Loading...
1996 04 23 PCT4t!t 4 4 Q" MEMORANDUM PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 23, 1996 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 96-011 Beginning Minute Motion 96-015 CALL TO ORDER - FLAG SALUTE - ROLL CALL 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ..................... TENTATIVE TRACT 28343 Applicant .............. T. D. Desert Development - Mr. Tom Cullinan Location ............... Southwest side of Rancho La Quinta Country Club abutting the nort side of Parc La Quinta and Tract 25154 Request ................ Approval of the subdivision of 23.5 acres into 74 single family an other amenity lots Action ................. Resolution 96- 2. Item .................... GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-052 AND ZONIN( ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 96-050 Applicant ............. City of La Quinta Location .............. City-wide Request ............... Certification of the Environmental Assessment, approval of th General Plan Land Use Element text changes, and update Title 9 c the La Quinta Municipal Code. Recommend repealing variou Municipal Code Chapters Action ................ Resolution 96- , Resolution 96- PC/AGENDA BUSINESS ITEMS - Item ................... SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 Appellant ............ Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce Location ............. Southwest intersection of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez Request .............. Appeal of the Community Development Director's denial of setback adjustments for the front yard, rear yard, and garage setback on the exterior side yard for a new residence Action ................ Minute Motion 96- 2. Item ................... STREET VACATION 96-030 AND 96-031 Applicant ............ City of La Quinta Location ............. Portions of Avenida Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida Martinez, Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa, Calle Chillon, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula, and Eisenhower Drive Request .............. Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency with proposec street vacation Action ................ Minute Motion 96- 3. Item ................... SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO. 96-03 Applicant ............. Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, Robert Ross Location .............. Southwest corner of the Civic Center which is located at the southwes comer of Washington Street and Calle Tampico Request ............... Approval of a concept plan to allow the expansion of the Senior Center parking lot Action ................ Minute Motion 96- 4. Item ................... VARIOUS CITY-WIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 96-04 Applicant ............ David Evans and Associates (DEA), Kim Rhodes, L.A. Location ............. City-wide Request .............. Approval of conceptual design of various City-wide landscap4 medians Action ................ Minute Motion 96- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1996. COMMISSIONER ITEMS 1. Commissioner report of the City Council meeting of April 16, 1996 2. Department update ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION Session Room 3:00 P.M. PC/A.GENAA STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28343 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 23.5 ACRES INTO 74 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER AMENITY LOTS LOCATION: ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB ABUTTING THE NORTH SIDE OF PARC LA QUINTA AND TRACT 25154 (ATTACHMENT 1) APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT (MR. TOM CULLINAN, VICE PRESIDENT/PROJECT MANAGER) PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS APPLICANT ENGINEER: TRI-STATE LAND SURVEYORS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS (MR. ART M. GARDNER) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: IN 1979, THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #90 FOR THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 127-E), WHICH ENCOMPASSED A MORE EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ON THE RANCHO LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB SITE THAN THAT APPROVED BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA UNDER SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 IN 1984. THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED SP84-004 ON NOVEMBER 20, 1984, AND AN ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR #90 ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT REQUEST OF UP TO 1,500 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A 28-ACRE COUNTRY CLUB WITH 80 GUEST COTTAGES, ON TWO 18-HOLE GOLF COURSES ON 682-ACRES ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS. THIS PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THESE EXISTING DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY BECAUSE THE 77-LOT SUBDIVISION CONFORMS TO MAPS AND TEXT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, AS DESIGNED. STAFFRPT.71-Adisk GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLINGS PER ACRE) ZONING: R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) BACKGROUND: Property History In 1984, under Specific Plan 84-004 and Environmental Impact Report #90, the City Council approved up to 1,500 houses, a 28-acre country club with 80 cottages, on two 18- hole championship golf courses on approximately 682-acres (Attachment 2). The 80 cottages were reserved for members and outside guests. Final action by the Council occurred on November 20, 1994 (Resolution 84-77). Parcel Map 20469 divided this site into 17 lots greater than 20 acres in size. The parcel map establishes a mechanism to begin financing the project and divide the golf course lots from the development lots. The map was approved in 1984 at a Director's Hearing and recorded with the County of Riverside on January 30, 1987. The proposed subdivision consists of portions of Parcels 3, 4 and 5 of the final map (Attachment 3). Various tentative tract maps have been processed in the past few years corresponding to the long-range development plan of SP 84-004, and presently there are approximately 80 houses in the development. The most -recent map approval was Tentative Tract Map 27952, to the east of this site, which mapped 55-single family lots on 21.7 acres (2.5 dwelling units per acre). The Council approved this map last summer. In the last few years the Commission has approved the design of various single family and/or condominium units for the project. The Casitas, paired homes, are located abutting the Racquet and Fitness Club, and have two bedrooms with 2'/ bath or two bedrooms with den and 3 baths (i.e., 1,725 to 1967 sq. ft.). The Racquet and Fitness Club facility, approximately 6,500 sq. ft., has been built and includes 10 tennis courts, exercise room, dining area, and Jr. Olympic pool and spa. Bordering the golf course are single family detached Ranchos (2,040 to 2,234 sq. ft.) and Haciendas (2,940 to 3,265 sq. ft.) which are two and three bedroom houses with 2-car garages and golf cart storage area. Additionally, some houses have guest units. Recently, the Commission approved the Terrazas and Palaciios models which are three and four -bedroom detached homes that are up to 3,820 sq. ft. Site Background The proposed subdivision is part of Phase II of Specific Plan 84-004, an 85-acre area for development of 400 units. The 23.5 acre site is located along the southwest corner of the Rancho La Quinta Country Club abutting the northern boundaries of Tract 21555 (Parc La Quinta) and Tract 25154. The Coachella Valley Water District has required the project STAFF]RPT.71-Adisk to have eight well sites within the master planned community. The Specific Plan 84-004 shows only three sites in 1984. The District is now recommending that four wells be classified as active and four more sites would be set -aside as "future" sites. Land Use/Surrounding Zoning North: Existing Rancho La Quinta Golf Course South: Parc La Quinta (R-1) and Vacant/Tract 25154 (R-1) East: Existing Rancho La Quinta Golf Course and other vacant property West: Across Washington Street - La Quinta Country Club (R-1) and Laguna De La Paz (R-2 and R-1) Applicant Request The tentative tract map proposes 74-single family lots and other amenity/common lots on private streets (i.e., Lots A thru C). The amenity/common lots are Lots D, E, and 75 through 77. The single family lots range in size from approximately 7,600 square feet to more than 14,000 square feet. Access to the tract will be from a north/south private street that connects to Rancho La Quinta Drive, and was created to serve Tentative Tract Map 27952, to the east, and this site (Attachment 4 - Reduced Map). Lot 77, a half -acre parcel, is planned as a well site for the project based on requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The District has listed this well site as a future site meaning that when demand warrants the well, improvements will be installed (i.e., drilled, pumps installed, etc.). Mr. Gardner, the project designer, also states that well sites must be 1,000-feet apart and be on a 12-inch water line to meet District standards. The developer would install a discharge line from the site to the golf course lake to the east so that when they activate the well the piping is in place to vent the well as needed for periodic maintenance. Additional information from Mr. Gardner is attached (Attachment 5). Public Notice The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 11, 1996. All property owner's within 500 feet of the affected area were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required. No written comments have been received. Public Agency Review Staff mailed a copy of the applicant's initial request to all public agencies on March 18, 1996. All agency comments have been incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Presently, the applicant is working with IID to extend and relocate their electric service along Avenue 48 in conjunction with the installation of this Primary Arterial. This access is necessary based on the expansion of this project and the Desert Sands Administration facilities at Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48 presently under construction. STAFFRPT.71-Adisk Environmental Assessment Final Environmental Impact Report #90 was amended in 1984 as part of Specific Plan 84- 004 (The Grove). Since this map is consistent with Specific Plan 84-004, EIR #90 and Parcel Map 20469, no additional environmental consideration is warranted pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Issue 1 - General Plan/Specific Plan Consistency The City updated the General Plan in 1992. As part of the update, the General Plan designates this site as Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre) with Golf designation for the golf course surrounding the proposed subdivision. This site is a portion of Phase II of SP 84-004 allowing 400 residential units on 85 acres or 4.7 units per acre. The density for this project is 3.1 which is consistent with this phase and with Condition #27 of SP 84-004 which states: "The residential density is established at a gross density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre with a net density not to exceed six (6) dwelling units per acre." Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements/Health and Safety All single family lots are accessible by private streets. Rear elevations have views of the existing golf course. All interior streets are consistent with Condition 15b of Specific Plan 84-004 that requires minor streets to be not less than 32-feet wide. A few flag or irregular lots are proposed at the southwest side of the site. All houses planned along the interior boundary (i.e., 75-feet) of the project shall be single story as required by Condition 29 of SP 84-004. The applicant has stated that they are planning to introduce their Pueblo units in this Tract. If new units are proposed, the Commission is required to approve the production plans prior to building permit issuance. The CVWD has required the proposed "future" well site (Lot 77). Therefore, the applicant is obligated to provide the half -acre rectangular parcel in an area a minimum distance of 1,000-feet from another well site and be on a 12-inch water line. The developer has designed the lot to be lower than the existing Parc La Quinta homes to the south of the site. Staff is recommending landscaping to screen the future facility from adjacent homes. Additionally, staff is recommending that the well site be enclosed by a masonry wall as is required by CVWD. Staff proposes Condition #54 to establish design standards for the future well site which will insure that it will not create noise impacts that will affect the abutting residential houses. STAFF:RPT.71-Adisk Urban improvements are required for this project that include streets and other infrastructure improvements necessary for single family development. The recommended conditions will insure that all on -site work is consistent with City standards. The proposed Conditions of Approval require all necessary infrastructure improvements. These include water, sewer, streets, and other necessary improvements. Electric services will be undergrounded and they will meet all requirements of the local service agencies (e.g., gas, electric, water, etc. ). Staff Comments Staff met with the applicant and project designer in March to discuss the project. At the meeting, staff requested the applicant meet with the adjacent neighbors to inform them of their new subdivision map request. Primarily we asked that they meet with the property owner's abutting the Lots 76 and 77 because we thought these two uses or improvements could create noise that may affect the residents. The developer can address this issue at the meeting. Staff has also proposed Condition #55 to address the final design improvements planned for Lot 76 (i.e., pool/spa and restroom facilities). CONCLUSION: This subdivision map request is consistent with all City Codes and Specific Plan 84-004 provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed. No physical constraints prevent the development of the site as planned. Findings for approval are included in the attached draft Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt: Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 28343 subject to Findings and Conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan Exhibit (The Grove) 3. Parcel Map 20469 STAFFRPT.71-Adisk 4. Tract Map - Reduced 5. A letter from Mr. Art Gardner 6. Large Maps - Commissioner Packets Only Prepared by: GREG TR;OUSDELL, Associate Planner Submitted by: 1 CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager STAFF:RPT.71-Adisk PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 28343 TO ALLOW A 74-LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND SALES SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 23.5 ACRES CASE NO.: TTM 28343 APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended approval to the City Council, for a 23.5-acre site with 74 single family lots and other amenity lots, generally on the east side of Washington Street, 200 to 800-feet south of Rancho La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF PARCELS 3,4 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP 20469 WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that an Environmental Assessment was conducted for Specific Plan 84-004 (The Grove) in 1984 for the overall development of the Rancho La Quinta development. Final Environmental Impact Report #90, as amended, is still valid and binding on this development request. Therefore, no additional environmental review is warranted; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Tentative Tract Map 28343: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. The project is a Low Density Residential (LDR) District per the provisions of the 1992 General Plan Update; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract 28343 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Spec Plan 84-004 (The Grove) provided conditions contained herein are required to ensure among other things consistency with the General Plan, Specific Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Final Environmental Impact Report #90 (addendum). The site is zoned R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) which permits single family or condominium developments. All plans for future single family homes shall be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code (e.g., specifically Chapter 9.44 et. seq.) in effect at the time building permits are acquired. The development of the project, as conditioned, will be compatible with the surrounding area. RESOPC. I s0/conaprv1.450 Resolution 96- B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and any applicable specific plans. All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards of the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. All on -site streets will be private (34-feet wide right-of-way) which is consistent with Specific Plan 84-004. Access for the single family lots will be provided from an internal north/south street planned under Tentative Tract Map 27952. The density and design standards for the tract will comply with the Land Use Element of the General Plan (Chapter 2) and the Zoning Code. Special Conditions are proposed to establish design criteria for both the recreation and well site facilities. C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division as approved in 1992. The site was previously graded in anticipation of this development. The existing golf course, adjacent to the site, was installed approximately ten years ago. Therefore, this project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat because mitigation measures were completed at the time the site was disturbed as required by SP 84-004, FEIR #90 (Addendum) and PM 20469. D. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems because they will install urban improvements based on City, State, and Federal requirements, and Specific Plan 84-004. E. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed streets are planned to provide direct access to each single family lot. All required public easements will provide access to the site or support necessary infrastructure improvements. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby reconfirm the conclusions of Final Environmental Impact Report #90 as revised in 1984; 3. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28343 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. REsopc. t8o/conaprv1.450 Resolution 96- PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California REsoPc.180/conaprvi.450 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28343 - RANCHO LA QUINTA APRIL 23, 1996 GENE RAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 28343 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410- 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This tentative tract map approval shall expire in two years unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless the City Engineer approves a construction sequencing plan for that phase. 4. Before the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan. condapv1.450 5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 6. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or filing of a certificate of compliance for waiver of a final map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties. 8. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. 9. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 11. The proposed CVWD well site shall be reconfigured to provide a minimum 12 feet of landscaped setback from the curbline of the adjacent road. FINAL NIA�S) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 12. As ;part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish the City, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer, accurate computer files of the of the map(s) as approved by the City's map checker. 13. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the Planning Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD shall sign the combined plans before their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. condapv1.450 "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 14. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in a program format acceptable the City Engineer. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. RvIPRO EMENT AGREEMENT 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, she conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 16. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 17. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 18. Graded and/or undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 19. Before occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. condapv1.450 In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 21. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the grading plan. 22. A registered civil engineer shall prepare a grading plan and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soil's report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 23. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within this development, but not sharing a common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If the applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve alternatives that preserve community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 24. Before issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. UTILITIi'. 25. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 26. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC RVIPROVEIVIENTS 27. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street/traffic improvements required herein. condapv1.450 28. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. PRIVATE STREETS/CUL DE SACS 1) Residential - 32-foot-wide travel surface. 2) Collector (>300 homes or 3,000 vpd) - 40-foot-wide travel surface. Main entry streets and interior circulation routes, bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths, raised medians or other mitigation measures as determined by the City Engineer. 29. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 30. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 31. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 32. Street right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 33. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without pon.ding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 34. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.011/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.011/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00" Major Arterial 5.511/6.50" The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base and pavement materials, including complete testing lab results, for review and approval by the City. Paving operations shall not be scheduled until mix: design(s) is approved. condapv1.450 35. Before occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. 36. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and approved prior to building permit issuance. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 37. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 38. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 39. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of aboveground utility structures. QUALITY ASSURANCE 40. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 41. Thee applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition. MAINTENANCE CEE 43. The: applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off -site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. 44. The; applicant shall provide an executive summary maintenance booklet for streets, landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other improvements to be condapv1.450 maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency,:and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term maintenance. FEES D DEPOSITS 45. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 46. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. IRE DEPARTMENT 47. Schedule Afire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 500-feet apart in any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 250-feet from afire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for two hour duration at 20 psi. 48. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plan to the Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: " I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 49. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of a model unit only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. PS ECIAI, 50. Single story homes shall be built within 75-feet of the south boundary of the tentative map according to Condition 29 of Specific Plan 94-004 (The Grove). 51. The: production houses planned for these lots, if not previously approved by the City, shall be approved by the Planning Commission before issuance of any building permits for construction by the Building and Safety Department (i.e., Non -Hearing Business Agenda). 52. All Zoning Code provisions shall be met prior to building permit issuance. 53. All homes shall be required to install front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Each lot shall have two 15 gallon shade trees (corner lots shall have five), ten 5-gallon shrubs and other landscaping (e.g., turf, turf and gravel, etc.), acceptable to the Community Development Department pursuant condapA.450 to Chapter 8.13 of the LQMC. The applicant/developer is encouraged to use drought resistant or native plant material for the project. The applicant will be permitted to post securities to insure that the front yard landscaping is installed for each home if the landscaping is not installed at time of final release of occupancy. All landscaping materials shall be installed with 60-days after occupancy clearances have been given. 54. Prior to issuance of a building/electric permit for the well equipment and electric pedestal on Lot 77, a noise study shall be submitted to the Community Development Department that provides the decibel noise level along the south property line adjacent to Parc La Quinta. If more than 60 decibels (Community Noise Equivalent Level), mitigation measures shall be imposed to reduce the noise level as required by Chapter 8.0 of the General Plan. The Community Development Department shall approve the design and location of the perimeter wall prior to on -site installation. The height of the masonry wall shall be six -feet as measured from finished grades based on the approved grading plan. 55. Prior to issuance of a building permit, all common recreational amenities (i.e., pool/spa and recreation building) planned for Lot 76 shall be approved by the Planning Commission. Separate restroom facilities shall be provided for the on -site maintenance workers of the country club on Lot 76 (or adjacent to this area) as approved by the Commission. 56. All applicable Conditions of Approval of Specific Plan 84-004 (The Grove), Final Environmental Impact Report #90 (Addendum) or Parcel Map 20469 shall be met unless otherwise modified herein. 57. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the City Attorney shall approve the annexation of this Tract (i.e., C.C. and R's documents) into the Rancho La Quinta Homeowner's Association. 58. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a site plan showing the pedestrian and bicycle path system for this Tract. 59. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant/developer shall work with the local waste hauler to implement provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462 by establishing on -site trash and recycling services as follows: A. Prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of separate facilities for the storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and steel or aluminum cans. B. Provide proper on -site facilities with the project for green waste associated with golf course or common maintenance. Compost materials shall be stored for pickup by a waste hauler for transport to an appropriate recycling facility. C. Curbside recycling services shall be provided in areas where no centralized trash/recycling bins are provided or utilized. The: local trash hauler shall insure that any materials taken off -site for disposal are recorded and the tonnage figures credited to the City of La Quinta to assist our State obligations. The developer can contact the City's Recycling Coordinator for additional information. condapv1.450 APRIL 23, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ATTACHMENTS FOR TTM 28343 RANCHO LA QUINTA ATTFIDRM3-A ATTACHMENT 2 jaaaag uosaailar --- aaa uoa6ul-sv- 4 d ---""=Mmm`i 3 O Y t i `a Y W a 0 f v O `d U - CD 00 o ¢ Q 00 00 �c N Z z ocz : y �, a V =►-�Ntw 0-4 wUc7pGwF V W z -•-.ire "was NOBUIMW �` , ATTACHMENT 3 ��► I n 100 { .:, .,�� „�• Ili ,;, •;��r �i a N . , irk''. 