of development rights on the receiving parcel, which costs the community would not be willing to bear, were it not for those benefits to the community from participating in a transfer of development rights or credits program. 22.04.130(f)(3)(M) That the ongoing ownership and management of the sending parcel has been provided for with the intent to preserve the natural open space of the hillside area in perpetuity, in accordance to Section 22.04.130(m), Sending Parcels Ownership and Maintenance. 22.04.130(f)(4) Timing. A condition of approval of the development rights transfer shall specify the sending and receiving parcels subject to the transfer which shall be recorded no later than ninety (90) days from the date of City approval. In the event that a parcel of hillside land (with development rights still attached) is granted, bequeathed, sold, transferred, given or otherwise becomes the property of a not -for -profit land trust, conservancy, or public agency, the receiving entity shall have an unlimited period from the date of receipt in which to dispose of the development rights by sale or other means. When development rights are transferred to a specific receiving parcel, the ninety (90) day time limit shall apply as in Section 22.04.1300)(1) above. 22.04.130(f)(5) Documentation. 22.04.1301f)(5)(i) Sending Parcel. There shall be recorded for the sending parcel a document having the sense of the following: 22.04.1301f)(5)(1)(A) "Pursuant to Section 22.04.130 of Chapter 22.04 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code, Transfer of Development Rights, this parcel(s) APN# , (legal description and total acreage of sending parcel or portion of the parcel attached as Exhibit 'A') identified herein as a sending parcel, currently contains (number) development rights or credits which are being removed from the property". March, 1995 TITLE 22-51 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.130(f)(5)(i)IB) An acknowledgement "that all development rights or credits for the described sending parcel(s) have been extinguished; that no further development can occur on the parcel(s); and, no further development rights or credits shall accrue to the parcel(s) in perpetuity". 22.04.130(f)(5)(1)(C) An acknowledgement "that acceptable uses on sending parcels, from which development rights have been removed, shall be limited to those uses as specified in Section 22.04.130(I) of Chapter 22.04 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code, Transfer of Development Rights". 22.04.130(f)(5)(1)(D) The Assessor's Parcel Number of the parcel to which the development rights or credits are being transferred. 22.04.130(f)(5)(i)(E) The notarized signature, name and address of the legal and beneficial owner(s) of the parcel(s). 22.04.130(f)(5)(i)(F) "The signature of the City Clerk of the City of Indian Wells affixed below attests to the legitimate transfer of these development rights from this property (as described in Exhibit 'A' )". 22.04.130(f)(5)(ii) Receiving Parcel. There shall be recorded for the receiving parcel a document having the sense of the following: 22.04.130(f)(5)(ii)(A) "In addition to the number of dwelling units on this parcel APN # , (legal description and total acreage attached as Exhibit "A") which may be permitted by the City of Indian Wells by virtue of the General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Category which applies to the parcel, this Parcel shall be permitted (number) of additional dwelling units per acre, which have been transferred to this parcel pursuant to Section 22.04.130 of Chapter 22.04 of the Municipal Code, Transfer of Development Rights". 22.04.130(f)(5)(ii)(B) "These additional dwelling units are hereby affixed to this parcel APN # and may not be further transferred, sold, traded, or otherwise removed from this parcel, except by the purchase by the City of Indian Wells or other public agency authorized by the City". 22.04.130(f)(5)(ii)(C) The Assessor's Parcel Number(s) of the sending parcel(s) from which the development rights or credits have been removed and transferred and affixed to this parcel. 22.04.130(f)(5)(ii)(D) "The signature of the City Clerk of the City of Indian Wells affixed below attests to the legitimate transfer of these development rights to this property (as described in Exhibit 'A')". 22.04.130(f)(61 Permitted Uses on Sending Sites. March, 1995 TITLE 22-52 I VP INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.130(f)(6)(1) Acceptable uses on sending parcels, from which development rights have been removed, shall be limited to: 22.04.1301f)(6)(i)(A) Open space purposes (undeveloped); 22.04.130(f)(6)(1)(B) Watershed or game reserve; 22.04.130(f)(6)(i)(C) Hiking and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles subject to approved of a Conditional Use Permit; 22.04.130(016)(()(D) Property maintenance such as is necessary to maintain property in a safe and natural condition; 22.04.130(f)(6)(1)(E) Scientific and educational study consistent with a program developed by competent authority and approved by the City Council; 22.04.130(f)(6)(1111) No use nor improvement other than that above, shall be permitted. 22.04.130(f)(7) Sending Parcels Ownership and Maintenance. Those sending parcels which are to remain as undeveloped open spaces which are to be used for game preserve, scientific or educational study areas, or open space purposes, may be offered through dedication, to a governmental jurisdiction, or to a not -for -profit land trust, conservancy, or similar organization whose charter allows for the ownership of lands which will preserve the natural open space of the hillside area in perpetuity. If however, the public agency, or city, or land trust, conservancy, or similar organization does not accept such an offer or if such an offer is not made, the property owner of the sending parcels shall make provisions for the ownership and care of the sending parcels in such a manner that there can be necessary protection and maintenance thereof. Where necessary sending parcels shall be provided with appropriate access or access easements and shall be designated as separate parcels which may be maintained through special fees charged to the residents of the subject development or through an appropriate homeowner's association or maintenance district. Where necessary the appropriate, maintenance in perpetuity shall be guaranteed through the bond of the developer, property owner, association, or agent. (Ord. 335 § 1 Exhibit A, 1994). March, 1995 TITLE 22-53 American Planning Association and the Lincoln Institute of Land Polio Audio Conference Training Series New Directions in Mel Planning September 10,1997 Best Development Practices December 3,1997 Property Rights V. PUNK Resource Protection January 28,1998 Public Anger mW Conmumity Decision Malting June 3,1998 AUDIENCE Designed especially for all community appointed and elected officials... and their staffs. Programs focus on planning and the public decision -making process. PCs LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY Budget too tight to meet all your training needs? Jo time to organize in-house training? here's the perfect answer low does it workI le audio conference is delivered to you live over a speaker telephone. All you do is assemble your group -ound the phone and dial the number provided to you when you register. low many people can attend? s many people coin attend as you want. You register for the phone line, not by the person. ,qu can train an entire council, board, or commission for as little as $70. 'm really busy. Now long does this take? 11 programs are one hour in length. All are held on Wednesdays at 4 p.m. E.S.T. Each program is scripted )r an audio format and engages the listener in a lively discussion. :an 1 ask questions at the speakers? 'es. Fax them in ahead of time or ask them during the program. ~ if 8 cant make that date? 'urchase a tape and transcript of the program (see option B on the registration form). Receive the tape )f the live program, plus the transcript to read at your leisure. Use for future training. Anything else? (es. With your re; istration you receive reading materials, an agenda, and instructions on how to ask your questions. For copies of agendas of the programs call APRs 24-hour fax -on -demand service at 800-800-1589. Ask for :hese documents: information on how an audio conference works (#3005) and program agenda (#3006). resenters -lude elected and appointed officials, planning directors, land -use attorneys, developers, planning nsultants, policy researchers, and academic researchers few Directions in Neighborhood Planning eptember 10, 1997, 4 p.m., E.S.T. �ighborhood planning is moving in new directions, drawing together a range of partners to address >mmunity problems. As federal funds decline, more responsibility is moving to the local level to provide �rvices and support healthy communities. Find out how communities across the country have developed ,,ighborhood planning that stays the course. Learn how citizens have become involved in solving their °oblems and improving life in their neighborhoods. >est Development Practices December 3119979 4 p.m., E.S.T. uthor Reid Ewing; and a panel of developers and planners discuss Ewing's recent book, Best evelopment Practices: Doing the Right Thing and Making Money at the Same Time. Noted transportation searcher Robert Cervero says of Ewing's book, "This tour de force convinces us that good development both sustainable and profitable." Learn what sustainability and sprawl really mean and how they -anslate into daily governmental decision -making terms. 'roperty Rights v. Public Resource Protection lanuary 285 19985 4 p.m., E.S.T. .earn how the property rights debate affects public and private claims to land value. Why are some tates enacting takings legislation that may lead to compensation for property owners subject to local overnment regulation? How should government actions that increase private property values be treated ender this approach? What are local government, the courts, and legislatures doing to reconcile property ights and land -use regulation, and how will this affect your community? Public Anger and Community Decision Making June 3, 1998, 4 p.m., E.S.T. )o you feel besieged by an angry public? Is more citizen involvement the answer? Have local governments 'ailed in the ways they treat citizens in the planning and decision -making process? A follow up to the )opular 1997 audio conference, this program deals with strategies and tactics that channel anger into ?ositive ends. Panelists analyze the causes of anger and provide case studies. Learn how attitudes can be -hanged, challenges dealt with fairly, and community decision -making processes and outcomes improved. Early Registration Deadline is August 22 Make check payable to and mail to: American Planning Association Lock Box 94343 Chicago, IL 60678-4343 Or fax to (credit card and purchase orders only): 312-431-9985 Do not mail your registration after August 22; fax only Registration Information: Your name Your title - - - - Nano of Organization or Agency - -- --- ---- - - Mailing Address city — - - — — -- State -- ---- --- - - - Zip --- Phone--- -------- - Fax - - -- -- Registration Fees ($20 late fee is charged after August 22): Option A. Audio Conferences Only (live audio conference and course book) New Directions in Neighborhood Planning, Sept. 10,1997...............................................................................$70 Best Development Practices, Dec. 3,1997............................................................................................................$70 Property Rights v Public Resource Protection, Jan. 28,1998...........................................................................$70 1 Public Anger and Community Decision Making, June 3,1998..........................................................................$70 All four programs (special savings)...............................................................................................................$240 Option s: Audio Conferences and Tape Packages (live audio conference, tape, transcript and course book) New Directions in Neighborhood Planning, Sept. 10,1997.............................................................................$100 Best Development Practices, Dec. 3,1997..........................................................................................................$100 Property Rights vs. Public Resource Protection, Jan. 28,1998......................................................................$100 Public Anger and Community Decision Making, June 3,1998........................................................................$100 All four Programs (special savings)...............................................................................................................$360 Total Amount Method of Payment check enclosed purchase order, copy attached : Visa card Mastercard Number Expiration bate Name of Card Voider - -- -- - -- - -- -- - Signature of Card Holder American Planning Association 122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60603-6107 Fax 312.431.9985 Phone 312.431.9100 July 15, 1997 Dear Chair of the Planning Commission: What do your planning commissioner colleagues know that you don't? The secret to keeping up- to-date on planning issues affecting their communities. Timely, concise and utterly convenient programs are delivered live, right at your desk. How? Through audio conferencing. Without leaving your office, you can hear leading experts discuss topics that go to the heart of planning in American communities today. Hear how to keep good planning at the core of community decision making. Invite your city council to join you for these exciting programs: • New Directions in Neighborhood Planning September 10, 1997 • Best Development Practices December 3, 1997 • Property Rights v. Public Resource Protection January 28, 1998 • Public Anger and Community Decision Making June 3, 1998 You told us you wanted convenient training that fits everyone's busy work lives. So, to accornmodate you, all programs are one hour long. Programs allow call -in or fax -in questions and include background reading materials on each topic. Register by August 22' and save $40 on the four-part series. Questions? Call Candace Kane or me at 312-431-9100. Sincerely, 1 rn� Carolyn Torma Education Manager P.S. Don't forget. Register by August 22nd and save $40 on the four-part series. President: Eric Damian Kelly, AICP Immediate Past President: Richard Codd, AICP Executive Director: Frank S. So, AICP Save 20% orll Best Development Practices when you register for the 1997 Best Development Practices aud.ioconference. December 3, 199 7 Planners Book Service 122 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 1600 Chicago, 11- b0603 312-786-6344 phone 312-431-9985 fax (Federal Taa- ID No. 52-1134021) Subtotal $ n this richly illustrated book, Reid Ewing argues that developers can create vibrant, livable communities —and. still make money in the process. Ewing first searched the state of Florida for the best contemporary developments. He then studied these exceptional places to find out what lessons they held for planners and developers nationwide. In Best Development Practices, Ewing distills these lessons into 43 "best practices" for four areas of development — land use, transportation, the environment, and housing. For developers, he asserts, these practices make good business sense. For local governments, they reduce automobile dependence, increase the supply of affordable housing, and serve other important public purposes. The proof lies in the case examples he highlights. Copublished by the Urban Land Institute. Subtotal �y. 11 • T- q ..... $ Applicable Sales Tax $ pllinois residents pay 8.75% sales tax. i f tax-exempt, enter Illinois Tax ID No.) Shipping/Handling $ ,based on Subtotal) Subtotal of Add $19 or less $ 5 $20 -$29 $ 6 $30-$39 $ 7 $40-$59 $ 8 $60-$79 $ 9 $80-$99 $10 $100-5149 $12 $150-$249 $15 $250 or more 6% of subtotal Shipping Surcharges $ Add $4 for Canadian delivery Reid Ewing. 