1• Q it O � � I 'I • 1, �1i1• � � ,�, �� iT I I •i till —.-- li3All8 NOIONINYWA r = iA110014iMaM1AW ..r. :d f , ATTACHMENT 4 �,° `. 'i l Q •�. J � � ;'T. �r •,Lk �,J• a '_s � �� Y3•.rl�'R ' �+i.'` } " • %`+ / o AT If R a,Cb J.LO cn er IYAJ NO �dx 9 0' a, )J M�' r �\' Sei • � • '.ems, •!•! �tl '• D It ` •F} z0 3£tid G7 31VISI61 6LZ0b996Z9 90:LI 966L/90/£0 ATTACHMENT S QL TTI-STATEbaiLd Surveyors 4 C11,11 BnghUeers 78-03S Cane Estado, La Quinta, California 92253 (619)S64-0271(800)363-6306 FAX (619)S64 0279 S635 Highway 95, Ste. B, Bulhead City, AZ 86426 (520)768-2442 (800)768-8967 FAX(S20)768-2S52 March 28, 1996 Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta Community Development Dept. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Screencheck Comments on Tent. Tract 28343 Rancho La Quinta Development Dear Greg: 1 ° ^ LO P!itiil:i!ji+ P'}tl:d l This letter is in response to your questions raised at the March 26th meeting at your office regarding the noise levels and time schedules of the pumps for the proposed well site located within Tentative Tract 28343. I spoke with John Corella at CVWD regarding your questions. John is in charge of well sites developed throughout the valley, and he informed me that the noise levels of the pumps are ambient at the waU. This means that the noise should not exceed 40 db. As a comparison, a quiet night with no noise is approximately 30 db. John also told me that there is no schedule for pump sites. The pumps are turned on at the control center on a demand basis. We are currently preparing the cross section details as you requested through the well site and pool areas. If you have any further questions regarding the pump station noise levels, John suggested that you contact him directly at 398-2651. Sincer , Art M. Gardner PH #2 DATE: CASE NO.., INITIATED BY: CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ;_ � �_ t 1 1►lI� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APRIL 23, 1996 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-052 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 96-050 CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING: 1). CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2). APPROVAL GENERAL PLAN TEXT AND LAND USE POLICY DIAGRAM AMENDMENT 3). APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9, RELATING TO ZONING CODE, REPLACING EXISTING TITLE 9, DELETING CHAPTERS 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, 5.68, AND A PORTION OF CHAPTER 5.72. THE CONQdUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-318 FOR THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE CONUVIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL HAPACTS WILL OCCUR. THEREFORE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IM1PACT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. Update of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code began in March, 1994. This document, prepared by Tierra Planning and Design and Lawrence Associates, will bring the Code into conformance with the 1992 update of the City's General Plan. A citizens' workshop was held on June 13, 1994. The proposed Zoning Code update will apply City-wide and provide a comprehensive set of standards and regulations for development. Planning Commission workshops were held on March 14, April 11, April 25, May 9, May 23, June 13, June 27, July 11, July 25, August 8, September 26, October 10, October 24, and November 28, PC;SS.200 1995, to review the revisions to the Zoning Code. The minutes of those workshops, except for November 28, 1995 which are not available, are contained in this report (Attachment 1). Because of the desire to revise the Village Specific Plan, the only change to proposed Chapter 9.65 (the Village) has been to reformat and reorganize it. The new sign regulations (Chapter 9.160), processed through Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-049, were approved by the City Council at its meeting of April 2, 1996. These regulations will become effective on May 3, 1996. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND LAND USE DIAGRAM AMENDMENT: The La Quinta General Plan is a statement of development policy reflecting local conditions. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, commercial, office, industrial, open space, parks, and public facilities and services. The Zoning Code is a tooll that implements the General Plan. With the proposed Zoning Code Revision, the General Plan Land Use Element was reviewed to eliminate development standards that are: more appropriately achieved through the Zoning Code. Commercial development standards that are recommended for deletion from the General Plan are now recommended to be included in the Zoning Code. The proposed General Plan Amendment streamlines the development process while maintaining the integrity of the City's General Plan as a guide for the comprehensive development of the City. The proposed General Plan Text Amendments (Attachment 4) to the Land Use Element eliminate cumbersome development standards from the General Plan. With these amendments, proposed commercial projects that exceed intensity requirements (maximum building heights/stories and floor area ratios) will not require a General Plan Amendment to receive approval. The commercial development standards which are recommended for deletion from the General Plan (which are identified in Attachment 4) are proposed to be incorporated in the Zoning Code Revision (Chapter 9.90.040, Table of Development Standards). The Zoning Code Revision, Table 9-6: Nonresidential Development Standards (Chapter 9.90), identifies and defines maximum floor area ratio, maximum height, and maximum number of stories for all nonresidential structures. This amendment modifies certain residential policies which will be implemented through the Zoning Code. Deletion of Policy 2-1.1.3 provides consistency with the newly adopted and certified Housing Element which identifies density bonus provisions required in the Government Code be adopted by ordinance. These provisions are incorporated in the Zoning Code Revision (Chapter 9.60.270) as City policy. Policy 2-1.19 is deleted and revised to recommend these same conditions be implemented through the Zoning Code Revision (Chapter 9.40.030). Policy 21.2.3 is amended to delete specified standards from the Rural Residential Overlay category. These standards are revised and incorporated into the Zoning Code Revision ( Chapter 9.30.100). This amendment also provides an updated Proposed Land Use Policy Diagram to reflect all amendments, annexations, and production errors that have occurred since adoption of the Proposed Land Use Element Policy Diagram in 1992. PCSS.200 0 40 ZONING CODE UPDATE Goal And Objectives The goal of the Zoning Code is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens. To achieve this goal the Zoning Code has been drafted with the following objectives (Section 9.10.010(c) of draft Code): 1. To implement the City's General Plan. 2. To classify and designate different land uses and structures in appropriate places as designated in the General Plan, and to regulate such land uses and structures in order to serve the needs of the residential neighborhoods, commerce, recreation, open space, and other purposes. 3. To provide a guide for the development and use of land in the City as required by State Government Code. 4. To secure for the residents of the City the social and economic advantages resulting from the planned and orderly use of its land resources. 5. To establish conditions which allow the various types of land uses to exist in harmony and to promote the stability of existing land uses by protecting them from harmful intrusion. 6. To prevent undue intensity of land use or development, to avoid population overcrowding, to maintain a suitable balance between developed land and open space, and to protect the natural beauty of the City. 7. To insure that adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are provided and maintained for all land uses. 8. To provide land zoned for schools, parks and other public facilities. 9. To insure the provision of affordable housing opportunities. The Zoning Code chapters are summarized as follows based upon the various subjects, zones and regulations in Attachment 2. General Features of Zoning Code The Zoning Code has been drafted as a comprehensive document that provides regulations and procedures for development in the City. The Code is intended to implement the 1992 General Plan and replace the existing Riverside County based ordinance utilized since incorporation in 1982. All sections now have an Authority and Purpose section that provides a statement of intent. Graphic displays used to help clarify regulations such as setbacks, lot types, and building height measurement, etc.. Matrixes are used where possible to eliminate duplication of information. Some examples where a matrix is used is the Residential Uses, Nonresidential Uses, and Development Standards. Some Development Standards such as Floor Area Ratios, Maximum Story Heights and Rural Development Standards, that were a part of the General Plan policies have been incorporated into the Zoning Code. As a part of General Plan Amendment 96-052, these Development Standards are being deleted to eliminate the need to amend the General Plan in the future should the City wish to change the Zoning Code. PCSS.200 0 0 3 Highlights of Code by Chapter .Ch tee r 9.10 General Provisions Provides objectives and establishes authority, Sets ground rules such as Code interpretation and use of terms. Chg.pter 9.20 Zoning Districts Establishes 27 zoning districts which will be utilized in the Code and on the new zoning map. Allows determination of land uses not listed. Provides 6 residential districts and 2 overlay districts. Provides basic development standards for districts. Specifies that a minimum of 15% of dwelling units in all multi -family residential projects, residential specific plans and mixed use areas (permitting residential uses) shall be in the affordable low and/or very low income categories. Provides conditions for varying residential densities within higher and lower density districts. This provision has been added to implement General Plan Policy 2-1.1.9. Provides matrix listing permitted uses in residential districts. • • 1 . - - .. Provides matrix listing development standards for residential districts. Utilizes graphics to illustrate the application of development standards. Provides height measurement methodology for residential uses. Provides all supplemental residential districts regulations such as walls and fences, accessory buildings, swimming pools, model home complexes, density bonus for affordable housing, and two-story restriction along project boundaries adjacent to existing single family residences. Ch tee r 9.65 The Village This chapter has been drafted based on the existing Village Specific Plan and current regulations. The chapter provides a matrix listing permitted uses and is drafted using the existing requirements. 00 4 Pcas.2ou Chapter. 9.70 Nonresidential Districts Provides 7 commercial districts and 1 overlay district. Provides purpose and intent for each district Based on General Plan Policy 2-3.1.4 a NR (Nonresidential Overlay) Zone for use on the CR (Regional Commercial) Zone is provided. Allows for incidental residential use in NR overlay areas of the CR Zone. Ch tee r 9.80 Nonresidential Permitted Uses Provides matrix listing permitted uses in nonresidential districts CR Zone allows townhome and multifamily residential uses under specific conditions. Provides ;matrix listing development standards for Nonresidential Districts. Utilizes graphics to illustrate development standards and method of building height measurement Chitpter 9.100 Supplemental Nonresidential Regulations In addition to general Temporary Use Permits (TUP), Christmas tree sales, Halloween Pumpkin sales, Produce and Flower stands, Outdoor Events are all subject to Administrative approval. Provides regulations for nonresidential related subjects such as outdoor lighting, screening, trash recycling, and service station standards. Provides comprehensive noise control standards for noise sensitive uses such as residential uses (allowed in CR Zone), schools, hospitals, and churches, and for other types of nonresidential uses. Ch4pter 9.110 Special Purpose Districts U Provides Parks and Recreation, Golf Course, Open Space, and Flood Plain Districts as special purpose districts. U Provides the Hillside Conservation and Sexually Oriented Business Overlay Districts. U Included are some of the general development standards for the districts as well as the regulations for hillside development. 0 These overlay districts are carried over from the existing regulations and not changed. Q=ter 9.120 Special Purpose Permitted Uses Provides a matrix listing the permitted uses for the Special Purpose Districts and Overlay Districts. PCSS.200 005 enter 9.130 Special Purpose Development Standards • Provides a matrix listing the development standards for Special Purpose Development Districts. • Provides detailed regulations for Special Purpose Districts. Sh' ter- 9 150 Parking • Provides comprehensive parking requirements including number of spaces, design criteria, and loading requirements, etc. • Requires 30% increase of covered parking for office and medical uses. • Provides an increase in number of required spaces for three bedroom apartments and retail uses. Chapter 9,160 igns • This chapter has been previously approved and adopted by the City Council at its April 2, 1996, meeting under Ordinance #281. Chanter 9.170 Community Towers and Equipment • Regulates communication towers and associated accessory buildings. No changes from the existing Ordinance. Chapter 9.180 Transportation Demand Management • No changes. Qgpter 9,190 Transfer of Development Rights • No changes. Chapter 9.200 General Permitting Procedures • Provides procedures for processing Development Review applications and the criteria and conditions necessary so that the review and approval body can make an appropriate decision. • Authority for approving the various permits, time limits for processing applications, amendments, and appeals are among the items discussed. • Provides matrix listing discretionary review authority. PCSS.200 006 Chapter 9.210 Development Review Permits • Includes required findings for site development permits, conditional use permits, minor use permits, variances, minor adjustments, temporary use permits, home occupation permits, and sign permits. • With the exception of the conditional use and site development permits, these applications will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Chapter 9,220 Zoning Changes and Code Amendments • Provides specific procedures and required findings for zone changes, pre -annexation zoning, and zoning code text amendments. Chapter 9.230 General Plan Amendments • Provides procedures and required findings for amending the General Plan. chapter 9.240 Specific.. Plans • Provides procedures and required findings for approval and amending of specific plans. Chapter 9.250 Other Actions • Provides information on processing of subdivisions, development agreements and environmental review applications. Ch-lpter 9.260 Fees • Fees for "processing of applications" are set by resolution of the City Council. • Provides a formula for fee refunds of applications which are withdrawn. • Notes that non-profit organizations are exempt from paying processing fees for temporary outdoor event applications. • Provides regulations for uses, lots, or structures which are nonconforming or become nonconforming with adoption of this zoning code. Chapter 9.280 Definitions • This chapter provides a comprehensive listing and definition of terminology used in the Zoning Code. PCSS.200 00 ADDITION OF EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT: The Equestrian Overlay District (EOD) has been added to the Zoning Code. Attachment 3 contains the text which will be added as 9.100.090 9.140.060 and reflects the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and the City Attorney at the March 26th meeting on the EOD: Revisions have been made to fine tune the regulations and to address items such as placement of these regulations in the Code. The following list summarizes the changes referred to: • Chapter and section numbers have been struck. The Equestrian Overlay will be incorporated at a later date. • Page 1 - added "structure" into accessory building and use definition to address Commissioner Anderson's concern regarding application of development standards to certain types of uses and improvements, and included an example; • Made changes to chapter/section references to apply to the new Code numbers where possible; • '.Page 5, Section C - made change to address Mr. Kanlian's concern about unfenced horse property adjacent to non -overlay lands; Added "nominal" to post/rail size standards for fencing requirements; 6 Page 6 - added conflict provision for fencing standards relative to new standards in the revised Code section; U Page 7, G and H - added qualifying language for lighting and amplified sound as to regulation by CUP in lieu of general standards. U Pages 8, 9 - the CUP process has been tied in with applicable revised zoning chapters/sections, relating to CUP processing and nonconformities. There are several chapters in the Municipal Code which are no longer needed because they are addressed in the Zoning Code update and are recommended for deletion as follows: 1. Chapter 5.36 - Novelty sales at special events 2. Chapter 5.37 - Activities involving outdoor merchandising 3. Chapter 5.64 - Special Advertising Devices 4. Chapter 5.68 - Sound Trucks and Advertising by Sound 5. Portion of Chapter 5.72 - Miscellaneous Businesses Regulated a. Section 5.72.010 - City Council permit required for certain businesses. b. Section 5.72.020 - Revocation of permit delete reference to "5.72.010. or" on first line. CONCLUSION: The General Plan Text Amendment of the Land Use Element eliminates standards for development that are more appropriate in the Zoning Code. The updated Land Use Policy diagram will better reflect the most current information regarding land use designations. The draft Zoning Code update is the result of extensive research and review. The Code is prepared as a comprehensive document that implements the goals and policies of the General Plan. Findings as noted in the attached Resolutions can be made to support staff s recommendation for approval of this document. PCSS.200 008 , RI,COMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for General Plan Amendment 96-052 and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 (Attachment 5) and; 2. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Land Use Element text and Land Use Policy diagram changes General Plan Amendment 96-052; 3. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 to La Quinta Municipal Code, Title 9, relating to Zoning Code, as noted in Exhibit "A" on file in the Community Development Department, replacing existing Title 9, and deleting Chapters 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, 5.68, and a portion of Chapter 5.72 per attached Exhibit `B". Attachments: 1. Workshop minutes 2. General Zoning Code format 3. Overlay District for Equestrian uses 4. General Plan Amendment - proposed amendments to Chapter 2: Land Use 5. Environmental checklist form and discussion of Impacts (Environmental Assessment). 6. Draft Zoning Code (for Planning Commission only) Prepared by: 455tVA, STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: C� CHRISTINE DI IORIO, PlaruAng Manager PCSS.230 (1 0 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-318 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-052 AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 96-050 (ZONING CODE) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-318 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and; WHEREAS, said acquisition has complied with the requirements "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) (Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 96-318; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Zoning Ordinance Amendment and General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, W E EREAS, 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 a recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly in that the new standards and regulations are brought into conformance with the 1992 update of the City's General Plan. The Ordinance will apply citywide and provide a comprehensive set of standards and regulations for development thereby improving the quality of life for City residents. 2. The proposed Amendments will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Appropriate mitigation measures have been adopted in the La Quinta General Plan to ensure minimal impact. resope.200 010 Plannnng Commission Resolution 96-_ 3. The proposed Amendments will not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals in that it will establish more stringent standards and regulations according to the goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. The proposed amendments will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable. NOW, TBEREFORE, 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 Commission for this environmental assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 96-318 for a Negative Declaration for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the attached Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JEEtRY BERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopc.20 O l l PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-052 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 23rd day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, and approved the request to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Element text to modify specified policies relating to development standards (Attachment 1) and to modify the Proposed Land Use Policy Diagram; and, WHEREAS,said General Plan Amendment request has complied with requirements Of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Community Development Department has completed EA # 96-318 which indicates that no significant impacts will occur due to adoption and implementation of the amendment; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considef-ing all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element is consistent with the affected goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that implementation of specified development standards are achieved through the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposed changes streamline the development process while maintaining the General Plan as a guide for comprehensive development of the City. 3. The proposed modifications to the Land Use Element are consistent with the other elements of the La Quinta General Plan in that the specified development standards are unique to the Land Use Element. 4 Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. 012 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 Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment 96-052 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 013 EXHIBIT "A" Planning Commission Resolution No. GPA 96-052 April 23, 199 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2: LAND USE ELEMENT Page 2-5 Amend Proposed Land Use Policy Diagram as shown on exhibit. Page 2-8 Delete Policy 2-1.1.3. Page 2-10 Amend -Policy 2-1.1.9 to read as follows: "fhe City shall establish guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance to allow varying residential densities to locate within a designated residential zone." ie 2-11 Amend Policy 2-1.2.3, second bullet to read: "The front yard setbacks of all structures shall be increased beyond the minimum specified in the applicable zoning district" Page 2-11 Amend policy 2-1.2.3, fourth bullet to read: 'Tencing guidelines representative of a rural theme shall be required to link residential areas with trail systems and Lake Cahuilla County Park." Paue 2-11 Delete Policy 2-2.1.1. page 2-12 Delete from Table LU-4, City of La Quinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards under the column "Development Standards" the following (in italics) standards: commercial Category Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) Community Commercial (CC) Neighborhood Commercial Development Standards Maximum F.A.R. of 0.35 Maximum building height of four stories Maximum F.A.R. of 0.30 Maximum building height of three stories Maximum F.A.R. of 0.25 eli9 EXHIBIT BIT "A" Planning Commission resolution No. GPA 96-052 April 23, 199 F.age 2-13 (NC) Commercial Park (CP) Maximum building height of two stories Maximum F.A.R. of 0.25 Maximum building height of two stories Office Maximum F.A.R. of 0.30 (0) Maximum building height of three stories P;Ige 2-13 Delete from Table LU-4, City of La Quinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards the following "Notes" (in italics): Notes to Table LU-4: 1. Development standard defined pursuant to Policy 2-2.1.1. 2. F.A.R. - Building Floor Area to Project Site Ratio. Page 2-14 Delete Policy 2-3.1.2. Page 2-15 Amend Policy 2-3.2.2 to read as follows: ".Projects in CP areas shall be located with direct access to arterial or non-residential collector streets. Projects in CP areas shall be developed in a "campus -like" setting." ftge 216 Amend Policy 2-4.1.2 to read as follows: "Projects in CC areas shall be located on sites ranging from 10 to 50 acres and shall be located on, and with direct access to and primarily at the intersections of arterial streets." Amend Policy 2-4.2.2 to read as follows: "Projects in NC areas shall be located on sites which are a maximum of 20 acres in size and shall be located on, and shall directly access, arterial streets." Page 2-17 Amend Policy 2-6.1.2 to read as follows: "Projects in the Office category shall be located on, and shall directly access, arterial streets" r15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 96-050 TO LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 9, RELATING TO ZONING CODE, AS NOTED IN EXHIBIT "A" ON FILE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPLACING EXISTING TITLE 9, AND DELETING CHAPTERS 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, 5.68, AND A PORTION OF CHAPTER 5.72 PER ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B". CASE NO. ZOA 96-050 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 23rd day of April, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider zoning regulations for use in the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, 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 the recommendation for approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not adversely affect the planned development of the City in that the Ordinance will establish more stringent standards and regulations according to the goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the City in that the new standards and regulations are in donformance with the 1992 update of the City's General Plan. The Ordinance will apply citywide and provide a comprehensive set of standards and regulations for development thereby improving the quality of life for City residents. 3. There will be no significant adverse impacts resulting from this Zoning Ordinance Amendment because the regulations by their nature, create conditions which enhance, control, and are compatible with the environment and designed to mitigate negative impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: l . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; and, resopa20 1 E316 Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in Exhibit "A", on file in the Community Development Department and known as the City of La Quinta Zoning Code; and, 3. That it does recommend deletion of Municipal Code Chapters 5.36, 5.37, 5.64, and 5.68 in their entirety; and, 4. That it does recommend Amendment of Chapter 5.72 as noted in attached Exhibit "B". PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California resopc.201 017 EXHIBIT "B" Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment 96-050 April 23, 1996 CHAPTER 5.72 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESSES REGULATED Sections: • • City Council perinit required for rw-in businesses • • Poliee Permit 5.72.030 Revocation of permits i' i. ---------- Pon • i f 018 5.72.020 Police permit required before conducting locksmith business. No person shall conduct or carry on the business of locksmith, or a key or lock repair shop or business, without having applied for and been granted a permit therefor by the Chief of Police. Such permits shall be issued in cases where, after investigation, the Chief of Police determines that the applicant and proposed participants in the business or business activity are of good moral character, and that the issuance of the permits will not prejudice the public peace, safety, morals, or welfare. (Ord. 10§ 1 (part), 1982) 5.72.030 Revocation of permits. The City Council shall have the power to revoke any permit issued pursuant to Section 39 19 r 5.72.020, after a hearing conducted with due notice and in accordance with the legal principles of due process, and as a result of which hearing, the Council finds and determines that factual grounds exist, irrespective of when they first arose, which would justify denial of issuance of a permit in the first instance, under the criteria prescribed in the section under which the permit was :issued (Ord. 10§ 1 (part), 1982) 019 ATTACHMENT 1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA MARCH 14.1995 L CALL TO ORDER 4:00 P.M. A. This meeft of the Planning Commission was called to order at 4:03 P.M. by Chairman Adolph/Commissioner Barrows led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL. A. CXairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present Commissioners Abels, Anderson, arrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph B/ Staff Present Community Development Director Jerry Berman, City Attorney Dawn :Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer M. IV. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Workshop on the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance Update: a request of the City for a review of the Zoning Ordinance Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa gave a brief review of the sections that would be reviewed and introduced Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates who gave an opening statement as to why the update was taking place and an overview of the Draft Ordinance. 2. Commissioner Gardner asked why we were referring to the Update as a Code. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that the proper procedure was to adopt a change to the Municipal Code by Ordinance, but it is a part of the Municipal Code. 3. Mr. Lawrence went through the different sections and explained how the Draft Zoning Ordinance was arranged. 4. Commissioner Butler asked the consultant if the terms being used were the current terms and the current terminology to be used. Mr. Lawrence stated it would be. Planning Commission Meeting March 14.1995 5. Commissioner Butler asked if there would be a new zoning map showing these changes. Staff stated there would be a new map with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update. 6. Commissioner Gardner asked if the document would be user-friendly and would the language used be uniform throughout the State. Mr. Lawrence stated zoning codes are different from City to City and each is unique. However, most cities are going to this type of format. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that where an area is controlled by State Law, those areas would be similar. Zoning is completely under local control and therefore has its own uniqueness. 7. Commissioner Anderson stated that the overall format is not typical but the Information is similar and easily attainable. A laymen may have difficulty but the professional should be able to understand it. Discussion followed. & Mr. Tom Davis, Tierra Planning and Design, explained his firm was working Jointly with Lawrence Associates on the Update and therefore should be as close as possible to industry standards. Mr. Lawrence was familiar with various zoning codes, and has dealt with development standards and together they brought expertise in both areas. He further explained that this document implements the General Plan. 9. Chairman Adolph asked if they would be required to update the General Plan so they both agree. Staff stated they would not be necessary as the Zoning Ordinance was written to implement the General Plan and therefore there should be no conflicts. 10. Commissioner Gardner asked what the Commission would have to do if there was an area in conflict City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that public hearings would have to be held to amend the General Plan. It is very likely that as the City uses the Ordinance Update, there will be areas that may need to change. 11. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt there should be a section that defines what the lot coverage is including the garage, as well as livable floor space. There needs to be very definite definitions as to what lot coverage is and what livable floor space is. 12. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that Section 9.10.060 be eliminated as it was contained within another part of the Municipal Code. M14 2 021 Planning Commission Meeting March 14.1995 13. Chairman Adolph stated that Section 9.10.010(C) did not mention anything about traffic or infrastructure. Staff explained this will be handled in the subdivision Ordinance. Chairman Adolph asked why it was not applicable to this section. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that it is included in the General Plan and the General Plan has different elements such as the Transportation Element. Discussion followed regarding Open Space definition and whether or not it was adequately covered. Following discussion, the consultants were instructed to add a #10 to Section 9.10.10(C) to add something about the "natural beauty of the hillside". 14. Chairman Adolph questioned the verbiage of Section 9.10.020 and asked whether the word "control" shouldn't be used. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained what the proper usage would be. She further stated this was a laymen statement of a legal statement 15. Commissioner Anderson stated that Page 4 Section 9.10.080 was the logical place to have a statement regarding lot coverage and livable space. Mr. Lawrence stated there was a chapter on definition and it was more appropriate there. 16. Mr. Lawrence pointed out an editorial note on Page 6 and explained its purpose. 17. Commissioner Newkirk stated there was a PD Zoning on the map, but it was not listed under 920.010. Staff stated it should be added. 18. Commissioner Gardner asked what AB Zoning was? Staff explained it was Adult Business and explained what it consisted of. 19. Chairman Adolph asked what Section B on Page 7 referred to. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained this was a safety valve for areas where the zoning lines were not definitely defined. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that should someone not agree with staff, they could appeal the decision to the Planning Commission and City Council. 20. Chairman Adolph asked if Section 920.030(A) could be written with more clarity. It needed to be simplified. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained what the section meant Mr. Lawrence stated it was intended to give the Planning Commission more flexibility in setting requirements within each zoning district Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that along the toe of the mountain you want the setback to be more because of slides, etc. This section would allow the City to require additional setbacks. Discussion followed. Commissioners asked that the section be written in a more simplified manner. Planning Commission Meeting March 14,1995 21. Chairman Adolph stated he felt that a sentence should be added to Page 8, Section 920.040 stating "free of all encumbrances". Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained this section was used to give the Director authority to deal with uses that were similar but not specifically mentioned. Discussion followed. 22. Commissioner Abell asked if flat roofs could be banned. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this was addressed in the Building Code. Commissioner Anderson explained that typically there are no flat roofs, they all have a slight pitch. 23. Chairman Adolph asked that in Section 9.30.030(D) more verbiage could be added regarding shade structures and give some flexibility to the applicant. Chairman Adolph asked that a sentence be added regarding shade structures being required on the south and west elevations for glass areas larger than 16 square feet. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated some flexibility could be added., Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the Planning Commission had previously required overhangsishade structures for certain glass areas of a certain size. 24. Commissioner Barrows stated this section was specifically addressing an eave or window. If a sentence was added it would need to be consistent and have flexibility. There should be overhangs on the entire building, in addition to the south and west exposure and some type of alternate shading device for any window over a certain size. Discussion followed. 27. Commissioners discussed setbacks and development standards. Commissioners Barrows/Anderson moved to recess at 5:47 P.M. Unanimously approved. 2—dug.U^**�*� a.mconvened at 7:02 P.M. Chairman Adolph called the meeting to order. being no public comment nor any public hearings, Chairman Adolph introduced the Business BUSINESS A. a request of Vintage Homes for approval of a plot plan application to alto odification of a recreation lot at Lake La 4uinta. 1. cipai Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained within the stafkreport. a copy of which is on file in the Community Development M14 4 023 CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 11, 1995 CALL TO ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. This meeting of a Planning Commission was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by Chairman Ad ph. Commissioner Butler led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairs PC4-11 Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. B. Cobissioner Butler moved to excuse Commissioner Barrows. Commissioner A ids seconded the motion and it was unanimous. C. aff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. WORKSHOP A. Zoning Ordinance 11 ate: a request of staff for Planning Commission review of proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. 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. In addition, corrections that were made at the prior meeting were reviewed and the sections to be discussed were stated. �24 Phoning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 PC4-11 2. Following a brief summary by the Larry Lawrence, Lawrence Associates, consultants preparing the Zoning Ordinance Update, Commissioners discussed the changes with staff and the consultants. The following changes were made: a. Section 9.60.030 Fences and Walls: reword the definition, add "finish grade at the base of the fence" to measurement of fence height, and clarify opening railings and fences less than 30- inches. Under setback areas add City "or state" required, add "c" to visibility at intersections. Eliminate "D" regarding Adjustments for Height Increases. Revise and add to E.2-wood fencing, E.4-Masonry Fencing, E.5-Material Combinations, and E.6-Gates. Add to F-Fence Landscaping and Maintenance. Edit and add to G-Prohibited Fence Materials. b. Section 9.60.040. Patio Covers, Decks, and Play Equipment. Add "uncovered decks and other structures less than 18- inches..." to A -Applicability. Change 3-feet to "3-1/2 feet from any property line" to B.4. Eliminate C-Adjustments. C. Section 0.60.050. Storage and Other Accessory Buildings. Eliminate E-Adjustments. d. Section 9.60.060. Garages and Carports. Add reference to circular driveways and add the maximum height of detached garages. e. Section 9.60.070. Swimming Pools. B.1-Location revise to allow "0" setback for pools within a gated community. f. Section 9.60.100. Guest Houses. D.1-add detached guest houses, and eliminate #7. g. Section 9.60.120. Pets and Other Animals. Add "other than dog runs" to first sentence. h. Section 9.60.130. Recreational Vehicle Parking. Eliminate "vehicle designed and used for temporary inhabitation" from B.Definitions. Edit CA regarding uses permitted in which zones, and add screening requirements to C.6. 3. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that Page 21 under Definition! 025 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 the words "hedge or thick growth of trees" should be deleted and add thick growth or shrubs of trees. 4. Commissioner Butler asked that the definitions on pedestrian and auto access gates be expanded and clarified. 5. Commissioners Butler and Gardner discussed the pros and cons of wood fencing and the burden of the expense of concrete fences. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated he was comfortable with improving the standard of wood fences. Commissioners discussed the problems that could still be incurred. 7. Discussion followed regarding how to provide for vehicle access and pedestrian gates. 8. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not think access gates should be allowed in a sideyard less than 12-feet. 9. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked that verbiage be added to Section 9.60.030(C)(3)(e) to include the word City "and State". In addition, Section 9.60.030(D) would require a variance and should be deleted. Discussion followed regarding reasons for and against the section and possible changes. 10. Chairman Adolph asked that on Page 24 - Masonry fences a statement should be added that requires both sides of a masonry wall must be stuccoed. 11. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a material that could be utilized for patio covers that would not warp after the first summer - Section 9.60.040 - Patio Covers. 12. Commissioner Anderson stated there should be no lumber smaller than 3 X 3. Commissioner Butler stated they should be required to bt treated as well. Commissioner Gardner stated there were treatec materials that could be used. 13. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked that additiona verbiage be added regarding the height of a detached garages Discussion followed regarding the height of the garage - should it be a high or higher than a single story (281) residential unit. Followinj PC4-11 3 026 Planning Commission Minutes April 11, 1995 discussion it was determined that detached garages shall be no higher than 17-feet. 1141. Commissioner Adels what the distance was from the property line for swimming pools. Commissioner Anderson stated no pool could be built closer than five feet from any power pole. Discussion, already covered by staff. Consultant Larry Lawrence stated the three feet was there to allow an area for walking around the pool. Principal Planner Stan Sawa asked that verbiage be added to clarify location encroachments 15. Chairman Adolph asked if a property owner could have a second residential unit on a single lot. Staff stated it would require a conditional use permit and the City has approved one or two. 16. Commissioner Abels asked why the City did not allow cooking facilities in a 1200 sq. ft. second unit. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was to discourage duplexes on a single lot. Commissioners discussed kitchens as they related to granny flat or guest houses. 17. Due to the hour, Chairman Adolph continued the Workshop to the April 25, 1995. The discussion would start with Page 35-Screening. 18. Commissioners Anderson and Abels moved to continue the study. Unanimously approved. 19. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated her concern regarding the sensitivity expressed about the EIR and the fact that it was prepared by the developer. State law allowed for the developer to prepare the EIR but the City must adopt it as your own. She asked that during the next meeting the Commissioners address their questions to City staff. All discussion will be between the Commission and staff. Chairman Adolph recessed the Planing Commission meeting until 7:00 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7:05 P.M. PUIBLIC PC4-11 4 027 A APRIL 25,1995 I. CALL TO U. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78 495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 3:00 P.M. A. TbjAmeeftof the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by Chairman olph. Commissioner Abels led the flag salute YChairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. B. Staff Present Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. WORKSHOP: Avwnwww�—> A. Continued • La Quinta Zoning Ordinance Update, 1. Commissioners and staff discussed with the consultants the following changes to the Zoning Ordinance update. a. Section 9.60.140. • Screening. B.i.b. change to 1325 feet; B2. Include pool spa equipment; B.3. Commissioners discussed solar panels and the requirement that the underside cannot be seen. Commissioner Barrows stated she did not want the ordinance to be so restrictive as to prevent someone from using solar. Commissioner Anderson asked If a property owner could use curbside collectors (screened like a skylight) if screened and the underside was not seen. Staff stated as long as it is aesthetically screened. Commissioner Anderson asked if the panels were ground mounted will the City require it to be screened. Staff stated that as long as the neighbor could not see it, they would not require screening. b. Commissioner Anderson requested that staff put the requirement of solar water heating be added to the code. c. Section 9.60.150., B.1: 12•foot high chain link fence blocks the view of the mountains. Need conditional use permit to control height of fences; B.3.: Lighting should require a conditional use permit; increase the setback or recess the tennis court Consultants stated that anything over 8-feet must increase the setback, and the City will need to address sideyards as well on a ratio of 3:1. d. Section 9.60.160: all outdoor lighting must conform to the Dark Sky Ordinance. e. Section 9.60.180: Manufactured Housing and Mobile homes. Concern that there is no mention of modular buildings. How does the City Inspect something that is already built; C2. Foundations should be checked to see that it addresses earthquake standards and that the units must be placed on a slab. Staff stated the City requires them to be compatible with existing units. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that a manufactured home is the same as a modular house. They must conform to the residential neighborhoods they are going into. Staff farther stated the units are required to be connected to the foundation. The City requirements for modular homes are that you can put a mobile home on a lot in the Cove if they can meet the requirements for a single family home. They must refurbish the unit to appear as a single family house. Commissioner Gardner asked that the wording mobile homes should be eliminated as they are all manufactured homes. The consultant stated there needed to be a reference for "mobile home" for identification. Commissioner Gardner asked that it be put in parentheses. f. Section 9.60.190, B.3.; add provisions for all parking, outdoor lighting, and security. g. Section 9.60210. Construction and Guard Offices: Need to simplify this section. ho Section 9.60240. Model Home Complexes: A.1 the number of units in a project needs to be clarified and add temporary landscaping for LUL: C2., define "conflict". L Section. 9.60250. Condominium Conversion: AZ, Tenant notification confusion as to notification • simplify. 2 029 j. Section 9.60.260 Density bonuses for Affordable Housing: Staff asked that inclusionary zone whereby all residential units need to provide 15% for low moderate income households to meet the state requirements be added. U., regulatory incentives needs to be clarified. Commissioners wanted to know if this was enough to know they have to go to compatible issues. The City Attorney stated this was not the appropriate place. It needed to do handled at the tentative tract review. Chairman Adolph asked if the developer has the right of first refusal at fair market value and was this ongoing. Staff explained that this is to keep affordable housing in the housing program; E.3., Chairman Adolph asked what were the reasonable conditions. The consultant stated it was to give the City flexibility with conversions to make sure they can conform to the State affordable housing programs. This section should not be confused with the City's regular apartment conversion provisions. This is part of the density bonus program. The consultant stated it was, but tied back to the other. k. Section 9.60.270. Timeshare Regulations. Staff stated the City currently has no time-share units. G.i.q.2., need to add language that better defined the proposed regulations L Section 9.300.030. Use of Terms. Automobile Service Station, add drive- thru carwashes and delete the last sentence "a convenience store or mini -mart accessory to the automotive use may be included." Clarify where "gas station" and "service station" refer to each other. One needs to have a definition. Add a definition for a common wall. Need to change the definition of enclosed to state "contained on all four sides". Gross Floor area - need to define what this refers to. Is this outside the wall or inside the wall. The consultant reminded the Commissioner that this needed to apply to commercial requirements as well. Needs to address both non-residential as well as commercial uses. The City Attorney stated that if you want commercial you need to add such appropriate provisions. Commissioner Anderson suggested they add exterior walls not including exterior finishes. Add daily basis for hotels. Kennel or animal shelter - need to add a combination of all or leave it for dogs only. Lot Line -Property Line - should normally mean the same. Reverse Mobilehome to state "see manufactured home". Scenic Highways - add historical highways as well. M. Section 920.020.Overlay uses - need to quantify. Table 9, Page 6 (030) - plant nurseries and garden supply ... not allowed in commercial. Change NC to C. Page 7 -Restaurants, drive-in or fast food should not be allowed in NC. Eliminate the word fast food from both rows. Page 10 - add definition to transitional shelter. Allow mixed -use in the NC. Page 11 - land use, private parking lots should be allowed in 3 030 Commercial Park, Office and Tourist Commercial, Urban mix as well as major community facilities. Page 13 - should tennis courts be added as an accessory use? Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:25 P.NI. and reconvened at 7:08 P.M. PUBLIC A. Audrey Ostrowsky, La 4uinta resident, spoke regarding her concern about the Zoning Ordinance in the Cove in that commercial businesses are working out of their homes. It affects the residents as well as the commercial property. Need to restrict this in the future. A. - a request of KSL PGA West Corporation for approval to res bdivide 3.6 acres into 14 single family residential lots. 1. \ Commissioners Anderson and Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of 2. As ciate Planner Greg Trousdell, presented the information contained in the s report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Dep ent 3. Commis oner Newkirk asked if the applicant was requesting to start a new homeown ' association (HO4 Associate Planner Trousdell stated that was what he un erstood as it was up to the resubdivider to stay with the current BOA or apply o de -annex and create a new BOA. Staff stated there needed to be clarificatio the conditions to reflect the Planning Commission's desire. 4. Chairman Adolph d if the original Specific Plan for the community lots on the 13th hole re q d a swimming pool as there was nothing in regards to a swimming pools prio to this request, and it was conditioned that If they built any type of condo from these lots, pools would be required. In addition, restroom facilities w d be built to handle the gardeners. The Trophy homeowners bought th homes with the understanding that swimming pools would be installed. 3taf tated that was correct 5. Mr. Chevis Hosea, Director Recreation, representing KSL Recreation, stated that regarding the concern er the creation of a BOA, this map is not an issue with the applicant, but fa maps could be. Their concern is with setting a precedent and having an ob on to provide adequate amenities to the site They will establish a BOA or in the existing, but they do not believe it b appropriate for a tentative trac map to mandate that they be in an existing BOA. 4 031 MAY 9,1995 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This m Ccm ss ll. ROLL CAL PI:S•9 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78.495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 3:00 P.M. of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:08 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Barrows led the flag salute. A. fhairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. B. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. A. Continued • Zoning Code Update: a request of the City for review and update of the Zoning Code. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report and reviewed what had been covered to date. 2. Chairman Adolph asked if staff would like to address Mr. Norris Bernard's letter. Staff stated the problem arises with basic compatibility issues where CC & R's do not exist. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that in a Zoning Ordinance. unless there is a specific area of the town, cities do not typically get into real architectural detail or style unless they are trying to create a historical district or feel in town. Discussion followed. Members reviewed the proposed update to the Zoning Code. Those areas addressed were: 3. Section 9.60.030 1 032 Planning Commission Minutes May 9,1995 Pc5.9 Page 004 - c.4.a.1) change the footage to 20-feet Page 004 - D.I. Gates - Materials. ....Section and provided any wood used is of "no less than a grade of ........ of construction heart 0.2. Width. "Pedestrian" gates ........ except that "other" gates may... E.2.b. All wood fencing "no less than a grade of", shall be put it wherever it appears. Page 005 - E.2.c. Add shall be a minimum of "nominal" 4" X 4" . E.4. Change cinder block to "precision concrete block or cinder block" and "...are covered with stucco, texture coating, "paint" or other....". 4. Section 9.60.040 Page 007 B.6. "...shall be of minimum "nominal" 2" X 2" material...." 5. Section 9.60.050: Page 007 Table 9 change Interior side yard to 3.5' for 0.100 square feet structures B. Section 9.60.060. Commissioners asked that the wording for Garages and Carports be changed. 7. Community Development Director Jerry Herman relayed information that had been obtained from the other cities in the Valley relating to detached garages. The garage referred to in Mr. Norris' letter is the same height as the house and under the height requirement for the area. Staff will send this information to Mr. Norris. Discussion followed concerning garage heights as they related to compatibility. 8. Section 9.60.060 Page 008 A. Heights. Change "maximum structure height shall be 17-feet". Staff to look into designing a table that makes the determination for height based on lot sizes. 9. Section 9.60.080 Page 009 C.2. Height and Diameter. "...shall be no more than ten feet..." 8. Section 9.60.140 Page 017 8.4. Change "properties" to "features". P) 033 Planning Commission Minutes May 9,1995 9. Section 9.60.150 Page 018 8.3. Add shall not exceed 18 feet "from court surface" and delete "or as approved by the Planning Commission." 10. Section 9.60.160 Page 019 2. Height. Pole or fence•mounted, "decorative or landscape type lighting shall be...." 11. Section 9.100.030 Page 052 B. shall be measured from, "the finished grade at the" base of the fence. Page 053 3.a. Change to 30•inches 4. Change to 30•inches 12. Section 9.100.040 Page 054 B.1.a. Change to 15% B.1.b. Change to 15% staff to address drought•tolerant and water efficient landscaping Add B.6 Majority of "landscape plants shall be water efficient." Page 056 3. Change to 30" 7.c. Change language regarding wood to agree with language from Residential Standards. Page 057 U. Staff to check on wording. 13. Section 9.100.060 Page 057 A.3. On page 058 add sentence "Planting to be maintained and replanted in perpetuity." Page 058 B.1. Change to 30•inches. 14. Section 9.100.070 Page 058 A.2. Height to be same as residential requirements. 15. Section 9.100.080 Page 059 1. Change December 1 to "Monday following Thanksgiving." PC5.9 3 034 Planning Commission Minutes May 9,1995 PI.15.9 16. Section 9.100.120 Page 061 A. Remove the word "permanent" C.3.a Change four inches thick to six inches. Page 062 C.31. Add language from Residential Standards. D. & 0.1. Remove the word "permanent". 17. Section 9.100.130 Page 083 C.6. Change Fire Chief to Fire Marshal in both places 18. Section G.100.140 Page 063 1. Change to read "..gatherings of 50 to 300 people." Staff to create two temporary use permits. One will only require staff approval. Page 064 e. Change Fire Chief to Fire Marshal. 