1996. 180 pp. (Planners Press.) $42.95 list (paperback); $34.35 if registered for BDP audioconference and ordered on this form by 113198. Name Firm Street Address (no P.O. boxes) CitylStatelZip Daytime phone no. Fax no. ❑ Purchase order enclosed. ❑ Check enclosed, payable to APA. ❑ I'll pay by: ❑ MasterCard ❑ Visa Card number Expires I I am an APA member. 1 This agency is a 'AS subscriber Total $ Signature 7 — AC -A MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JERRY HERMAN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOI�,�'� DATE.: AUGUST 12, 1997 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM VIII.A. - RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Per your direction at your last meeting, this subject is on the Agenda for discussion. We have attached Chapter 2.29-Planning Commission from the Municipal Code and a section from the Handbook for Commissions, Boards, and Committees relating to the Commission's responsibilities for your review and comment. In addition, a copy of the current Side Development Permit application is included for discussion. 2.29.010 Chapter 2.29 PLANNING COMMISSION Sections: 2-29.010 Created. 2.29.020 Secretary, staff support, committees. 2-29.030 Meetings —Rules of procedure. 2.29.010 Created. Pursuant to Section 65100 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law, there is established for the city a planning agency, consisting of a planning department, a planning commission, and the city council, acting in combination. The planning commission shall consist of seven members, serving with such compensation as the city council may from time to time determine, and appointed in the manner and for the terms prescribed in Sections 2.04.060 and 2.06.010, respectively, of this code. It shall have the powers, functions and duties prescribed in the Planning and Zoning Law, and in the La Quinta zoning ordinance and in this code and other local ordinances; provided, that it shall not exercise any direct contracting authority as specified in Section 65OC17 of the Planning and Zoning Law. (Ord. 241 § 2. 1994: Ord. 9 § 1 (part), 1982) 2.29.020 Secretary, staff support, committees. The commission shall be authorized to appoint and fix the membership of such number of standing and temporary committees as it may find expedient for the performance of its duties. The city manager shall appoint a person to act as secretary to the commission, and shall be responsible for providing the necessary staff support. (Ord. 9 § 1 (part), 1982) 2.29..030 Meetings —Rules of procedure. The planning commission shall meet at least once each month at such time and place as shall be fixed by the commission by its standing rules. A majority of the existing appointed members of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the general transaction of business, subject, however, to more restrictive requirements as to the number of votes necessary in order to take certain actions, as may be prescribed in the Planning and Zoning Law. The commission may establish such Hiles and regulations as it deems necessary and expedient for the conduct of its business, and shall, in compliance with Section 65804 of the Planning and Zoning Law, develop and publish procedural rules for conduct of the commission's hearings so that all interested parties shall have: advance knowledge of procedures to be followed. In matters relating to the holding of regular and special meetings, the commission is bound by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act of the state (Sections 54950 et seq. of the California Government Code). (Ord. 9 § 1 (part), 1982) 33 RA Qumta 4-94) Plan ' Commission The Planning Commission, established in 1982, is coordinated by the Community Development Department and is comprised of seven members appointed by the City Council. The Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meetings are the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. Their primary function is to carry out the powers and duties as prescribed in the Planning and Zoning Laws of the State of California and the City of La Quinta Zoning Ordinance as well as to serve as an advisory body to the City Council. The Planning Commission's duties include developing and maintaining the City's general plan, consideration of new development applications, design review of new developments, and development of specific plans in addition to other duties. Traffic Committee The Traffic Committee, established in 1987, is a technical committee coordinated by the Public Works Department and is comprised of six members (i.e. representatives from Caltrans, County Road Department, Sheriffs Department, Desert Sands Unified School District, the City Engineer and the Community Safety Director). The Committee meets quarterly and advises the City on traffic regulations and signage, assists in the preparation of traffic reports and receives complaints on traffic matters. 