19. Section 9.1GO. 150 Staff to update to current products and address according to foot candles and limitation to the number allowed. Add this to the Residential requirements as well if necessary. Page 065 A.3. Add "or safety hazard". A. Purpose. Add something about using the most energy efficient lighting Page 068 La. Change Planning and Development to Building and Safety Department. Page 069 H.1. Add the original adoption date instead of "date of". Add to the last sentence "...no change other than bulb replacement. 20. Section 9.100.170 Page 071 2. Add language regarding once the building is removed the property must be restored to the original condition which might include dust or weed abatement. 21. Section 9.100.180 Page 073 3. Add cash bond "to guarantee removal and restoration of site" 22. Section 9.100.200 Page 076 0.2. On a concrete pad "sloped to drain to the gate per disposal company..."and City". 4 035 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78.495 Calls Tampico, CA May 23,1995 I. CALL TO ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. This meeting the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by Chairman Adolph who led the flag Ifilute. II. ROLL CALL: A. /ChairmnaAdolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abeis, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, nd Chairman Adolph. Commissioners Anderson/Barrows moved and seconded a motion Commissioner Newkirk. Unanimously approved. B. sent: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney, Dawn Honeywell, Planner Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Fred Baker, Associate Planner, Greg Trousdell, nt Secretary Betty Sawyer, and The Planning Center Consultant Debra Ezra•Rogoff. Ill. PU"'" "IMdIENT. IV. WORKSHOP A. Continued • Zoning Code Update: a request of the City for review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented an update on what material had been covered and what was to be discussed. 2. Chairman Adolph opened the discussion and reviewed of the document page by page. 3. Page 004 Section 9.110.030. B. Change "maximum structure height" from 30 feet to 28 feet. Do the same wherever it is referred to. 4. Page 005 Section 9.110.060. 4. Add somewhere in the text "Santa Rosa Mountain National Scenic Area". PC5.23 1 036 Planning Commission Minutes May 23,1995 PC5.23 5. Page 006 Section 9.110.060 A.8. Identify the structure height starting from a point . 28•feet from the mien. Eliminate "Minimum Building Site." C.1.e. Add Sections 4 and 5 to WS R7E . C.1.b. Change TSS, HE, 36 to T5S C.1.b. Add Section 25 and delete from e.l.a. C.1.d. Add Section 33. 6. Page 009 Section 9.120.020.. Table 9.5 Other Uses. Public flood control facilities and devices should be permitted ("P) in the "G C" category. 7. Page 010 Table 9. Change maximum height to 28•feet on all zones. 8. Page 011 Section 9.140.030 V. Same changes as a.5 Section 9.110.060 C.1. 9. Page 012 C.3.d. Eliminate "or painted". C.3.e. Change to "Transmission. lines (properly screened or undergrounded)" 10. Page 013 E. Add "design review by the Planning Commission". 11. Page 014 G.3.b. Add "Native" drought tolerant plants. 12. Page 015 H.3. Add "at such time as the new property owner occupies, or a HOW accepts the responsibility... 13. Page 019 Section 9.140.030 M.Z. City Attorney to rewrite. 2 037 Planning Commission Minutes May 23,1995 14. Page 021 Section 9.140.050 Adult Entertainment Overlay District to only contain the Overlay District and everything else moved to the Business District Section and deleted from Planning Commission review. 15. Page 034 Section 9.150.050 C. Eliminate the entire paragraph. 16. Page 036 Section 9.150.060 Table 9 - Off-street Parking Requirements - add 4 bedrooms or more a 3-car garage is required and add "For houses with a room such as a den, study, or sewing room shall count as a bedroom." For room additions it shall be based upon the value of the addition to the overall house. Less than 50% of the current value you are exempt from the garage addition. 17. Page 039 Table 9.Office and Health Care Uses - General offices, other than medical or dental - change from one space per 250 square feet to one space per 350 sq./ft. 18. Chairman Adolph asked that staff bring the Parking Chapter back to next meeting. In addition, staff was to obtain information from Palm Desert for a comparison. Staff stated they would prefer to compare it to the existing Code. Commissioners thought the City should be compared to other cities of the same size and diversity (Palm Desert, the existing, and the proposed). In addition, the Village Specific Plan would be considered. Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:23 P.M. and reconvened at 7:02 P.M. V. VI. A. Street Name Change 95.006: a request of the La Quinta Volunteer Fire Department to change street name of Old 52nd Avenue to Frances Hack Lane. 1. Associ Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of ch is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Commissioner Al informed the Commission that the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District (CVRP%hadeen contacted regarding La Quinte's request to change the name of the CommunAt their May 10th meeting it was determined that since the CVPRO had no poce to approve such a request, a policy should be put in place PC5.23 3 038 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Duinta City Hall 78.495 Calla Tampico, CA June 13,1995 I. CALL TO ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. This meting of the Planning Commission was called to order -at 3:13 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Comm' sioner Barrows led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, lardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Anderson arrived late. III. PUBLIOrCOMMENT: A. There being no public comment, Chairman Adolph asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell to update the Commission regarding the status of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained the status of the Ordinance and the proposed changes that IV. WORKSHOP A. continued - Zoning Code Update: a request of the City for review and approval of the Zoning 404 Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented an update on what material had been covered and what was to be discussed. 2. Page 5 Section 9. 1 50.040.A.2.b. - Define what "reasonable walking distance" into feet. (Not to exceed 300 feet). 3. Page B B.5. - Add "other than approved car sales". 4. Section 9.140.050.A. - Delete the sentence, "In the interests of the public health, safety and welfare, the City's decision -making authority shall be the final judge on how many off-street parking spaces a use or a combination of uses may require." Staff was PC6.13 1 039 Planning Commission Minutes June 13,1995 requested to correct the wording in following sentence. 5. A.3 and A.5 (Page 7) - Delete both. B. Page 7 & 8 D. - Staff to review and offer suggestions (a 10% reduction shall apply to the commercial requirements only). 7. 0.3. Add "to a City -created assessment/benefit for parking improvements, or parking improvement district...' 8. Page 9 Table 9 - Define where the driveway length should be from and to. 9. Page 13 Table 9 - Staff to review section on Automobile Service Stations 10. Page 19 Section 9.150.080.A.4 - "Individual wheel stops jhd be permitted! 11. A.8. - Define what a "sufficient throat" is. A.10. - Encourage them to use a common easement use. 12. Page 21 8.7. - staff to check with Engineering Department for driveway width. 13. Page 022 0.4. - add "...and speed bumps and siQnaoe shall be used...." 14. Page 25 F.2. - Add "to allow pavers". 15. Page 27 J.7. - Add verbiage "...to include screening by a wall or landscaping, berm or any combination of the three." J.7. - Make reference to refer them to Section 1". 16. Page 28 K.10 and 11. - add "above finish grade". 17. Page 29 3.b. - Remove "decision- making authority" and replace with "City". PCO-13 2 Planning Commission Minutes ,rune 13,1995 18. Page 30 M.5. • minimum 15 gallon size tree with a 2" diameter trunk. Create a canopy tree palette. M.5..10% to 15% of overall landscaping should be required. Add native or drought tolerant plants. 19. Page 31 Table 9 . Minimum required parking spaces 5.24 and 25.49 change the amount of shading required to 50%. 29. Page 32 10. • add "in like kind and size". 12.. Eliminate. 30. Page 33 Table 9 . verify it conforms with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) or state "refer to the ADA requirements". Chairman Adolph recessed the meeting at 5:29 P.M. and reconvened at 7:04 P.M. V. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Street Name Change 95.006: a request of the La Quinta Volunteer Fire Department t change the name of a portion of Old 52nd Avenue to Frances Hack Lane. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff art, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Ther being no questions of staff and no public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public aring. 3. Commissic\Depart tated that since the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District had passen renaming the downtown Community Park to "Frances Hack Park", he more appropriate than renaming the street. 4. Staff infommissioners that even though the Park had been renamed, the Volunteer nt still wanted to name Old 52nd Avenue to Frances Hack Lane. Commissise the request PC6.13 3 041 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Guinta City Hall 78.495 Calle Tampico, La Guinta, CA June 27,1995 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meetin of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:07 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Commissi er Newkirk led the flag salute. ROLL CALL A. Imationman Adolph requested the roil call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, ner,Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. Commissioners Barrows/Gardner moved and seconded to excuse Commissioners Anderson. Motion carried unanimously. B Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand, and Department Secretary. Betty Sawyer. WORKSHOP A. Continued . Zoning Ordinance Update a request of the City for review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented an update on what material had been covered and what was to be discussed. 2. As the City Attorney had not joined the meeting yet, Commissioners elected to discuss Chapter 9.170 (Communication Towers and Equipment) and wait to discuss Chapter 9.160 (Signs). 3. Commissioners discussed various aspects of the towers and their requirements for the equipment. 4. CHAPTER 9.170 • Communication Towers and Equipment Page 6, Section 9.170.060.1.3. Correct "...at least fwC feet..." PCs•27 Planning Commission Minutes June 2 7,1995 PCI9.21 5. Page 8, Section 9.170.070.H.2. a. "Rdentifv the site...." 3. The applicant shall provide evidence if the proposed site is located in an urban residential areas as to why there is no comparable site available outside urban residential areas. 6. CHAPTER 9.160 - Signs City Attorney Dawn Honeywell gave an explanation of the changes she had requested. 7. Page 2 - Table 9 - 2. Within residential district signs - building mounted - 1 sq. ft. - no illumination. 4. Remove the word "Memorial". 6. Within a commercial district, small window or building mounted signs, six signs per premise, six sq. ft. 7. Add "temporary" decorations. Add at the end, "removal shall occur within seven days after the holiday. 13. -Change to read "In commercial district a glass case display or chalkboard." 14. Delete 15. Delete B. Page B. Section 9.160.030 H. Add to the last sentence, "The Director may request the Director of Building ;and Suety to order...." J. Change "reasonable" to "ten days". 9. CHAPTER 9.180 - Transportation Demand Management Staff stated there was no real need to update this section, but if the Commissioners have any questions or comments, they should be discussed at this time. 10. Page 3. Section 9.180.030.B. 2. Change Planning and Development to Community Development Department. 11. Page 8 Section 9.180.110 - change Planning and Development Department to Community Development Department. 12. CHAPTER 9.190 - Transfer of Development Rights No changes. 2 043 July 11, 1995 IV. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 3:00 P.M. TO ORDER This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by Vice Chairman Gardner who asked Commissioner Adolph to lead the flag salute. w1va l Vice Chairman Gardner requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Butler, Newkirk, and Vice Chairman Adolph. Absent: Commissioner Barrows and Chairman Abels. Commissioners Adolph/Butler moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioners Abels and Barrows. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Planner Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. WORKSHOP A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of the City for a review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Commissioners of the Chapters that had been reviewed. 2. CHAPTER 9.160 - Signs Page 007, Table 9 Eliminate `Building -mounted" from apartment building ID signs and change "top of wall" to six feet. For multi -tenant buildings or complexes eliminate "top of wall or". For free-standing apartment rental change the maximum area to six and eliminate "top of wall or", and require 15 or more units rental information. Change "Church and Institutional Uses" to "Other Residential Uses". ac7.» i 044 Planning Commission Meeting July 11, 1995 Page 008, Table 9 Add to note: "Signs required by law shall be allowed at the minimum size specified." Eliminate "Permanent window signs". Add, "Free-standing center or complex ID sign". Add, `Building -mounted permanent window ID sign"; add under maximum area, "Under canopy sign maximum three square feet, one square lineal foot of lease frontage up to a maximum of 50 sq. ft., eliminate top of wall and add eight feet and second story in interior access no outside sign". For Building -mounted ID sign for individual commercial or office building for maximum number add "(one per side of building)". Eliminate Hotels and motels line. Page 009, Table 9 For Gas/service stations change the maximum area to 50 sq. ft., and eliminate 12 sq. ft. Vice Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 5:17 P.M. and reconvened at 7:02 P.M. V. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ublic Use Permit 95-016; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for a roval to construct their District Educational Services Center of approximately 16 , 00 square feet of floor space located northeast of the intersection of Dune Palms Road d 48th Avenue. 1. Sk informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a contlquance to the Commission's July 25th meeting. 2. There b ' g no questions of staff, Vice Chairman Gardner opened the public hearing. s no one wished to address the Commission, it was moved and seconded b Commissioners Butler/Adolph to continue this item to July 25, 1995. Unani ously approved. B -04 ; a request of the City for an approval of an amendment to the. La Qui Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 5.80 and amending Chapter 9.154 rela \ng to Adult Oriented Businesses (AE). PC7.11 2 € 49 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA July 25, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:19 P.M. by Obairman Abels who asked Commissioner Adolph to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL A. C Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Anderson, Barrows, tier, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. Absent: Commissioner Gardner. Commission rs Barrows/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commission Gardner. B. Staff present: Co unity Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior ngineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. WORKSHOP A. Couttinued - Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of the City for a review and / approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa informed the Commissioners of the Chapters that had been reviewed and explained a request by the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce for review of a proposed temporary sign program. 2. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the proposed program would fall under the Permitted Temporary Sign regulations. He went on to explain the history behind the request and that it consisted of a directional sign program for the Village. 3. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that because there are still concerns about opening,the issue of off -premise signs, if the Commission decides to add this sign. program to the Ordinance, they need to make findings that PC7.25 1 STD Planning Commission Meeting July 2:5, 1995 PC71.25 exceptions can be made in the Village District. Such findings would show it is difficult to find business locations in the Village District and because of these peculiar situations, findings can be made for off -premise signs for these businesses. It would need to be called the Village Directional Sign Program and would be limited and applicable to the Village District only. In addition, the sign patrons would be rotated on a basis not related to content and must be open to everyone in this Zone. 4. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that if the Commission agreed, staff would add this to the Permitted Temporary Sign section of the Sign Ordinance with the modifications as noted by the City Attorney. 5. Chairman Abels asked if the representatives of the Chamber would like to speak. Ms. Michelle Dallas, Executive Director of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, stated she was here to answer any questions the Commission may have. The program stems from their Business Development Task Force. She stated this would not be a revenue generator, but an asset to local businesses to held draw business. 6. Commissioner Butler asked what options were available to the City if the signs were not maintained; would there be any objection to adding a clause to the sign program that would allow the City to remove them if not maintained? Ms. Dallas agreed with the addition of the clause. It was the Chamber's intent that the money received would be for the installation and maintenance of the signs. 7. Ms. Dallas asked if the sign program had to be opened to all businesses and not just Chamber members. Commissioner Anderson stated that if it was limited to just Chamber members it would be discriminatory. Ms. Dallas then asked if they could provide a lower rental rate for members of the Chamber. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would be difficult as the only fees to be charged were those for the installation and maintenance of the signs. In addition, as the signs were to be installed in the public right- of-way it would be a problem. The Chamber would need to determine a method of selecting businesses for the sign program that was not discriminatory. Commissioner Anderson asked if the signs used for Chamber members could be made differently. Community Development Director Jerry Herman suggested the Chamber dues reflect a discount for those who are members rather than discounting the sign program. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this could be an incentive to join the Chamber. 2 04 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 PCl•25 8. Ms. Dallas asked about Conditions #5 and 96 regarding rotation of the panels, and asked if the Chamber could continue the contract for 11 months, rotated off for a month then continue on. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified this was correct, but a mechanism needs to be put in place that if there are more businesses than panels, a method of rotating the signs that is fair to everyone is somehow put in place. 9. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the program was limited to only those businesses within the Village boundaries. Discussion followed regarding those businesses that were out of the boundaries. 10. Mr. Greg Shannon, Chamber President asked about placing a sign at 52nd Avenue and Bermudas to direct traffic. Mr. Herman stated this area was not within the Village. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that since the sign was for assistance to direct traffic to the Village, a sign would be needed at this location to direct the traffic to the Village. 11. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the size of the signs was not addressed in the memo. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified that the signs would be the same size and structure as the BIA sign program. 12. Commissioner Newkirk stated the current ordinance allows 12 square feet in size and questioned whether this sign would be larger. Community Development Director clarified that he was unsure whether or not the entire monument would be larger, but the individual signs were for the individual businesses. 13. Commissioner Adolph asked if the Planning Commission would be approving the generic sign and staff approving the individual signs. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was up to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not they would want the signs to come back to the Commission for approval or just have the Planning Commission approve the locations and have staff approve the business signs. Discussion followed regarding the wording on. the signs and their locations. 14. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the location and number of signs should be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. 049 Pllwning Commission Meeting July 25,1995 PC7.25 15. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the Planning Commissioners' direction: 1) accept the amendments of the City Attorney; 2) a requirement added concerning the City's authority to remove deteriorating signs; 3) clarifying the use of the revenues; and 4) the program would be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the number and locations of the signs. Staff stated this would be a new section entitled "The Village Semi -Permanent Directional Sign Program" under Permitted Temporary Signs. Chairman Abels asked about the boundaries. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the boundaries. 16. Chairman Abels stated his concern about sign pollution. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell commented that this was what the Commission was to be considering. 17. Commissioner Adolph asked if the Planning Commission was the final authority for approving the signs. Staff stated yes, but all projects go to the City Council if approved. Staff clarified the procedure the ordinance would go through for adoption. 18. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern that the number of signs to be allowed not become visual blights. One of the findings for approving the sign program could be the lack of development in the Village. At such time as the Village is developed, the Ordinance could then be reviewed for any changes needed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this would give credence to proving the sign program was temporary in nature. 19. Staff clarified they would send a draft copy of the Ordinance to the Chamber so they would be prepared to address any problems at the public hearing. 20. Commissioner Anderson stated the sign appeared to be constructed out of wood. He suggested the Chamber clarify with the sign company how the signs would be changed without deteriorating the sign frame. 211. Commissioner Butler questioned how the City could put some enforcement behind the Sign Ordinance to see that illegal signs are removed. He suggested that perhaps during the application process, the applicant could be informed that the City has the right to remove any illegal signs that are not maintained. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Ordinance now allows the City to remove any illegal sign and impose fines. Staff clarified this was the responsibility of the Code Enforcement Department. Discussion followed regarding the process. 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 25, 1995 22. CHAPTER 9.160 - Signs Page 010, Section 9.160.060 D. Maximum Height. Add,"No No higher than eave line or top of wall building or 8-feet whichever is less." 23. Page 014, G. Time Extensions. Add "maximum of a one time extension". 24. Page 016, 2. and 5.a. and 5.b. Remove reference to Design Review Board and replace with Community Development Department. Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 5:17 P.M. and reconvened at 7:02 P.M. V. : None VI. PWLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 95-016; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for proval to construct their District Educational Services Center of approximately 1 '000 square feet of floor space located northeast of the intersection of Dune Palms Ro and 48th Avenue. 1. OStaff informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a ntinuance to the *Commission's August 8th meeting. 2. Th �pne ing no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing. As n wished to address the Commission, it was moved and seconded by Co ssioBarrows/Adolph to continue this item to August 8, 1995. Unamm usly approved. B - ; a request of the City for an approval of an amendment to the a Quinta Municipal Code by revising Title 13-Subdivision Regulations. 1. Associate Eng' eer Fred Bouma introduced Mr. Jim Morrissey, of NBS Lowrey, who pre\'the e information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on fiCommunity Development Department. 2. Following the pn, Commissioner Adolph asked whatthe public response had beeorrissey stated it had been received very well and they felt they had their purpose in the public meetings. Pc7.25 5 050 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA AUGUST\8, 1995 I. CALL 10 ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. Thi meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:12 P.M. by C Abels who asked Community Development Director Jerry Herman to lead the fla salute. 11. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Ab s requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, d Chairman Abels. Absent: Commissioners Adolph and Newkirk. Commissioners ardner/Anderson moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioners A 1ph/Newkirk. B. Staff present: Comm ty Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior En 'neer Steve Speer, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Be Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: None IV. WORKSHOP A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of the City for a review and approval of the Zoning Code Update. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the history behind the Village zoning, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. He went over the Village map and explained the zoning districts. 2. Commissioner Anderson asked why the residential portion was not in the Village zoning. Staff explained it was covered in the residential portion of the Ordinance. PC8.8 1 051 Plarming Commission Meeting August 8, 1995 PCB-8 3. Commissioner Barrows questioned Page 2. C.l.c., and asked how the parameters were derived at. Staff explained these were the existing zoning requirements created in 1989. It was determined to eliminate the time limit of 15 minutes and have it read, "Hours of minor entertainment falling between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m." 4. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification on the boundaries of each of the districts. Staff explained and discussion followed about the lot sizes. 5. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained some history of the C-•V-S and whether there was too much commercial in this whole area and whether some of it should be converted to residential. 6. Chairman Abels asked if the two story buildings would be allowed to have Commercial zoning on the bottom floor and Residential on the top or would it require changing the zoning. Staff explained on some areas it would require a zone change. 7. Chairman Abels asked why the Park was zoned R-1. Staff explained this was the original zoning. 8. Community Development Director Jerry Herman explained the meaning for Page 3, D. La. as being for the purpose of having a covered walkway. The problem on Page 3, D.2.b. was that the first lots on Desert Club rear setback requirement did not allow for any innovation in the building structure due to the amount required. Staff suggested a ten foot setback be required instead; this would still leave a need for parking however. 9. The City Attorney and staff reminded the Commissioners that they need to consider pedestrian movement from the front of the businesses to the rear, if parking is to be provided for in the rear. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the pedestrian paseos would make the districts work. However, the City must solve the problem of parking first. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Commissioners must determine where the break should fall before a pedestrian break is required. It was felt 8-10 feet was all that was needed to provide the walkway corridor. 10. Chairman Abels asked if the City was going to provide a Parking District. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained that it had been discussed, but no impetus had been put on it as of yet. Discussion followed. 2 t15 Planning Commission Meeting August 8, 1995 11. Chairman Abels suggested that a letter be written to the Council requesting a joint meeting to discuss the parking issue in the Village. It was felt there could be no further discussion until a joint study session was held regarding the Village prior to the Planning Commission reviewing this portion of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioners Butler/Barrows moved and seconded the motion to request staff make a request to Council for a joint meeting regarding the Village zoning and parking problems. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 4:09 P.M. and reconvened at 7:00 P.M. Ci i1'1�1:fAl�i-l9jwuwIMwsime TiTa VI. PNBLIC HEARINGS A. N bl'c e Permit 95-016; a request of Desert Sands Unified School District for a roval to construct their District Educational Services Center of approximately 16 00 square feet of floor space located northeast of the intersection of Dune Palms Roa d 48th Avenue. 1. mmunity Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information con ned in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Deve pment Department. 2. There b\Ja'lk no questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and Mr. Matlock, spoke on behalf of the applicant. 3. Commission Butler asked how long it would take to convert the buses to natural gas. Mr. atlock stated he did not know at this time, but it would be done in phases. a further stated they had been trying to make this change for twenty years. mmissioner Butler commended them for their efforts. 4. Chairman Abels aske for the lifespan of a bus. Mr. Matlock stated it was two years or 200,000 mi s for a gas vehicle or diesel. The natural gas would be approximately double, r 300,000+ miles. 5. Chairman Abels questioned referred to. Mr. Matlock state will exit and access through 48t the barn at 6:00 A.M. Staff e Avenue and Dune Palms at the ition #40 as to which streets were being : when the streets are completed the buses venue. He further stated the buses leave wined the streets affected would be 48th access locations. PCH o53 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, CA 26, 1995 I. CALL TO ORDER 3:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:07 P.M. by hairman Abels. Commissioner Adolph led the flag salute. II. ROLL A. Chaikan Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Barrows, Butler, ardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. B. Commiss\oners Adolph/Gardner moved and seconded a motion to excuse Comm issi er Anderson. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: ommunity Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, PI ' Manager Christi di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planne Sng tan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sa 7er. III. PUBLIC COMMENT - Non IV. WORKSHOP .�� A.. Ordinance Update; a request of staff for a review of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff presented portions of the revised Zoning Ordinance Update for the Commissioners review. Items discussed included clarification of the maximum, building heights and leaf blower regulations. 2. Staff presented information regarding why an "envelope" method of measuring building heights is more desirable than using a "mean" point method. After discussion, the Planning Commission determined that an "envelope" method as originally presented by the consultant should be utilized. Pf:9-26 I 054 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 PC9-26 3. It was determined that exceptions to the development standards for drive thru facilities as presented in Section 9.150.080(J), should be deleted. 4. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, presented the history of the leaf blower regulations. Commissioners asked questions of staff regarding the proposed regulations. Following discussion, Commissioners asked staff to:. a. Restudy the time frame and hours for the leaf blowers (possibly the same as construction hours) and find a way to enforce it. Automatic exemption between approximately September 15th and December 1 st should be considered. Exact time of exemption to be determined by the survey. b. In addition, the Commissioners asked staff to include a section on golf tournaments and notification to the respective homeowner associations, if hours are to be earlier. C. It was noted that a potential conflict exists between 9.145.030 and 9.145.060 due to the definition of "real property landscape maintenance" and "golf course landscape operations." 4. Page 007, Section 9.145.040A a. The City Attorney noted to staff a need to make a more general statement as to who is subject to time limitations. 5. Page 008, Section 9.145.050B a. The City Attorney noted a need for criteria to determine exemptions by the Community Development Director. 6. Page 011, Section 9.30.020 a. Rewrite to reflect the Housing Element changes for any new developments (not pre-existing) very low, low, and moderate income homes. 7. Page 019, Section 9.40.030. Table 9-1 a. Staff noted a change needed for "apartment projects (rental units)" to 2 055 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 PC9-26 allow them in the RVL, RL, and RC with a specific plan with restrictions. 8. Page 029, Section 9.50-060 a. Change how the height is measured from using a "mean point" to a building envelope. 9. Page 033, Section C.3.c. a. Change to allow two arches or two pairs of pilasters. 10. Page 038, Section 9.60.060. B.1 a. Check this section to insure that it complies with the Table of Development Standards, Section 9.50.040.B. 11. Page 043, Section 9.60.110CA. a. Reword or modify to allow home occupations, or rewrite "detached accessory structure" in the Definition Section. 12. Commissioner Butler asked staff to see if there were areas within the City that could be zoned as CP (Commercial Park). Suggestions were: Jefferson Street and the south side of Highway 111 east of Dune Palms. 13. Page 072, Table 9 a. Staff noted a need to add residential as a conditional use in the CR Zone. 14. Page 076 - reword the height definition same as Page 029, Section 9.50.060. 15. Special Advertising devices - staff to go through and eliminate the repetitious areas. Staff with remove most of Chapter 5. Place "Searchlights" under Special Advertising Devices. 16. Commissioner Adolph asked for clarification on the time length a temporary chain link fence may be used. Staff stated generally it runs consecutively with the building permit. As long as the building permit is active, the fence is allowed. Commissioners asked staff to check into the time limits allowed for the temporary fences at the Citrus Course. 3 Ott; Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 1995 17. Commissioner Adolph asked if political banners were allowed in a commercial zone. He understood banners required to a permit. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the political signs are not enforceable. She would look into the use of a banner in a commercial zone. Chairman Abels stated that due to the hour, he opened the meeting up for "Commissioner Items". V. )COMMISSIONER ITEMS A.\Chairman Abels gave a report of the CCAPA Workshop in Diamond Bar held at the of the South Coast Air Quality offices attended by Commissioners Butler, r, and himself. He stated this was the type of workshop all commissioners attend. The Workshop was informative and created a number of questions. ssues that were brought out at the Workshop, he would like to see ented here, such as: 1. aving the Planning Commission packets distributed earlier. Discussion �,s\dk arding the mechanics of preparing the agenda. Staff stated they wt the process and see if there was a faster way to get the agenda di 2. Wcommissioners are appointed, there should be indoctrination prform them about the planning process and explain what would bof them. Staff should inform all new Commissioners of their d 3. Funds shoul be budgeted to allow the Commissioners an opportunity to attend educatio al courses/workshops. 4. A tour of the maj projects prior to their review and approval. B. Commissioner Butler state that discussions at the Workshop were helpful and he was very appreciative of Ci Attorney's attendance and input at the Commission meetings. C. Commissioner Barrows question d the legality of Commissioners attending meetings with developers prior to the mee 'ngs. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that when a Commissioner is voting n a project, this should be stated during the meeting. In addition, if anything at a site influenced their decision, this should also be stated. It needed to be made a art of the record. Due process requires that everyone at the hearing be made a are of how each Commissioner came to a decision on the project. Discussion fo owed. PC9-26 057 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, CA October " 1995 I. C k TO ORDER A. 3:00 P.M. meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by irman Abels. Commissioner Anderson led the flag salute. Chairm� Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Adolph, Butler, Gardner Newkirk, and Chairman Abels. B. Chairman A is stated both Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk had informed him they would b late. He therefore, moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a motion to excu Commissioners Barrows and Newkirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Co unity Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, I?= Manager Christi di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner S Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE A ENDA: A. Chairman Abels asked if 1. Commissioner Ado Commissioner Items 2. Chairman Abels asked be added. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - None V. WORKSHOP a -----�-�- A. 0 were any changes to the Agenda. h asked that "Political Signs" be added to a discussion regarding General Plan Amendments ZQninz Ordinance Update; a request of staff for a review of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff presented portions of the revised Zoning Ordinance Update for the Commissioners review indicating proposed changes are written in the draft. Palo-10 1 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 2. Page 006, Section 9.110.080. Change the title to "Sexually Oriented Businesses". Change it wherever it appears 3. Page 009, Table 9. a. Water wells and pumping stations changed to Permitted Use. b. Water tanks and reservoirs changed to Conditional Use Permit. 4. Staff asked that the following changes be made: a. Page 013.E. Change Design Review to Site Development Review as well as "design review" to "site review" b. Page 014.G.2. To be rewritten by staff to update archaeological requirements. C. Page 015. Add a G.#4. Regarding View sheds from Page 016. d. Page 015.H. - Remove #1 and #2 and move #3 to Page 018 as a separate paragraph under "Landscaping" and renumber the remainder. 5. Page 020. Staff to clarify C.1. and bring back to the Commission. Chairman Abels noted that all Commissioners were now present. K1,10-1c 6. Page 040. Table 9. Apartments and airspace a. Change the number of covered parking spaces for three or more bedrooms to 3 covered spaces. 6. Page 043. Table 9 a. Parking for a General Office reduce back to 250 sq./ft. GFA. b. Add a requirement for 30% covered parking for Banks -etc.; Convalescent Hospitals, General Office -etc., and Medical or Dental uses under "Office and Health Care Uses". 7. Page 044. Car Washes a. Staff stated the number of parking spaces may be too high. b. Need to base the number of employees or services being provided. Staff to bring a recommendation back to the Commission. 8. Page 060.M.6. Parking Lot Shading. a. Need to add a requirement requiring covered parking for all parking in apartments for units with including guests. Staff to review and report back to the Commission. Remove "leave as is". 2 059 Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1995 9. Staff asked that the following changes be made to Chapter 9.160: Signs a. Page 064.Section 9.160.010.A.3. Add "provide directional information". b. Page 069. Clarify "project neighborhood entry sign" and clarify all lighting to be indirect. C. Page 070. Table 9. Lighting - direct or indirect for all signs. d. Page 071. Gas stations. Remove the first sentence under Additional Requirements. e. Page 072 F - total signs shall not exceed 30. ff Page 078 #5.a. Change Director to Planning Commission; (1) Remove # 1 and b. g. Page 081 #4. "...vehicles which are primarily used..." h. Page 082 #25 - Remove; #20, Except in the Village; #21, change neon to illuminated and add "sign program". i. Page 086.X. Eliminate pylon and pole signs. j. Page 088.KK. Change "plate line" to "roof plane". 10. Commissioner Adolph asked to address Political Signs on Page 072 under Permitted Temporary Signs. City Attorney stated the City might be able to put a restriction on the maximum number allowable in the City right-of-way, but not on private property. The Planning Commission felt a maximum of 30 signs was appropriate. Political signs could also be required to be removed by a certain time and a fine imposed. Following discussion it was determined that staff would bring a recommendation back to the Commission regarding aggregate size and deposit amount. Add language to require a refundable deposit for any function requiring more than five signs. Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 5:00 P.M. and reconvened at 7:03 P:M. VI. None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Sr Vacation 95-027; a request of STAMKO Development for approval to vacate an um roved section of Westward Ho Drive. 1. Pl 'ng Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the st report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Dep nt. 2. Commissio r Adolph asked if a new tract map would be required. Staff stated no. pcio-io 3 060 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 1995 > B. Zoning Ordinance Update; a request of staff for a review of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 3. Definitions. Automobile service station: leave the last sentence in and add "...to the automotive use may gLnIU —not be included." 2. Page 10. Grade. Change the grade and finish grade to agree with the how the height of a building is determined. 3. Page 18. Planned Unit Development. Make a correlation between planned unit development and planned development assuming the terminology is the same for single family dwellings as well. Vice Chairman Gardner recessed the meeting at 4:28 P.M. and Chairman Abels reconvened at 7:03 P.M. VIL None A. ^ntinued Heanna on uonctitionat use rerma za-y4i- KlvL x-14u, b- irorimental Assessment 95-309; a request of The Keith Companies for ce cation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval rt of a d iation from the development standards to reduce the gross livable area; and 1 1 rova of a king s Ce s - gt approva of a 35% density bonus to allow 11 units per acre, and a reduction in I parking s ces for affordable housing to allow a 128 unit apartment project on L Washington treet. 1. Chairm Abels explained this was a continued public hearing. Commissi ers Butler and Adolph excused themselves due to possible conflicts of i erest. 2. City Attorney D Honeywell explained that the Commissioners withdrew, but the City does have an actual determination as to a conflict of interest. There is a possibili f a financial impact to Conunissioner Butler's wife's employer under Califo6 'a Code of Regulations Section 18702.2 which may exceed $ 10,000. Co i sioner Adolph received information that a relative a \Hone ywe" ex' n n ve ha an actua lity f a f ty 'nancia, if . al 0 a Code 01 C `oN- omm . sioner A mm an e of his campaign m=age is one of the property owners which would be an rop rty z selling the subject property the applicant and therefore, even though there would probably be no financi interest to either applicant directly, both have withdrawn due to ev n the p ssibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest. PC 10-24 4 061 ATTACHMENT 2 General Zoning Code Format Chapter 9.10 1. General Provisions - 9.30 2. Residential Districts, permitted uses, standards and supplemental regulations. 9.65 3. Tillage sections 9.70 4. Non Residential Districts (including commercial, community facilities), permitted uses, standards and supplemental regulations. 9.110 5. Special purpose districts (including parks, golf course, open space, and sexually oriented businesses, etc) permitted uses, standards and supplemental regulations. 9.150 6. Parking 9.160 7. Signs - (adopted) 9.170 8. Communication Towers and equipment 9.180 9. Transportation Demand Management 9.190 10. Transfer of Development Rights - 9.200 11. General permitting procedures 9.210 12. Development Review permits including site development, conditional use permits, minor use permits, variances, adjustments, temporary use permits, sign permits, etc. 9.220 13. Zone changes and Zoning Code Amendments 9.230 14. General Plan Amendments 9.240 15. Specific Plans 9.250 16. Other actions including subdivisions, Development Agreements, Environmental Review 9.260 17. Fees 9.270 18. Nonconformities - 9.280 19. Definitions PC;SS.200 062 ATTACHMENT 3 Sections: 9A M005 9A MM 9..+i7.$iD 9:}}7:93i9 9.117.040 * }7.-M 9.117.06s 9,}}}.fl@5 Purpose. CHAPTER/SECTION 9A17 OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR EQUESTRIAN USES Purpose. Overlay District Established. Definitions. Permitted uses. Prohibition. Development standards. Reviewlapproval process. The equestrian overlay district is intended to permit the keeping ofhorses (stabling and riding) for personal recreational pleasure of city residents, and to allow for facilities to provide equestrian - related recreational opportunities beyond the individual horse owner. 9-HT.N9 Overlay District Established. Whenever it is placed on the official zoning map, the designation "EOD (Equestrian Overlay District)" shall be indicated after the zoning designation of the area over which it is placed, and the regulations of the equestrian overlay district shall apply in addition to the regulations of the underiyalg zoning designation of the area to which it is applied. Whenever a use is permitted in the equestrian overlay district, such use shall be permitted in addition to the uses otherwise allowed in the zoning designation over which is its placed. M=jC0&.911 1 063 9. ?:029 Definitions The following definitions apply in the Equestrian Overlay District: A "Accessory building " or structure or "accessory use" means any structural improvement associated with a permitted or conditionally permitted, equestrian use, including but not limited to arenas, grand stand seating, corrals, exercise rings, hay and tack barns, stables and other structures and uses customarily appurtenant to the primary permitted use. For example. a corral is considered a use rather than a structure. as it is essentiallKg-fenced area used or keeping horses, whereas sn alone fences are not considered a use or a structure, B. "Arena" means an enclosure physically similar to a corral, designed and constructed so as to be used for conducting equine -related entertainment and events open to the public, including but not limited to rodeos, polo matches, riding shows and exhibitions, etc. C. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of equine animals not owned by the residents of the subject property, for purposes such as on -site breeding, boarding, training, riding or other recreational use as a commercial service to the owners of said animals. D. "Corrar means an enclosure designed, g use as an open holding area for horses for the purpose of confinement within that area for an indeterminate period oftinwe. E. `?asture" means an enclosed holding area consisting of grass or similar vegetation, specifically used for purposes of grazing or feeding of animals. F. `gliding academy" means a facdrty designed and used primarily for recreational riding, M=ico&911 ME training and instruction purposes, and allowing both on -site boarding or trailering of horses to the facility. G. "Stable" means a building or structure containing multiple stalls for the purposes of sheltering, feeding, boarding, accommodating or otherwise caring for several horses at one time. R "Stall" means a division of a stable accommodating one horse into an adequately sized enclosure for the purpose of confining individual horses within a sheltered environment as may be necessary for security, safety or other reasons pertinent to the health, welfare and daily care of each animal- 9.11?.0 Permitted uses. A Uses permitted in the equestrian overlay district shall be as follows: numico&911 1. Any use permitted, either expressly or by Conditional Use Permit; in the underlying zone; 2. The keeping of horses (including ponies or llamas) for personal use of the residents of the property only, not to include any activities beyond that necessary to continue the residents personal use. This may include limited breeding and boarding activities of a non -compensatory nature, such as for other fiery members' personal use. This may include limited breeding and boarding activities of a non -compensatory nature, such as for other f m iy members' personal use. Up to two horses shall be allowed on a minimum one acre parcel. For parcels in excess of one acre, up to three horses per additional acre or portion thereof shall be allowed. Foals under one year of age shall not be counted in the maximum number of horses permitted; 3. Accessory buildings, structures and uses; including stables, corrals, barns, tack rooms, exercise rings, hay barns, and other buildings structures and uses 3 troy customarily appurtenant to a permitted use. 4. Farm projects (Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects) conducted by the residents of the premises. Such projects shall involve only the permitted type and number of animals by this ordinance being trained in connection with the education of a person as a member of a recognized farm education organization; 5. Caretakers and employee housing for on -site employment, providing that the unit does not exceed one thousand square feet and the second unit observes the setbacks in the underlying zone. B. The following conditional uses are permuted, provided that a Conditional Use Permit is .obtained as specified in Chapter 9.210 and Sec-9. 1 i?:960:E. Section 1. Commercial stables and riding academies, as defined in Section 2. Arenas for purposes of conducting events such as rodeos and other equestrian -oriented entertainment. 3. Veterinary offices or hospitals, when established on the same parcel as the principal residence, provided that only temporary boarding facilities may be established for purposes of boarding sick or injured animals, and that animals not permitted in the underlying zone may not remain at the facility. 9: .949 Development standards. The following development standards generally apply to all equestrian overlay properties. Commercial equestrian facilities/uses may be subject to more restrictive requirements through the conditional use process. A. Accessory buildings; including barns, shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of thirty-five feet, measured from the pad elevation. nowicods.911 4 H. The following setback requirements shall apply in the overlay district: AmniC*&911 1. Pastures shall not require any setback, however, if a pasture does not extend to a property line, a minimum 10' setback shall be provided. 2. Accessory buildings (barns, stalls, etc.) Shall maintain 25' from non -overlay property limes and 10' from overlay property lines. 3. Accessory uses (corrals, exercise rings, etc.) shall maintain 50' from any non - overlay properties. A 10' setback from adjacent overlay property limes shall be maintained. 4. Arenas shall be reviewed for appropriate setback and design as part of the conditional use permit process, as they are not considered accessory uses to residential equestrian. Generally, arenas shall maintain a minimum 75' setback from any property line. 5. Manure storage containers shall be set back a minimum of 50' from any non - overlay property line and 20' from other property lines. 6. Manure spreading areas shall not be established within 25' of any property line. 7. No accessorybudding, use or operation asset forth 6 shall be established or conducted within 80' of any residential structure. arM= shall consist of fencex= at least five feet high and of such construction as to confine the animals. Fences which are on property lines or are adjoining and running parallel to private streets or bridle tr I% shall be three -rail, with a minimum height of five feet from grade, and posts spaced not more than ten feet apart. All posts shall be nominal four inches by nominal six inches mininnuw, with nominal two inch by nominal six inch miaiavun raps. This section shall not apply to property lines along any street FI r identified and shown on the circulation element of the general plan, where specific sound attenuation is necessary based on an approved acoustic study prepared for a subdivision map. 2. Fencing requirements of this section hapteriSeChOu shall take precedence in the event of ga conflicts with the provisions of Section 9.060.030 (Fences and Walls)_ for properties keeping horses within the equestrian overlay district. D. Corrals, stables, exercise rings and arenas shall be regularly sprinklered or otherwise treated to a degree so as to prevent the emanation of dust, and in addition, all accumulation of manure, mud or refuse shall be eliminated so as to prevent the breeding of flies. Any open areas shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 6.16 whenever applicable. All nuisance water runoff must be detained on the subject property- E. Removal and treatment of manure must occur on a regular basis so as to promote the heakh, safety and welfare of residents and visitors to the area in accordance with the M=jCOM.911 following standards: 1. Stalls shall be cleaned on a daily basis. Manure shall be collected daily, and may be stored for later disposal in an enclosed container of adequate size, for removal from the property within seven days. Manure stored for composting purposes shallbe placed in an appropriately designed composting bin in order to property decompose and eliminate parasites. Straw, hay, sawdust or other bedding materials may be stored or composted for later disposal, but may not be spread over open areas. Only properly composted manure may be used in a spreading operation. 2. Method for removal of manure from the property is at the owner's discretion. Off -site delivery to agricultural or related operations for fertilizer use are Z (16g permitted. On -site use of composted material is also permitted in new or established vegetated areas, such as gardens, landscaping, re-establishment of .pasture vegetation, etc. 3. Spreading of manure may only occur in conjunction with commercial equestrian uses, and must be conducted over an adequately sized area capable of assimilating the nutrients in the spread material. Such an area may only be established as part of overall disposal and treatment program submitted as part of a Conditional Use Permit application. 4. Any condition that results in odors, unsightly areas or infestation shall be deemed a public nuisance and/or health hazard and shall be abated within seven days of proper notice. All violations are subject to enforcement provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, and applicable county health codes. F. Parking area "be provided as required by Chapter 9.1 S0, and shall be based upon the overall use of the property, or as required by as approved Conditional Use Permit. G. Any proposed lighting must complywith E%Vtex Sections• • / • / and 9,100.150 Qutdoor Lightini . • • • Eightifts, • • • • Lighting of equestrian I •relateactivity areas I shall • occur beyond • 1 1 l otherwise Wecifigd AX an QWxmgd conikioml use permit- This does -not pertain to grnerad area and ftghting=aciated with I I IMFresidential use an property. H. Loudspeaker systems or other amplified sound are limited to operation or use between 8:00 A.M. and " 9:00 P.M. unless otherwise snecifted by an aPQroved conditional use Hermit M=ico&.911 7 069 "1.