12 City Of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 777-7125 OFFICE USE ONLY General Plan Amendment Rezone (Map Amend) ❑ Code Amendment ❑ Tentative Tract Map ❑ Tentative Parcel Map ❑ Site Plan Review ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Other: ❑ APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVAL L PROPERTY OWNER Name Mailing Address City, State, .Zip:_ II. APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE Name Mailing Address. City, State,.Zip: III. ENGINEERIARCHITECT Name Mailing Address City, State, .Zip:_ IV. PROJECT/PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Project Narne:_ Summary of'Proposal: Proposed Use: form.,108 Phone Phone Phone V. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Location: Street Address: Legal Description: Tract/Parcel No.: Assessors Parcel Number(s) Parcel Size (area): acres/ V. SUBMLSSION REQUIREMENTS ❑ architectural elevations (25) ❑ existing conditions plans (25) ❑ site/development plans (25) ❑ tentative tract/parcel maps (25) ❑ color & materials board ❑ geotechnical/soils report ❑ other V SIGNA TURE A CKNO WLEDGMENT Block: Parcel(s): square feet ❑ title report ❑ resident mailing labels (3) ❑ prelim. Grading plans (15) ❑ prelim. Landscape plans (25) ❑ traffic impact analysis ❑ cultural resources report ❑ other I hereby acknowledge that this application will not be considered complete until I have submitted all required documentation and have been notified in writing from the Community Development Department, within thirty (30) days of submission, that the application is complete. I hereby certify that all information contained in this application, including all plans and materials required by the City's application submission requirements, is, to thf best of my knowledge, true and correct. I hereby grant the City authority to enter onto the property to conduct site inspections and to post required public notices. Property Owner's Signature Applicant/Representative's Signature Existing G.P. Designation(s): Existing Zor„ing:_ Application received by Fee received: Log Number: _ OFFICE USE ONL Y Date Check No.: Receipt No.: Project Name: fonn.408 CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ?0 sets of the following plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, unles otherwise noted or directed by staff. Preferred size is 11" x 17". If unable to provide legible plans o 11" x 17", please use 24" x 36" size. Plans shall be folded to 8Yz" x 1 1" unless colored. Plans, shall include, at a minimum, the following items at the time of submittal: SUBMITTED Yes No N/A I . Existing Site Plan showing dimensioned boundaries of the project site, existinl contours and vegetation, existing structures and other site features, adjacen property including driveways and improvements, a minimum of 300' from thi project boundaries, all existing and ultimate right-of-way, including private stree easements. 2. Proposed Site Plan: Drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, showing thf following: ° ° ° A. Property line boundaries. ° ° ° B. Where applicable, proposed buildings, structures, driveways, parking areas, service areas (including trash and recycling areas), above ground utilities (proposed and existing), air conditioning units, landscaping and hardscape areas, sidewalks, bicycle paths, easements, perimeter and screen walls, etc. ° ° ° C. Existing improvements and natural features which are proposed to be retained and incorporated into the project. ° ° ° D. Included on this plan shall be tabulations for the following: project area size, building square footage (individual and total), hardscape (parking areas and walks) square footage, landscape square footage and required and provided parking spaces. ° ° ° E. One colored copy of plot plan. 3. Grading Plan: showing existing and proposed pad elevations, adjacent street elevations, parking lot, driveway, landscape, mounding elevations, drainage patterns, dry wells, retention areas, etc. (grading may be indicated on site plan if clearly readable). ° ° ❑ 4. Building Plans: showing the following: ° Cl Cl A. Floor plans showing allocation of space and location of all door and window openings. ° ° ° B. Roof plans indicating pitch, line of exterior wall, roof mounted mechanical equipment, skylights, solar panels, trellis areas, columns, etc. a:docss.0 I VA I SUBMITTED Yes No N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ C. Architectural drawings of all elevations of all buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion of construction. All exterior surfacing materials and colors shall be specified on the plans. Heights of buildings, at maximum points, and other relevant heights (i.e. towers, etc.) shall be dimensioned and shown on plans. Longitudinal and latitudinal sections of each proposed building. ❑ ❑ ❑ D. One colored set of all building elevations for each proposed building accurately representing exterior colors. ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Sign Program: Plans showing materials, letter style, size, sign colors, method/intensity of illumination, and sign type. Elevations shall indicate sign designs and locations or probable locations and size of sign "envelopes", when appropriate. Generic names may be used if a tenant is not known. ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Exterior Lighting Plan: showing type of fixture, location, height, source, and surface illumination. ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Photographs: One set of subject property photographs (minimum 4" x 6") and surrounding development shall be submitted as follows: ❑ ❑ ❑ A. One panoramic view of each side of the site. ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Views of all relevant or unusual features of the site. ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Landscaping Plans: showing the quantity and location of all plant material, a legend noting the common and botanical name and size (including tree caliper) of all plant material. Plan to be at "preliminary" level of development. Type of full coverage irrigation system (spray, emitter, and/or drip) shall be specified on plan. Detail sheet showing all proposed designs for fences, walls and other screening features. ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Material and Color Sample Board: A material sample board showing all exterior materials, finishes, and colors including hardscape (when decorative), shall be submitted on a maximum 9" x 13" heavyweight board. Materials, finishes, and colors shall be keyed to plans. For materials such as roof tile, decorative tile and trim, etc., photographs or manufacturer's specification sheet of said material in the field clearly showing textures, colors, etc., may be submitted in place of actual sample. ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Reductions of the above plans (8.5" x 11") if submitting the 24" x 36" size plans. NOTE: Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. a:docss.011kA 1 -2- CHAPTER 9.210: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMITS Sections: 9.210.010 Site Development Permits ........................... 210-1 9.210.020 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits ........ 210-3 9.210.030 Variances ......................................... 2104 9.210.040 Minor Adjustments ................................ 210-6 9.210.050 'Temporary Use Permits ............................. 210-7 9.210.060 Home Occupation Permits .......................... 210-7 9.210.070 Sign Permits ...................................... 210-9 9.210.010 Site Development Permits. A. Terminology. For purposes of this Code, site, architectural, lighting, and landscape plans, related development plans, and sign programs are included within the term "site development permit".(A:evised 4/97) B. Purpose. The purpose of a site development permit is to ensure that the development and design standards of this Zoning Code, including but not limited to permitted uses, development standards, and supplemental regulations are satisfied. The site development permit process provides a means of achieving this purpose through City review of detailed plans for proposed development projects. C. Applicability. A site development permit is required for all projects which involve building construction except the following: 1. Individual single family houses and alterations to single family houses or associated accessory structures, unless a site development permit is otherwise required by an applicable provision of this Code or permit condition of approval. 2. Temporary uses (requires temporary use permit per Section 9.210.050). D. Decision -Making Authority. Site development permits shall be processed by the Planning Commission per Section 9.210.010 unless otherwise stipulated in this Code. E. Precise Development Plan. Upon approval, a site development permit constitutes a precise development plan. Therefore, all development authorized under a site development permit and any land uses associated with the developrent shall be in compliance with the plans, specifications, and conditions; of approval shown on and/or attached to the approved permit. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of any site development permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code. The project is consistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. 210-1 9.210. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMITS 3. Compliance with CEQA. Processing and approval of the permit application are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the project, including but not Iimited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Landscape Design. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. 7. Sign Programs. Per Section 9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review), in order to approve a planned sign program the decision -making authority must find that: a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160 (Signs); b. The sign program is in harmony with and visually related to: ( ll) All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of several common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type or sign shape. (2) The buildings they identify. This may be accomplished by utilizing materials, colors, or design motif included in the building being identified. (3) Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign program will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent conforming signs. G. Appeals. Appeals to decisions on site development permits shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 9.200.120. H. Expiration and Time Extensions. The period of validity for establishment of a site development permit is one year from its effective date as defined in Section 9.200.060. Time extensions may be granted pursuant to Section 9.200.080. I. .Amendments. Amendments to site development permits shall be processed pursuant to Section 210-2 9.210. DEVELOPMENT imm; w pERMITS 9.200.100. J., Stajf Certification of Construction Documents. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Director shall certify that final construction documents conform to preliminary plans (schematic elevations, preliminary site and landscape plans, etc.) approved as part of the site development permit. 9.210..020 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits. A.. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit or minor use permit is to provide for individual approval or denial of land uses requiring such permits under this Code. Uses requiring these permits have potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents, or businesses. Therefore, when such uses are approved, conditions are placed on their establishment and operation to mitigate or eliminate such impacts. For purposes of this Section, the term "use permit" includes both conditional use and minor use permits. B. Definitions. "Use permit" means a discretionary entitlement under the provisions of this Zoning Code which authorizes a specific use or development on a specific property subject to compliance with all terms and conditions imposed on the entitlement. 1. Conditional Use Permits. Uses requiring a conditional use permit have moderate to significant potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents, or businesses; for example, kennels or animal shelters. 2. Minor Use Permits. Uses requiring a minor use permit have low to moderate potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents, or businesses. In most cases, such uses are accessory to a main or principal use on the property; for example, a guest house on a lot containing a main residence. C. Applicability. A conditional use permit or a minor use permit is required for all land uses identified hi this Code as requiring such permits. D. Decision -Making Authority. Conditional use permits shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in conjunction with a public hearing held pursuant to Section 9.200.110. Minor use permits shall be processed administratively by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 9.200.020. E. Compliance with Permit. The establishment and operation of any land use authorized under a use permit and any development associated with the permit shall be in compliance with the approved Permit and any plans, specifications, and conditions of approval shown on and/or attached to the permit at all times. F. Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the decision -making authority prior to the approval of either a conditional use permit or a minor use permit: 210-3 2.29. Chapter 2.29 PLANNING COMMISSION Sections: 2.29.010 Created. 2.29.020 Secretary, staff support, committees. 2.29.030 Meetings, --Rules of procedure. 2J,9.010 Created. Pursuant to Section 65100 et seq. of the California Planting and Zoning Law, there is establishec the city a planning agency, consisting of a planning department, a planning commission, and the city cou acting in combination. The planting commission shall consist of seven members. serving with such compe rm as the city council may from time to time determine, and appointed in the manner and for the terms prescr in Sections 2.04.060 and 2.06.010. respectively, of this code. It shall have the powers, functions and di prescribed in the Planning and Zoning law, and in the La Quinta zoning ordinance and in this code and c local ordinances; provided; that it shall not exercise any direct contracting authority as specified in Sec 65007 of the Planning and Zoning Law. (Ord. 241 § 2. 1994: Ord. 9 $ I (part), 1982) 2.29.020 Secretary, staff support, committees. The commission shall be authorized to appoint and fix the membership of such number of standing tennporary committees as it may find expedient for the performance of its duties. The city manager shall apl a person to act as secretary to the commission, and shall be responsible for providing the necessary staff sup (Ord. 9 § I (part), 1982) The planning commission shall meet at least once each month at such time and place as by the commission by its standing rules. A majority of the existing appointed me the commis shall constitute a quorum for the general transaction of business, subject, ho more restrictive requires -�; as to the number of votes necessary in order to take certain . as may be prescribed in the Plan i and Zoning Law. The commission may establish and regulations as it deems necessary and expo+ for the conduct of its business, and shal pliance with Section 65804 of the Planning and Zoning 1 develop and publish proceiu for conduct of the. commission's hearings so that all interested pt shall have adv ge of pn=dures to be followed. In matters relating to the holding of regulm special , the commission is bound by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act of the state (Sec, It is preferred, although not required, that members of the commission have expertise in the areas of architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, I commercial art or graphic design. 2.29.030 Rules of procedure. 7— The commission shall follow such rules and regulations established by the City Council for the conduct of its business which shall comply with Section 1` 65804 of the Planning and Zoning Law. 4 (LA Qum 19