-668 Review/approval process. A. Accessory buildings, detached or attached, including employee houses, barns, tack rooms, hay barns, and similar buildings: 1. Up to four hundred square feet for each strurtme building to be reviewed with the building permit application for approval by the Community Development Department; 2. Over four hundred square feet to be reviewed by site development plan, by the Planning Commission. B. All other permitted buildings are subject to the process identified in the underlying zone and this Chapter/Section. C. A Conditional Use Permit shall be municode.911 12rocessed in accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapters iSectioa 9.200 'I'•w •11 17•w llr oil 01Mill • 0 r•1 1M• • 1 W.w 104 W 01 • I 1.1111.1/•• Ike• • • •• / •'� '• .1 011 1 • A • 1.111 / .1 •1 •w •11 • w • • • • •••ill • •• •1 �•'••1 un I ti/ It • 1 k.•1. • /r• • 111 •If. • • •11 • • • •11• •/ .111 v 1' � wll •'1 • ./•w 1 t, Jtg_-I�fr, 1 mile • ••r 4 • • 1 • / .•11 • 11 •1 l • 1:11 •• • •1/ ••11 /%III • •w • 1 •11• • 11. .•1 • • •/ • 11111111 •% • -•1 ♦•:•Iwl • 1 lu1• • '• /• i rl n1 u/ � v .Ilwi • 1 • .n ♦w .n � 11 1 u • 1 • 1 w • �'•'1• • 11111 1 11 • HI ilul • • 1 ••/• • /K• • � UI f _ / / '1i / Ct• Wgg shall be considered as nonconformities in accordance with Chapter 9.270 Vonconformities) Property owners o all such uses structures and buildings shall -file a site plan of the entire facility with the Communi Development Department within 30 days o,fthe effective date of this Chapter g 1. In addition to information as required by a Conditional Use Permit application sled pursuant to Chapter 9.210. the following information shall be submitted for conditional uses R=osed in the EOD: a. agpiication,—a j proposed program for storage, treatment and removal of manure produced by the operation. b. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, as required by Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. addressing control o dust and identification Qf all potential dust sources. C. Proposed or potential tentative scheduling of any events or other activities which may produce impacts beyond the scope of the proposed use's routine operations. mmico".9ii 0071 ATTACHMENT 4 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSED MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2: LAND USE ELEMENT Page 2-5 Amend Proposed Land Use Policy Diagram as shown on exhibit. Pie 2-8 Delete Policy 2-1.1.3. Pam,, 2-10 Amend -Policy 2-1.1.9 to read as follows: "The City shall establish guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance to allow varying residential densities to locate within a designated residential zone." Fge 2-11 Amend Policy 2-1.2.3, second bullet to read: "The front yard setbacks of all structures shall be increased beyond the minimum specified in the applicable zoning district" Page 2-11 Amend policy 2-1.2.3, fourth bullet to read: "Fencing guidelines representative of a rural theme shall be required to link residential areas with trail systems and Lake Cahuilla County Park" Page 2-11 Delete Policy 2-2.1.1. Page 2-12 Delete from Table LU-4, City of La Quinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards under the column "Development Standards" the following (in italics) standards: Mixed/Regional Commercial (MIRC) Community Commercial (CC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Maximum F.A.R. of 0.35 Maximum building height of four stories Maximum F.A.R of 0.30 Maximum building height of three stories Maximum F.A.R of 0.25 Maximum building height of two stories 072 PaSc � 2-13 Pne 2-1 Page 2-1 Page 2-15 Page 2-16 age 2- 17 Commercial Park (CP) Maximum F.A.R. of 0.25 Maximum building height of two stories Office Maximum F.A.R. of 0.30 (0) Maximum building height of three stories Delete from Table LU-4, City of La Quinta, Commercial Land Use Category Standards the following "Notes" (in italics): Notes to Table LU-4: 1. Development standard defined pursuant to Policy 2-2.1.1. 2. F.A.R. - Building Floor Area to Project Site Ratio. Delete Policy 2-3.1.2. Amend Policy 2-3.2.2 to read as follows: "Projects in CP areas shall be located with direct access to arterial or non-residential collector streets. Projects in CP areas shall be developed in a "campus -like" setting." Amend Policy 2-4.1.2 to read as follows: "Projects in CC areas shall be located on sites ranging from 10 to 50 acres and shall be located on, and with direct access to and primarily at the intersections of arterial streets." Amend Policy 2-4.2.2 to read as follows: "Projects in NC areas shall be located on sites which are a maximum of 20 acres in size and shall be located on, and shall directly access, arterial streets." Amend Policy 2-6.1.2 to read as follows: "Projects in the Office category shall be located on, and shall directly access, arterial streets" ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT 'A' PLANNING CCWISION RESOLUTION NO. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. EA96-318 Case No.: ZOA96-050 Date: April 16, 1996 GPA 96-052 1. Name of Proponent: City of La Quinta Address: 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA Phone: (61 9) 777-7000 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta Project Name (if applicable): La Quinta Zoning Ordinance Update CITY OF LA QUINTA' Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 EC.UP.AIRTOUCH 074 II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The, environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and housing Biological Resources Utilities Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and. an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a " potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated. " AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature Date: April 16, 1996 Printed Name and Title Denise Ashton, Senior Planner For: City of La Quinta (175 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Midgated Impact Impact 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X (source li(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from ' incompatible land uses)? X d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact impact 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? X g) Altered direction or rate of glow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X" c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectional odors? X iii 07 r ' Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X 3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X iv (117E Potentially Potentially Significant less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. 'Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X 3.9. RISK OF 'UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X ,a) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X v () 7 9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. (UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other recreational facilities? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact F b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. vii M� CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE General Description The City of La Quinta is undertaking the update of their Zoning Ordinance in order to bring the ordinance into conformance with the 1992 update of the City's General Plan. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Update will apply city-wide and provide a comprehensive set of standards and regulations for development within the City of La Quinta. The Zoning Ordinance Update reflects many changes from the existing ordinance in order to conform with, and implement, the General Plan, create a more user-friendly document for ease of interpretation, establish more stringent standards and regulations according to the goals and objectives of the General Plan and to improve the quality of life for the residents of the City of La Quinta. Significant modifications relating to physical environmental impacts contained in the Zoning Ordinance Update are summarized below: Residential: The rear yard setbacks for all residential districts have been increased, in sonde cases, double that in the current ordinance. Setbacks for garages are now included in the Update, as well as a minimum common open area requirement where the original existing ordinance had none. These additions and changes to the development standards could result in an increased demand for water due to more open space, however, they could lessen the impacts of surface runoff. The impacts to the physical environment will be positive, with potential improvements to visual aesthetics and viewshed as they relate to setbacks. Non -Residential: Setbacks are proposed to be regulated within these districts for buildings under three stories, where currently it is not addressed. Maximum building heights are proposed to be lowered, in the CC, CR, CP and CT districts, significantly less than allowed for in the equivalent non-residential districts within the existing Zoning Ordinance. These setback additions may, as in the case of the residential districts, increase the demand for water due to the potential for increased landscaping, but the impacts to surface runoff will be less. These changes in the proposed Zoning Ordinance are expected to have no physical impact on the environment with the potential for a positive aesthetic benefit due to increased setbacks and building heights. Parking: The parking requirements have been increased for such uses as office and general retail uses to twice the current standard. This may impact the environment through increased surface runoff with the expanded area required for parking, however, the increase in the above stated setbacks should have a balanced effect resulting in no impact to the environment. r It should be recognized that the Zoning Ordinance Update does not encourage growth in itself, but regulates it to ensure adequate and appropriate development in a manner that is in the best interest of the City and its citizens. Therefore, the potential impact of the proposed ordinance provisions should not be significant. The General Plan with its accompanying Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) were the primary data sources used in developing this initial study checklist and explanation of responses. Land Use Planning 3.1 A-D) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance is the implementing tool of the General Plan and is consistent with the General Plan and all subsequent Land Use Regulations. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance requires that all new development must be evaluated and approved/denied based upon adopted plans or regulations, such as environmental plans or policies. The General Plan FEIR, prepared in 1992, assessed land use impacts and the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update implements the land use patterns depicted in the General Plan. The La Quinta General Plan has anticipated that lands currently utilized for agriculture purposes will be converted into very -low density residential uses. The proposed Zoning Ordinance retains agriculture as a permitted use within the low and very low density residential zones. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will also help provide for the orderly development of land use and will not physically divide any established community or displace low income families. The project will eliminate existing discrepancies between applicable general plan and zoning regulations and, further, will be compatible with applicable environmental plans/policies, result in consistency between existing land uses, and not adversely affect agricultural resources or operation. Population and Housing 3.2 A-C) No Impact: Population growth is guided by the City's General Plan. The Proposed Zoning Ordinance will provide an implementation method for achieving its goals and objectives. The Zoning Ordinance itself will not induce growth, however, it will regulate the physical development and existing conditions within the City of La Quinta, consistent with the General Plan policies and Guidelines. The Zoning Ordinance along with the General Plan present the City with the opportunity to reduce land use conflicts and prevent the premature transition of land from rural/open space uses to urban uses. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not 2 083 cause population projection to be exceeded nor will it cause significant population growth or displace existing housing as it does not propose new growth beyond that envisioned in the General Plan. Earth and Geology 3.3 A -I) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates all new development and ensures proper review and approval of each project submittal as it relates to geologic hazards. It is possible for new development to locate near a potential surface rupture (an "inferred fault trace"), however, the proposed Zoning Ordinance contains processing procedures which will help identify and allow for the evaluation of these types of environmental concerns. Some portions of the City have been identified in the General Plan EIR as being subject to the potential for liquefaction. As noted above, the proposed processing procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance, the standard CEQA review process, and State law provide mechanisms to determine the severity of this issue on a case -by -case basis. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not expose people to potential landslides or mudflows. The City is not located adjacent to a body of water large enough to create the potential for a tsunami and no active volcanos exist within the area. Grading activities undertaken as part of new development could affect soil erosion, however, the provisions of the proposed Zoning Ordinance would eliminate any potential adverse effects. State law requires the preparation of a soils report prior to approval of a final map and in addition, construction activities mandate particular soil compaction criteria to ensure safe construction techniques. The combined effect of these should eliminate any potential adverse affects resulting from expansive soils. In addition, the proposed Zoning Ordinance provides a Hillside Conservation Overlay District (Chapters 9.110.070 and 9.140.40) to define non - developable areas, regulate limited development unsuitable areas and protect the natural topographic features and hillside ecosystems. Water 3.4 A-H) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates all new development as set forth in the General Plan and has no growth inducing impacts to water related issues that have not already been assessed through the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Master Environmental Assessment. 3 5 i A While the proposed Zoning Ordinance has minimally increased the front yard setbacks and parking standards in some residential districts, which could indicate the potential for increased surface runoff and changes in absorption rates, stringent landscaping standards are provided to ensure no impact to the physical environment (Chapters 9.60.240). The proposed Zoning Ordinance ensures review procedures and criteria which will alleviate potential flood hazards throughout the City. In addition, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requires improvements to be installed or procedures implemented to reduce the amount of pollutants which are discharged into the storm drain system. All new development reviewed by the City must comply with NPDES. The proposed Zoning Ordinance has no impact on existing water courses, or result in significant changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as: flooding, discharge into surface waters or alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity). It does not propose new or altered water related facilities or uses not identified in the General Plan. Water is supplied to uses in the City by the Coachella Valley Water District through the pumping of groundwater or the importation of Colorado River Water. The recharge of aquifers will continue to occur through the retention provisions discussed in the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not alter the direction or rate of glow of groundwater, negatively impact groundwater quality or substantially reduce the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Air Quality 3.5 A-D) No Impact: Both short term and long term mobile emissions and long term stationary source emissions will be generated throughout the City with continued development. The primary source of short term emissions will be construction equipment operation in the course of developing General Plan land uses. The primary source of long term emissions will be project -generated traffic and the on -site emissions from residential and commercial energy consumption. As the implementing tool of the General Plan, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update does not induce growth, it regulates development with definitive standards. Any impacts to air quality have already been assessed and proper mitigation formulated to address the impact as part of the General Plan process. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Update includes numerous chapters, such as Transportation Demand Management that addresses pollution reduction techniques and vehicle trip reduction. This is an implementation measure from the General 4 (185 Plan. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance will ensure implementation of the General Plan and that new development projects will not violate any air quality standards or contrcbute to an existing or projected air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, cause any change in climate, or create objectionable odors. Ran sportation/Circulation 3.6 A-G) No Impact: Under buildout conditions the traffic volumes in certain parts of the City will drastically increase. In addition, the physical geographic setting of La Quinta, nestled up against the mountains and large resort developments throughout the City, limit any opportunities for construction of new roadways to augment the existing grid network. The primary option to satisfy the growth is to widen and improve operational efficiency of the existing roadways. The Zoning Ordinance contains a Transportation Demand Management Chapter (Chapter 9.180) that is intended to reduce air pollution, traffic congestion and energy consumption attributable to vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. Incorporated in this chapter are provisions for bicycle, transit and ride share facilities. In addition, mixed use developments of residential, commercial and office are permitted to further reduce external vehicle trips and increase non - vehicular internal trips consistent with General Plan policies. The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates all new development and ensures proper review and approval of each project submittal as it relates to transportation and circulation. Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update as the implementing tool of the General Plan is not growth inducing, therefore, results in no impact to traffic congestion and vehicle trips from the anticipated new development that would occur under the General Plan Land Use Policy Diagram. No impact will result from hazards to safety due to design features, inadequate emergency access, insufficient parking capacity, hazards or barriers for pedestrians and bicycles, conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation or rail/waterborne or air traffic. Biological Resources 3.7 A-E) No Impact: While it is true that future development could have some impacts on biological resources, upon submittal of new development projects, environmental review and documentation is required by a qualified wildlife biologist and horticulturist to identify any project related impact on habitat areas. Appropriate mitigation A measures have been adopted in the La Quinta General Plan to ensure minimal impact. Implementation of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update will not have any growth inducing impacts beyond those already considered in the General Plan. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not result in significant impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds), locally designated species, locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc), wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pools), or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. Energy and Mineral Resources 3.9 A-B) No Impact: The only known significant mineral resource in the City is a non -operating sand and gravel mine located in a designated open space area. This site is currently developed with low density residential and a private golf course. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the state. The proposed Zoning Ordinance will not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans, or use non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Risk of UgsetlHuman Health 3.9 A-E) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 9.100.230) requires that all new development complies with local, state and federal regulations pertaining to the handling of hazardous substances. Compliance with the Zoning Ordinance ensures that new development will not involve or create any risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation). The proposed Zoning Ordinance conforms with and implements the General Plan which ensures measures to mitigate possible interference with an- emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard, exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards, development on or near a listed hazardous waste site pursuant to Govt. Code Sec 65962.5, or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees. C Noise 3.10 A-B) No Impact: The General Plan FEIR (Chapter 3, Section 3.9) refers to the fact that noise impacts are generated primarily from two sources - noise associated with either construction activities, or with the increase in traffic on City streets. Noise associated with construction activities will typically be short term in nature, and the duration of the exposure will last only as long as the construction activity. Noise associated with the increase in traffic on City streets is long-term, in nature, and will result in an increase of the ambient noise levels in the City. These impacts were considered and mitigation was developed in conjunction with the 1992 La Quinta General Plan Update. The proposed Zoning Ordinance (Chapters 9.60.270 and 9.100.210) establishes noise thresholds to ensure that new development will not contribute to a significant increase in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels. Existing City review procedures are sufficient to mitigate all potential noise impacts to a level of no impact. Public Services 3.11 A-E) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates all new development and ensures proper review and approval of each project submittal as it relates to public services. The General Plan FEIR has assessed the issues of police/fire department personnel, school and library capacity and formulated mitigation for these land use impacts. As the implementation tool of the General Plan, compliance with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update will ensure no impact to the physical environment. Utilities 3.12 A-F) No Impact: The proposed Zoning Ordinance regulates all new development and ensures proper review and approval of each project submittal as it relates to utilities. The General Plan FEIR has assessed and formulated mitigation for these land use impacts. As the implementation tool of the General Plan, compliance with the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update will ensure no impact to the physical environment. 7 s Aesthetics 3.13 A-C) No Impact Development of the City to buildout could potentially impact what are considered the aesthetic qualities of the City of La Quinta. However, existing City review procedures are adequate to identify and mitigate potential impacts on the visual environment. In addition, the increase in setbacks, both in residential and non- residential districts should encourage additional landscaping which will improve the aesthetic quality of new development, as well as lowering maximum building height standards. Development which will occur in conformance with the proposed Zoning Ordinance will be required to follow the existing review procedures and thus, will not adversely affect a scenic vista highway, have demonstrated negative aesthetic effect, create light or glare. The coastal bluff issue has no impact in the City of La Quinta. Cultural Resources 3.14 A-E) No Impact There are known cultural resources within the City of La Quinta including building structures and sites which are of architectural, social, historical and archaeological significance. 'The buildout of the City will potentiality result in the loss of their cultural resources as land is disturbed and developed. Mitigation measures adopted with the La Quinta General Plan were prepared to ensure that appropriate steps will be taken to ensure preservation, recordation and/or rehabilitation as development occurs. The proposed Zoning Ordinance has no direct impact on and is not expected to adversely affect existing cultural resources. Existing City review procedures are adequate to identify and mitigate potential impacts on cultural resources including existing structures throughout the City. Recreation 3.16 A-B) No Impact The City has mitigation in place to ensure that a total of 3.0 acres of improved neighborhood and community park lands are provided per 1000 City residents, including the dedication of land and/or the payment of fees. The City shall continue to coordinate with the County of Riverside to provide regional parks that range from 31 to more than 1000 acres in size, serve a radius of 10 miles and provide 10 acres of park land per 1000 residents at full buildout of the City. Y � i The adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance will not increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Based upon these factors, the Ordinance will have no impact on recreational issues. Mandatory Findings of Significance The preceding Checklist, data sources, and explanations show that the proposed project: (a) does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment via impacts on plants, animals, fish, or their habitats; (b) does not have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals; (c) will not result in impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable; and (d) will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 9 (19 4 Ba #1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: SETBACK ADJUSTMENT 96-394 REQUEST: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DENIAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM TWENTY -FEET TO EIGHTEEN -FEET, REAR YARD SETBACK FROM TEN -FEET TO EIGHT -FEET, AND GARAGE SETBACK ON EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FROM TWENTY -FEET TO TWELVE -FEET FOR NEW RESIDENCE. APPLICANT AND APPELLANT: MR. & MRS. R. C. PIERCE LOCATION: SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CALLE POTRERO AND AVENIDA JUAREZ (ATTACHMENT 1) ZONING: S-R (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PER SECTION 15305 (CLASS 5a) AND SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3a). THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SOUTH: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES EAST: S-R/SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: BACKGROUND: S-R/VACANT SINGLE FAMILY LOTS The subject property is a vacant single family lot in the Cove with 75-feet of frontage on Avenue Juarez and 100-feet of frontage on Calle Potrero. The lot size is just under 7,500 square feet due to the corner radius, and was created by a merger of three lots into two lots. The property to the south, which shares a common property line, has a single family residence and wood fence on the property line. Along the west, or rear property line, is a utility pole with wires which run in a north/south poss.2o 1 direction. The curbs and gutters have been installed along the two street frontages as part of the Assessment District improvements. The lot is one block from the top of the Cove and relatively flat. The appellant is proposing to construct a one-story single family residence of approximately 2,730 square feet plus 400 square feet for a two -car garage. The residence will consist of three bedrooms, two baths, a living room, dining room, nook, hobby room, and great room. The entry door into the house, has been placed on the north (exterior side yard) side of the house. The front of the lot faces Avenida Juarez, because it is the narrower dimension, and is required to have a 20-foot front yard setback. The appellant is requesting an eighteen -foot setback. Calle Potrero is the exterior side yard and requires a ten -foot setback for the building and a twenty -foot setback for the garage. The appellant is requesting a twelve -foot garage setback. The interior side yard, along the south property line requires a five-foot setback and along the west property line a ten -foot setback is required. The appellant is requesting eight -feet. The site requirements (Attachment 2) are illustrated in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by Planning Commission per Section 9.42.080 Building Design 5_=idards. The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse the Community Development Director's decision to deny reducing the front setback from twenty -feet to eighteen -feet, the rear setback from ten -feet to eight -feet, and the garage setback on the exterior side yard from twenty -feet to twelve -feet (Attachment 3). On March 22, 1996, the appellant appealed (Attachment 4) the decision of the Community Development Department. The Community Development Director on March 7, 1996, denied the request and because the required findings necessary to grant the adjustment could not be made. The findings for denial are as follows: 1. There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography, and surrounded by residences which have complied with applicable requirements. No setback adjustments have been approved of this extent for new residences within the neighborhood. pcss.2,01 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks, which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. The reduction of setbacks would create an incompatible relationship with the surrounding residences which comply with the setbacks, would create a short (12-foot) driveway whereby parking would block the City right-of-way and reduce the streetscape appeal of the neighborhood. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with appCicable setback requirements. The reduction of setbacks, especially at the rear of the lot imposes on the right to privacy of the adjacent residents. The plan proposed provides a 27-foot by 51-foot yard area adjacent to the southern property line. This yard is considered large and indicates that the lot is sufficient in size for a residence to be custom designed to meet the required setbacks. By Minute Motion 96- , deny appeal of appellant, and uphold decision of the Community Development Director, based on the findings as noted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Excerpt from Building Design Standards. 3. Proposed site plan (Large plans for Planning Commission only). 4. Appeal from Mr.& Mrs. Pierce received March 22, 1996 (including basis for appeal; letter dated February 23, 1996; application; letter dated March 7, 1996, from Community Development Director denying setback adjustment; and proof of service by mail). Prepared by: STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner Submitted by: CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager pcss.2o 1 ATTACHMENT 1 � JI CALLS a sao e ge M 7• �o 44 O n ' / a / Y • O n 6 ° _fee _ 23 O ® 2 �tiJ w a 261 ti 2Y Y '• O 4 4 • M 2/ O �a oee•oa ® 4 i � ^ E se sO Q a My/9© /®6 ►N. ® C 26 N i4K a J® u 4 O 4 '!®9a wa•p•o qs Q ®/4 8 s ®// 8 pnu N a 7 O 7 • at-' ifLM r iaysl .o 's 9n • �C�a /O®y i n --v - _ .Jto _ _ Ot7Y4o a 1 Ar r M 2/O @ 4 0.46Ac ® /3 y 4 20® — ilgis Q%TAe • /4 a..13 6 65 � /gxsl Q /Y @ of �, 140 ae il.20 iS.vb 4 �'� 2/© CALLED CASE MAP CASE No.�- TE.MECULA MCATE J GITM ORTH SCALE: NTS ITE RE UIREMENTS ATTACHMENT CORNER LOOT SIDEYARD: 5 FT. GARAGE SETBACK: MINIMUM ,EARYARD: 10 FT, MINIMUM I� 1 ' CONCRETE ( PAD e ' A ( s ' ( i ( AREAS TO BE ' LANDSCAPED ' i FRONTYARD: 20 F IMINIMJM i 20F. MINIMAP LOCATE DRIVEN AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION. ASPHALT CONNECT I NC PAVFXN T W/ 2"X4„ HEADERS PROPERTY L CURBLINE S IDEYARD :. 10 FT. MINIMUM 4 ATTACHMENT 3 ec%er,or 5,du�ard tJ6::- Wr-'S ATTACHMENT 4 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA ®UINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS APPellant • s name H= • and "2 S : R. C . ?pierce Date !"arch 21, 1995 Mailing Address 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 RE: Case No. Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit _Variance Change of Zone Public Use Permit — Surface Mining & Reclamation Permit Phone: �19 )347-3913 Outdoor Advertising Consistency with General Pla: Environmental Assessment xx Setback Adjustments Temporary Use Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. See attached. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FORM.003/CS Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Basis for Appeal My wife and I purchased a 75' x 100' lot to build a home in La Quinta. We purchased a large lot to accomplish full utilization of our plans. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60'. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 1 and north one-half of Lot 2, Block 275, Santa Carmelita at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by map on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51, in the Office of the County Recorder, Riverside County. Assessor's Parcel Number is 774-265-031. The property is a vacant lot and a street address has not been issued at this time. I have attached a copy of my letter dated February 23, 1996, and a copy of my Application for Setback Adjustment. I wish to change the setback from 20' to 18' on the east side of the property, from 10' to 8' on the west side of the property, and from 20' to 12' on the north side of the property. In the letter dated March 7, 1996 (copy attached) from the Community Development Director, these setbacks are incorrectly stated. The Community Development Director has obviously misunderstood my requests, and we have been denied the variance we desire. I hereby appeal the action of the Community Development Director. I do not believe the Planning Commission can deny these variances when other homeowners in the area have been able to enjoy similar uses. B0461 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: My wife and I purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years. A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose to deny our request, please provide a letter stating justifiable anc substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very truly yours, R. C. Pierce CASE NO: CITY OF LA QUINTA FEE: $100.00 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT PLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan., awn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable e of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be ke payable to the "City of La Quinta". �hn Arrlinft� iE nod �ha aWnar of �hd �rdp�r�y, 1����r� rnus� bas ,bmitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document . his behalf . PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE 'PLICANT/CONTRACTOR: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce DATE February 23, 1996 )NTACT PERSON (IF DIFFERENT) PHONE 619 347-3913 AILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (zip) DINER'S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce PHONE 619 347-3913 AILING ADDRESS: e 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (zip) GREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block 275, Santa 7.GAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Carmel ita,at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by nap on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. 3SESSOR' S PARCEL NUMBER: 774-265-031 DJUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage. EASON FOR. REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown on the site plan. The 12' setback on the arage provides 760 Square feet of necessary length for hobbv and my collection See site plan. ************************************************************************* USTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted nless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose f this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the roperty, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or urroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback equirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the ealth, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to roperty in the area of the parcel for which the -adjustment is requested. ************************************************************************* FORM.013/CS 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio, CA 92201 February 23, 1996 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department La Quinta, CA 95523 Dear Sir: My wife and I purchased a lot and a half (75' x 100') to build an ideal home for our later years. A small 50' x 100' lot was inadequate for our needs. A purchase was made of the larger lot to accomplish full utilization of our planned complex. A front setback of 10' was acceptable because we needed 60' (75' depth less 10' in front and 5' in back). Now, after saving our money, and buying what we thought was an ideal lot, we have two problems. 1. We need a variance for a 74' width centered between the east and west setbacks, not including the chimney. 2. We need a variance for a 12' setback to the garage. I rise to the personal privilege to build a home for my living and family activities and my lifetime hobby pursuits. I particularly do not believe you can deny these variances, especially the 12' setback to the garage when the same right and use exists that others are enjoying. I hereby request the city of La Quinta to approve these setbacks with a letter stating acceptance of our request. If you choose to deny our request, please provide a letter stating justifiable and substantive reasons that will stand up in court. Prior to this stage of engagement, the city of La Quinta may prefer an appeal process, and therefore could state the format, forms, and procedure. Very truly yours, R. C. Pierce CASE NO: CITY OF LA QUINTA FEE: $100.00 4o�� PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFTt'�' APPLICATION FOR SETBACK ADJUSTMENT PLICANT: Submit this form with two copies of a scaled site plan., awn to adequately depict the nature of the request. A nonrefundable e of $100 is required when the Application is submitted. Check must be ke payable to the "City of La Quinta". the Applicant is not the owner of the property, a letter must be bmitted by the owner authorizing the Applicant to execute this document his behalf. ************************************************************************ PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE PLICANT/CONTRACTOR: _ Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce DATE February 23, 1996 NTACT PERSON ( IF DIFFERENT) PHONE 619 347-3913 ,ILING ADDRESS: _ 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (zip) TIER' S NAME: Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Pierce PHONE 619 347-3913 ,ILING ADDRESS: 82-291 Sierra Avenue Indio CA 92201-4166 (Address) (City) (State) (zip) 'REET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Not issued --vacant lot Lot 1 and north half of lot 2, Block 275, Santa ;GAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Carmel ita.at Vale, La Quinta, Unit No. 25, as shown by iap on file in Book 19, pages 50, 51 in office of County Recorder, Riverside County. ;SESSOR' S PARCEL NUMBER: 774-265-031 )JUSTMENT REQUESTED: A 74 foot building width on Calle Potrero and a 12' setback from the north lot line to the garage. :ASON FOR REQUEST: A 74 foot building width facilitates needed living and family activity space laid out as shown on the site plan The 12' setback on the arage provides 760 square feet of necessary length for hobby and my collection See site plan. JSTIFICATION: No request for a Setback Adjustment shall be granted iless it is determined that it is consistent with the intend and purpose this Ordinance; that there are special circumstances applicable to the :operty, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or .irroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback !quirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the aalth, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to roperty in the area of the parcel for which the -adjustment is requested. FORM.013/CS a 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA DUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 March 7, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. R. C. Pierce 82-291 Sierra Avenue IndiO, California 92201-4166 SUBJECT: Setback Adjustment 96-394 Location: Southeast corner of Calle Potrero and Avenida Juarez Legal Description: APN 774-265-031 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pierce: The Community Development Director has reviewed your request to reduce the front setback from 20' to 18', the rear setback from 10' to 8', and the garage setback on the exterior sideyard from 20' to 12' and denied your application for a setback adjustment. Staff cannot approve the reduced setbacks pursuant to Chapter 9.188 of the City of La Quinta Planning and Zoning Regulations. Staff has determined that the findings necessary to grant your setback adjustment can not be made for the following reasons: l . There are no special circumstances which are applicable to your property since it is larger than most properties in the surrounding area, not of an unusual shape or topography and surrounded by residences which have complied with the applicable requirements. 2. The requested setback adjustment applies to three of the four required setbacks which would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community and vicinity of the subject property. 3. The lot is adequate in size and shape to design a residence on the property that complies with applicable setback requirements. Itrss.357 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 The action of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 calendar days after the date of mailing of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and accompanied by a filing fee of $25.00. Your appeal should include reasons why you feel the findings necessary to approve your setback adjustment can be justified. Should you need additional information regarding required findings please contact me. Upon receipt of an appeal, youx request will be scheduled for a Planning Commission m r. o�srl R 11V V lllls. Should you have questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 777- 7064. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STAN B. SAWA Principal Planner SBS:cw c: Christi di Iorio Itrss.357 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 O 12 N n N � N 0 �in < 13 =in'z N q It O > '0 14 W W U u z°°"� 15 oQ 0 y In0 i 16 0 L 0 V M < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL [CCP § 1013a(3)] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 39700 Bob Hope Drive, Suite 312, Rancho Mirage, California 92270. On March 22, 1996, I served the following document described as APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS on the parties in this action: [ ] By placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list; [ ] By telef axing a true copy thereof to the party and telefax number below; [ ] By mailing [ ] the original [ ] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 [ ] I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Rancho Mirage, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit. [ ] By personal delivery. I caused such envelope to be hand delivered to the addresses above. [X ] By personal delivery. I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on March 22, 1996, at Rancho Mirage, aliforniaF Rita Sikorski RGS65456 —1— Proof of Service B/ &;: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO.96-03 APPLICANT: ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES, ROBERT ROSS REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN FREELAND, SENIOR ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROBERT ROSS, RBF AND ASSOCIATES REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CIVIC CENTER WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO BACKGROUND: On September 22, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved plans for the development and construction of the La Quinta Senior Center. On October 6, 1992, the City Council approved the report of action taken by the Planning Commission for development and construction of the La Quinta Senior Center. The Senior Center is currently provided with parking adjacent to the south and west sides, with a single point of access from the south on Avenida La Fonda; and thirty-eight (38) regular parking spaces and two (2) handicap spaces. This parking was provided as part the original scope of work to the Senior Center. In July of 1995, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved funding of $137,241 for the Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion Project for the 1995-96 Program Year. On October 3, 1995, the City Council authorized execution of the Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose of funding construction of parking lot improvements at the Senior Center. The estimated cost for this project is $163,241. CDBG will fund $137,241 of the project costs (constriction and contingency) and the remaining $26,000 will be funded from Infrastructure Funds. On November 29, 1995, the City received notification and authorization from the County to incur cost for this project. F:\PWOEPT\IIROJECTS\9603\PCSTFRPT.WPD BI #3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE: SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT EXPANSION, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT NO.96-03 APPLICANT: ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST & ASSOCIATES, ROBERT ROSS REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN FREELAND, SENIOR ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ROBERT ROSS, R.BF AND ASSOCIATES REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF THE SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CIVIC CENTER WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO BACKGROUND: On September 22, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved plans for the development and construction of the La Quinta Senior Center. On October 6, 1992, the City Council approved the report of action taken by the Planning Commission for development and constriction of the La Quinta Senior Center. The Senior Center is currently provided with parking adjacent to the south and west sides, with a single point of access from the south on Avenida La Fonda; and thirty-eight (38) regular parking spaces and two (2) handicap spaces. This parking was provided as part the original scope of work to the Senior Center. In July of 1995, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved funding of $137,241 for the Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion Project for the 1995-96 Program Year. On October 3, 1995, the City Council authorized execution of the Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the purpose of funding construction of parking lot improvements at the Senior Center. The estimated cost for this project is $163,241. CDBG will fund $137,241 of the project costs (construction and contingency) and the remaining $26,000 will be funded from Infrastructure Funds. On November 29, 1995, the City received notification and authorization from the County to incur cost for this project. F:\PWDEPT\PROJECTS\9603\PCSTFRPT.WPD On February 20, 1996, the City Council approved and authorized the execution of the Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF), for design services necessary to prepare plans, specifications and engineer's estimate for improvements to the Senior Center Parking Lot. RBF has provided a Site Plan (Attachment 1). The plan provides for ninety-one (91) standard (9'x20') additional parking spaces and three (3) additional handicap spaces (9'xl8'). The proposed parking area in.chides fourteen (14) covered parking spaces. The proposed covered parking area consists of a metal roof with a decorative facia supported by structural posts and will be of a modular design that is adaptable for future expansion. The parking lot expansion will provide access from Calle Tampico to the north and Avenida Buena Ventura to the west. The proposed landscape plan (Attachment 2) is consistent with the existing Senior Center theme. Proposed plant material to be incorporated into the work are: TREES: Rhus Lancea - African Sumac SHRUBS: Baccharis Centennial - No Common Name Lantana Camara - Bush Lantana GROUNDCOVER: Lantana Motevidensis - Purple Trailing Lantana Decomposed Granite (Palm Springs Gold) is also proposed as groundcover, costs permitting. Installation of security lighting is also proposed. There will be nine luminaire assemblies of the same height, design and type as the existing system. In areas where potential expansion of covered parking may take place, provisions will be made to relocate the luminaire assembly, and utilize the abandoned foundation, conduit and conductors for under canopy lighting. Alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider: Approve Staffs recommendation, by recommending to the City Council approval of the Site Plan for the Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion, Project No. 96-03. 2. Deny Staffs recommendation 3. Provide Staff with alternative direction. F:\P W D EPT %PROJECTS\9603\PCSTFRPT. W PD RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 96- , recommending to the City Council approval of the Concept Plan for the Senior Center Parking Lot Expansion, Project No. 96-03. Prepared by: Joihn Freeland, Senior Engineer Submitted by: Christine Di Iorio, Plamung Manager F:\P W OEPT\PROJ E ::TS\8803\PCSTFRPT. W PD lM] PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23,1996 CASE: VARIOUS CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.96-04 APPLICANT: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES (DEA), KIM RHODES, L.A. REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN FREELAND, CITY OF LA QUINTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., KIM RHODES, L.A., DEA REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF VARIOUS CITY WIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1996, the City Council authorized a request to receive proposals for design services necessary to prepare plans, specifications and engineer's estimate for landscape median improvements at various locations throughout the City. Included as part of the design scope was the extension of the Washington Street sound wall. The extension is located at the northern terminus of the existing wall on. the west side of Washington Street north from F ighland Palms Drive to Singing Palms Drive. The wall extension will be consistant with the existing wall and shall match as closely as possible. The locations to receive improvements are as follows: • Washington Street Sound wall Extension • Eisenhower Drive Medians (Nogales to Montezuma) • Washington Street Frontage Road • Calle Tampico Medians (Washington to Eisenhower) • Washington Street Medians (Avenue 47 to Avenue 48) • Washington Street Medians and East side right-of-way(Avenue 52 to evacuation channel) • Calle Sinaloa Medians (Bermudas to Eisenhower) • Avenue 50 Medians (Eisenhower to Washington) During the City Council meeting of February 20, 1996, the City Council acted to award a contract for landscape design services to the firm of David Evans and Associates of Ontario, California. F:\PWDEP-r\PROJECTSN9604\9604PCST.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE: VARIOUS CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO.96-04 APPLICANT: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES (DEA), KIM RHODES, L.A. REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN FREELAND, CITY OF LA QUINTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT., KIM RHODES, L.A., DEA REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF VARIOUS CITY WIDE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION: VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: On December 19, 1996, the City Council authorized a request to receive proposals for design services necess:ay to prepare plans, specifications and engineer's estimate for landscape median improvements at various locations throughout the City. Included as part of the design scope was the extension of the Washington Street sound wall. The extension is located at the northern terminus of the existing wall on the west side of Washington Street north from Highland Palms Drive to Singing Palms Drive. The wall extension will be consistant with the existing wall and shall match as closely as possible. The locations to receive improvements are as follows: • Washington Street Sound wall Extension • Eisenhower Drive Medians (Nogales to Montezuma) • Washington Street Frontage Road • Calle Tampico Medians (Washington to Eisenhower) • Washington Street Medians (Avenue 47 to Avenue 48) • Washington Street Medians and East side right-of-way(Avenue 52 to evacuation channel) • Calle Sinaloa Medians (Bermudas to Eisenhower) • Avenue 50 Medians (Eisenhower to Washington) During the City Council meeting of February 20, 1996, the City Council acted to award a contract for landscape design services to the firm of David Evans and Associates of Ontario, California. FAMDEPT\PRO. ECTS\9604\9604PCST. WPD The overall landscaping theme is consistant with the general plan (Circulation Element, Policy 3- 4.1.2&3,and Policy 3-4.1.4&5). Conceptually, the following elements will be incorporated into median island and right-of-way landscaping. ON DESIGNATED PRIMARY IMAGE CORRIDORS (WASHINGTON STREET, CALLE TAMPICO): TREES: PALMS ♦ Mexican Fan Palm ♦ Mediterranean Fan Palm ♦ Mexican Blue Palm CANOPY TREES ♦ California Pepper Tree ♦ Olive "Swan Hill" ♦ Argentine Mesquite ♦ Blue Palo Verde ACCENT TREES ♦ Crape Myrtle ♦ Sweet Acacia ♦ Orchid Tree ♦ Evergreen Pear ♦ Bottle Tree ♦ Mexican Palo Verde SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER: • Mexican Bird of Paradise • Ocotillo • Texas Ranger • Feathery Cassia • Red Yucca • Desert Spoon • Dwarf Coyote Brush • Bougainvillea • Yellow Bells • Lantana (yellow & purple varieties) • Autumn Sage • Oleander `Petite Pink' • Golden Barrel Cactus ROCK TREATMENT: • Boulders • River Wash • Palm Springs Gold (surface treatment) F:\P W DEP'f\PROD F_CTS\9604\9604PCST. W PD ON DESIGNATED SECONDARY IMAGE CORRIDORS (CALLS SINALOA, AVENUE 50, EISENHOWER DRIVE): TREES: PALMS ♦ Mexican Fan Palm ♦ Mediterranean Fan Palm CANOPY TREES ♦ Olive "Swan Hill" ♦ Blue Palo Verde ♦ Argentine Mesquite ♦ Mexican Palo Verde ♦ Sweet Acacia ACCENT TREES ♦ Crape Myrtle ♦ Mexican Palo Verde ♦ Bottle Tree SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER: • Texas Ranger • Autumn Sage • Feathery Cassia • Mexican Bird of Paradise • Desert Spoon • Oleander `Petite Pink' • Lantana (yellow & purple varieties) • Dwarf Coyote Brush ROCK TREATMENT: • Boulders • River Wash • Palm Springs Gold (surface treatment) Elements that will be common to both image corridors are, accent lighting which will be surface mounted in concrete or conduit mounted on Palm tree trunks. Median island noses will be installed with colored, brick patterned stamped concrete. Primary image corridor islands will have designated art feature pads that will have water and electric outlets. The current project schedule (Attachment 1) shows the project will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting of May 7, 1996. The project will then be open for public review from 5/9/96 to 5/23/96. Public comments will be summarized and Staff will seek final approval at the City Council meeting of June 4, 1996. Final plans, specifications and estimate will be prepared, and Staff will recommend authorization to receive bids at the July 2, 1996, City Council meeting. Attachment: Project Schedule F:\PWDEP-I\PROJE:CTS\9604\9604PCST.WPD Alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. Approve Staffs recommendation, by recommending to the City Council approval of the Conceptual Plan for Various Citywide Landscape Improvements, Project No. 96-04. 2. Deny Staffs recommendation. Provide Staff with alternative direction. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 96- , recommend to the City Council approval of the Concept Plan for Various Citywide Landscape Impovements, Project No. 96-04. Prepared by: J®hn Freeland, Senior Engineer Submitted by: Christine Di Iorio, Planning Manager F:\P W DEPT\PROJ ECTS\9604\9604PCST. W PD MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Abels who asked City Attorney Dawn Honeywell to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, and Chairman Abets. B. Commissioners Anderson/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioner Barrows. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ms. Barbara Irwin, a representative of the Human Resources Commission, informed the Commission that on April 18, 1996, at 7:00 P.M., at the La Quinta Senior Center, the Human Resources Commission would be hosting a Community Visioning Workshop. Mr. Robert Tylerbaum, Palm Springs Theater Sports will be the facilitator and students from the La Quinta High School will be illustrators. The purpose of the workshop is to identify community issues and set goals and determine how to accomplish those goals as they pertain to the elements of the Work Plan. The City of La Quinta is being considered for a Healthy City Grant; a grant program funded by the State and local governments. The Chairman of the Planning Commission and all Commissioners are invited to attend. Chairman Abels thanked Ms. Irwin for her announcement and encouraged all Planning Commissioners to attend. Chairman Abels informed the Commission that a request had been received from Radio Station KLCx-FM, Ms. Leanna Hofinan to add an item to the agenda. Commissioner Gardner asked why the applicant, was unable to meet the application deadlines. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained that due to an illness of the applicant, they were unable to meet the deadlines. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to accept the request to consider Special Advertising Device 96-095. Due to the event taking place before the next Planning Commission meeting, it was reasonable to place the item on the agenda. Unanimously approved. PC4-9 Planning; Commission Meeting April 9, 1996 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued - Conditional Use Permit 96-024 Variance 96-024. and Environmental Assessment 96-313; a request of KSL Recreation Corporation, Inc. for certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; approval to expand the existing La Quinta Resort & Club Golf Course Maintenance Facility onto the adjoining lot to the east; and approval of a variance from the development standards of the Special Residential Zone District to allow a six-foot high wall instead of a four -foot high wall along Avenida Carranza. Commissioners Anderson and Gardner withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. l . Chairman Abels stated the applicant requested a continuance of this item to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1996. 2. Chairman Abels asked staff why the item was being continued so long. Staff clarified that the applicant had submitted a letter explaining they needed the additional time to address the noise assessment. 3. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to continue the item to May 28, 1996. Unanimously approved. Commissioners Anderson and Gardner rejoined the meeting. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Special Advertising Device 96-095; a request of Ms. Leanna Hofman, promotions director of KLCX FM Radio Station for approval of a 32-foot high cold air balloon for a one -day outdoor event in the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center parking lot. 1. 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 Butler asked why this was being brought before the Planning Commission so late. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated it was before the Commission at the request of the applicant. Further requests of this nature under the updated Zoning Ordinance, would be approved by staff. PC4-9 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 9, 1996 3. Commissioner Newkirk asked if the balloon would cause any traffic hazards. Staff stated they did not expect any traffic problems. Commissioner Newkirk asked about the height of the balloon. Discussion followed regarding the balloon structure. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 96-014 approving Special Advertising Device 96-095, subject to the attached conditions and with the request that the applicant be notified that the Planning Commission did not appreciate the late request. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 26, 1996. 1. Commissioner Gardner asked that the Minutes be amended to include the discussion regarding the 4" X 4" posts being "nominal". Staff stated the comments had been added to the ordinance, but as the discussion took place during the Study Session they would not be reflected in the minutes. In addition, Commissioner Gardner asked that Page 3, Item 11, the first sentence be changed to read, "...clarified that the proposed changes be recommended..." 2. Commissioner Tyler asked that the minutes be corrected on Page 11, Item #2 to read, "...that the logo be eliminated or relocated to...", and on Item #5, eliminate the last sentence. 3. There being no further corrections to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to approve the Minutes as corrected Unanimously approved. VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the City Council had directed staff to inform all the Commissions that the City Council was reviewing all the Commissions and Board and asking each to review their purpose and membership number. As the Planning Commission was a State mandated Commission, Council was asking that they review the necessity of having a five or seven member Commission. 1. Chairman Abels stated it was his understanding that the City Council had no intention of making any changes regarding this body. The issue was with other commissionsiboard who had created committees and the number of meetings and staff time was getting out of control. PC4-9 3 Planning; Commission Meeting April 9, 1996 2. Commissioner Tyler stated he understood the Planning Commission was exempt from this review. 3. Commissioner Newkirk stated he thought the Planning Commission was important and seven members was necessary due to the number of members who had to dismiss themselves due to a possible conflict of interest on some of the matters brought before the Commission. 4. Commissioner Gardner stated that if natural attrition would cause the first two people whose terms would expire to be removed, the Commission would lose Commissioner Barrows and Chairman Abels. If this happened the Commission would be making a lot of decisions based on three members. It was an asset to the Commission to have a strong diversity in its members backgrounds. He strongly thought the Commission should remain seven members. 5. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioner Gardner. In addition, he stated that when members of the Design Review Board were added to the Commission it created a mix that could make good sound judgements for the commission. 6. Commissioner Anderson stated he concurred with the comments that had been made. 7. Chairman Abels stated he agreed with the comments made and further he thought it took three years as a member to understand the planning process and became beneficial to the Commission. Therefore, Council should keep the membership at seven members. B. Commissioner Butler reported on the City Council meeting of March 19, 1996. C. Department updates: Chairman Abels stated that Community Development Director Jerry Herman had stated the City was expecting to hear from the Metropolitan Theaters within the month regarding the construction of the theater within the One Eleven Shopping Center. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Newkirk to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on April 23, 1996. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:33 P.M. Unanimously approved. PC4-9 4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 23, 1996 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 96-030 AND 96-031 REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH PROPOSED STREET VACATION. LOCATION: PORTIONS OF AVENIDA CORTEZ, AVENIDA HERRERA, AVENIDA JUAREZ, AVENIDA MADERO, AVENIDA MARTINEZ, AVENIDA MENDOZA, AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, AVENIDA VELASCO, AVENIDA VILLA, CALLE CHILLON, CALLE PORTERO, CALLE TEMECULA AND EISENHOWER DRIVE. APPLIC;ANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: Pursuant to State law', prior to street vacations or public easements being vacated by the City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed street vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in this case is the Planning Commission. There are no street improvements within the proposed vacation areas. In recent years, as new street improvements were installed in the Cove, no street improvements were constructed in these short segments of right of way. In each successive phase of the Cove Improvement Program, the City has realigned or eliminated several minor pieces of street, and street right of way, in an effort to improve traffic safety or neighborhood cohesiveness. The subject locations are a result of that activity. Street Vacation Case No. 96-030 as generally indicated on Attachment 1, contains portions of Avenida Cortez, Avenida Herrera, Avenida Juarez, Avenida Madero, Avenida Martinez, Avenida Mendoza, Avenida Montezuma, Avenida Velasco, Avenida Villa, Calle Chillon, Calle Portero, Calle Temecula and Eisenhower Drive, and are specifically described in Attachment 3, on exhibits "A" through "V", "A -A" through "G G", "K-K", "L-L" and "M-M". These portions of the street right of way are not needed by property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties located in their respective areas. Street Vacation Case No. 96-031 as generally indicated on Attachment 2, contains portions of Avenida Juarez and Avenida :Montezuma, and are specifically described in Attachment 3, on exhibits "W", "X", "Y" and "Z". These portions of the street right of way are not needed by property owners for access, or improved accessibility, to residential properties located in this area of the Cove. Government Code Section 65402 F:\PWDEPT\!,TAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\PLAN-COM.WPD ENVIRONN ENTAL CONSIDERATION: The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: On March 18, 1996, staff mailed notices to all public agencies, informing them of the proposed vacation. Several utility companies responded with requests for easements to operate and maintain existing public utilities. Other than the easement reservations, no negative comments have been received to date. FINDINGS: The proposed street vacations will have no environmental effects that adversely impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the street segments are currently inaccessible and unused; and secondly, the act of vacating the right of way will have no physical environmental effect. 2. The segments of street right of way proposed for vacation are local residential streets, not identified as a components of the La Quinta General Plan, its Circulation Element, or any adopted specific plan. 'The street vacations will not impact public utility agencies, provided easements are retained for the continued maintenance and operation of existing public utilities. RECOMM>E:NDATION: By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of the street right of way easements are in compliance with the adopted Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Prepared by: i ROMANO VERLENGIA, Assistant Engineer H Submitted by: —� � oa)i�A CHRIST INE DI IORIO, Platining Manager RJV/rjv Attachments: #1 - Street Vacation Case No. 96-030 - General Vicinity Map #2 - Street Vacation Case No. 96-031 - General Vicinity Map #3 - Exhibits "A" through "Z", "A -A" through "G-G', "K-K", "L-L" and "M-M" F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\PLAN-COM.WPD .ATTACHKENT #1 CALLS TAMPED CALLS HONMUAu EXHIBIT "M- M" CALLS HAMLOO CALLS 9INALOA CALLS DURAW CALLS SOAIONA CALLS JO SSNADA EXHIBIT "F- F" CAUN AWALAs XHIBITS "A --A, B- B, C— C, D— D & E— E" cmm cimlumuA CALLS WNnOl" EXHIBIT "U & V" CALK COMMA CALK MWOSA CALLS CHILON EXHIBIT "'L-I:' CALLS LADAID EXHIBIT "0 & P" CALLS 78MY" CAME Porium cum "ICAIT 000aaaaa e s -% s .eses.e e CASE MAP EXHIBIT "T" XHIBIT "Q, R & S" EXHIBIT "A & B" �° EXHIBIT "J" EXHIBIT "E, F, G. H & I" EXHIBIT "C & D" EXHIBIT "G-G" EXHIBIT "M & N" EXHIBIT "L" EXHIBIT "K & K- K" STREET VACATION CASE NO. 96-030 ATTACMENT #2 EXHIBITS "IV, X, Y & Z" s s e s e s e s ei e CASE MAP STREET VACATION CASE NO. 96-031 ATTACHMENT 43 STREET VACATION CASE NO.96-030 EXHIBIT LOCATION A & B: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Mendoza C & D: Avenida Bermudas & Eisenhower Drive I:, F, G, H, & I: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Martinez/Calle Temucula J: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Martinez K & K-K: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Herrera L: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Herrera M & N: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Velasco O & P: Avenida Montezuma & Calle Temecula Q, R & S: Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Villa Avenida Bermudas & Avenida Navarro/Calle Chillon U & V: Avenida Montezuma & Avenida Madero A -A, B-B, C-C, D-D, & E-E: Avenida Montezuma & Avenida Juarez F-F: Avenida Montezuma & Calle Ensenada G-G: Avenida Bermudas & Eisenhower Drive L-L: Montezuma/Madrid/Cortez M-M: Montezuma & Juarez STREET VACATION CASE NO.96-031 EXHMIT LOCATION W: Avenida Montezuma & Avenida Juarez X, Y & Z: Avenida Montezuma between Juarez & Madero F:\PWDEPT\:iTAFF\VERLENGI\STVAC\PLAN-COM.WPD CALLE 0 I nl C4 ' z C� io a MADRID aW co Q / V 30� a�q O Q a� Z ,t), ; y�� Q ti 2 JO EPN KICAK o. 21775 Esp. Dala •yJ �INEERI C / 7 1✓ CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT SCALE I n - 40' EXHIBIT "A11 EXHIBIT 'A" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in -the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 301, Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE: Southwesterly along the Easterly line of said Lot 6, said Block 301, being also along a curve having a radius of 102.34 feet through a central angle of 220 50' 15" for an arc distance of 40.79 feet; THENCE leaving said Easterly line, North 220 51' 00" East along a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82, a distance of 43.13 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 6; THENCE North 890 58' 00' West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 8.72 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 118.3 S.F. (0.003 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21115 Exp. Date 9.30 93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / CALLE tL1 0) l,1 C4 t o 1� .30 c y W ';t Q, o it CONTA/N5 297/25r-' 4 (0.07 ACRES.) f ttl _I MADRID co % �aQ ve CID PO/NT cF 6EG/NN/NG tr) ti 8 "E g!I a 0 z A / t. > cQ o4i�^ry r V A �cL\� Q OfESSlppk o v� JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30 43 CIVIL ENGINEERING / CITY OF LYE► QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT l - 40` EXHIBIT "BI1 EXHIBIT "B" Thai. portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 301, Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 4 and Lot 5, said Block 301, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; THENCE South 89° 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 5, a distance of 8.72 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE North 220 51 ' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 108.49 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 4; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation, a distance of 50.83 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 2977.2 S.F. (0.07 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK V No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING O co to IM ~ �1 < 1 La l 0) >. 8E6/NN/N6 —+ - - - .-.— - W 89°%0 27 EX, L ;c Ile /O.QO' cr w 0 z w N W c� —11 — 4� \ z <C M Iz CAALE FOTRE., / w ix 0 SCALE I = 40 EXHIBIT it t1 CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "C" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at. the Northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 303, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 10, said Block 303, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 10.80 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 130.01 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 660 28' 55" East; THENCE Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 220 41' 32' for an arc distance of 51.49 feet to the Point of Beginning, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 890 10' 27" East. Contains 183.1 S.F. (0.004 Acres). 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / Q �Q t LEA I CLi �^ I }-� 3 ML �r 6 Z o c.l - N w t ttl 0) 50'ZI S0' 1 y B G /r rs �� ,3 d= 9o°of!5" r . Q= 20.00 IZ i\j LTSA 320.0/,1.0yc Ohl \ �2 62.54' �a s4m� w V- � CALLE F OTRER / NaC•�9 E �o No. 21775 oC Exp. Date 9.30.93 \ CIVIL EBGINf MG oF'cu`� / it ►' CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT SCALE I to 707 EXHIBIT "D" EXHIBIT "D" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 11, Block 303, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 11 and Lot 12, said Block 303, a distance of 79.99 feet; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 12, being also along a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 900 01' 15", for an arc distance of 31.42 feet; THENCE along the Southerly line of said Lot 12, North 890 58' 00" West, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 62.54 feet to a point thereon; THENCE leaving said Southerly line, Southeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 90.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 410 17' 30', for an arc distance of 64.87 feet; THENCE South 48° 40' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 3.00 feet; THENCE North 860 19' 30" East, a distance of 32.53 feet to a point in a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 410 19' 30" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 56.00 feet; THENCE North 030 40' 30" West, a distance of 32.53 feet; THENCE North 480 40' 30" West, a distance of 3.00 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 130.01 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 250 09' 25', for an arc distance of 57.08 feet to the intersection of said curve with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 11, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 66° 28' 55" East; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 10.80 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 5089.3 S.F. (0.12 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.3u - as CIVIL ENGINEERING ��lF OF - A 1 t r INT Of I?• 2 4J ry SCALE I" = 40' % EXHIBIT "E" CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "E" That, portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 302, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 2, said Block 302, a distance of 10.55 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 2, a distance of 39.45 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 13.88 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 63.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 510 14' 22" East; THENCE Northwesterly along said curve, through a central angle of 380 46" 23" for an arc distance of 42.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 173.7 S.F. (0.004 Acres). ' 10SEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30- 93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING .4 OF i� CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "F" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 3, Block 302, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 3, said Block 302, a distance of 45.23 feet; THENCE continuing Southerly along said East line, being also along a curve to the right, having a radius of 410.61 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Westerly, through a central angle of 000 39' 57', for an arc distance of 4.77 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 890 19' 18" West; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 3, a distance of 32.95 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 220 51' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 12.15 feet; THENCE North 170 38' 40" West, a distance of 25.98 feet to a point in a 63.00 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 310 51' 40" West; THENCE Northwesterly along said curve to the right, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 190 22' 42", for an arc distance of 21.31 feet, to the intersection of said curve with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 3, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 510 14' 22' East; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 13.88 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1522.9 S.F. (0.04 Acres). 10SEPH KICAK W No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL EN NEERING J C 0 tt� RaNT OF ,c BAG/NN/NG i � CC J (l7 C! NB/ 37'02"W Q SCALE _ 1" =40` JOSEVH RICAR No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / EXHIBIT tJG CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "G" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 4, Block 302, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 410.61 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 890 19' 18" West; THENCE Southerly along the Easterly line of Lot 4, being also along the arc of said 410.61 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 70 42' 16", for an arc distance of 55.21 feet, to the Southeast corner of said Lot 4, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 810 37' 02" West; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 14.13 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 220 51' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 59.67 feet, to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 4; THENCE North 8911 58' 00" West, along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 32.95 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1260.6 S.F. (0.03 Acres). ' 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / W 11 c-, cd - O. < �2 0 ca cy ^�B/°37OZ"W RJR• QJ a ttt t� mid SCALE Q0.0FESS/p,� 2.35 ' . Q Jo PH xICAx Q W Na. 21775 Ex0. 0 CIVIL 30 93 ENGINEERING or i BXH I BIT ,JH11 CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "H" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 302, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 410.61 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 810 37' 02" West; THENCE Southerly along the Easterly line of Lot 5, being also along the arc of said 410.61 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 80 35' 23', for an arc distance of 61.55 feet, to the Southeast corner of said Lot 5, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 730 01' 39" West; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 5, a distance of 2.35 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 220 51' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 65.09 feet, to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 5; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 14.13 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 447.1 S.F. (0.01 Acres). ' 105EPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Data 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / ?-A 0 0 i ttl 0) /I\ cd SAC ALE 4O' JOSEPH KICAK Na. 21775 Ecp. Data 9.30 v� CIVIL ENGINEERING / F_XH I BIT itIIt CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "I" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 302, Unit No. 28, Santa. Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 410.61 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 730 01' 39" West; THENCE Southerly along the Easterly line of Lot 6, being also along the arc of said 410.61 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 50 5,2' 39", for an arc distance of 42.16 feet, to a point of compound curvature, being also a point in a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 220 51' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 42.99 feet, to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 6; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 2.35 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 31.3 S.F. (0.001 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / Of N w z ar a 30' M oolAlr OF COMMENCEMENT o CA LLE i a 0 z w a \j A-t-v i� zv i\ u Q Aj W.07' NB9 59G� fN � 35984 61TEMEC LA Q' lt/ CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT 30, 30• / EXHIBIT "U EXHIBIT "J" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Avenida Martinez and Calle Temecula as per Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, on file in Book 1.9, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California. THENCE South 89' 58 00 East along said centerline of Calle Temecula, a distance of 30.00 feet to the intersection of said centerline with the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly Right of Way line of said Avenida Martinez being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE South 00* 00' 45" West along the Southerly prolongation of said Easterly Right of Way line, a distance of 40.60 feet; THENCE South 890 58' East, a distance of 31.62 feet to a point in the Southwesterly prolongation of the Northwesterly Right of Way line of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE North 22' 51' 00" East along said Southwesterly prolongation, a distance of 89.88 feet to the Northerly terminus of a 20.00 foot radius curve in the Southeasterly line of Lot 8, Block 301, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE Southwesterly along said Southeasterly line of said Lot 8, being also along the arc of said 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly through a central angle of 67' 11' 00", for an arc distance of 23.45 feet; THENCE along the Southerly line of said Lot 8, North 89* 58' 00" West along a line tangent to the last described curve a distance of 28.07 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 8, being also along a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 89 58' 45", for an arc distance of 31.41 feet to a point in said Easterly Right of Way line of said Avenida Martinez; THENCE South 00` 00' 45" West along the Southerly prolongation of said Easterly Right of Way line a distance of 49.99 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGININING. Contains 3398.6 S.F. (0.08 Acres). t� R1 30, 30' C:I 1, C� =1-- a Q 0 0 a cLl CCU w ttl Z cr w X 1 C; > w > 0) Q _ 1—' CCl o h� ttl / W V 40 P �a gai� P CALLE 0 ,� y P a TECATE-0�y CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30-97 CIVIL ENGINEERING , EXHIBIT "Ktt EXHIBIT "K" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 11, Block 312, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 00' 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 11, said Block 312, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; THENCE South 89' 58' 00" East along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 11, a distance of 20.43 feet to the intersection of said prolongated line with a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas as per said M.B. 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 41' 19' 30" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 14.49 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the centerline of Avenida Herrera, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 00' 00' 45" East along said centerline, a distance of 16.70 feet to a point in a 45.77 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 12 37' 58" East; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of said 45.77 foot radius curve to the right, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 48' 18' 07", for an arc distance of 38.58 feet to the Point of Beginning, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 60 56' 05" East. Contains 1010.9 S.F. (0.02 Acres). 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30-97 WZ/� IVIL ,I EERING 30, 1 30, T CCU nl ttl `� cQ M i ILI U 0 Q t m CALLS M J� P TECATE"o W J V O or IOSEPN KicAlc" No. 2I775 UP. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL �EIYGINEERING / 7' EXH I BIT ° 121 CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "L" That. portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly terminus of that certain 30.00 foot radius curve in the Southerly line of Lot 7, Block 313, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 410 19' 30" West along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 7, a distance of 30.00 feet; THENCE North 480 40' 30" West, a distance of 30.00 feet, to a point in said 30.00 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 410 19' 30" East; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 30.00 foot radius curve, concave Northerly, through a central angle of 900 00' 00" for an arc distance of 47.12 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 193.1 S.F. (0.004 Acres) ' JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL . ENGINEERING / 01 CALLE I POT R E RO 0 M ttl —1 z r� r� 30� ^—�— tLl ^ /� ci�C4ro ° < ci ah7 \ A yv� / � ='I 0,?b'11Y —� 24.56' / � CQ ' JOSEPH KICAK cA, No. 21175, Exp. Date y 3U 'J' CIVIL I ENGINEERING * I �i .� EXHIBIT 1tM"� CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "M" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 5, Block 313, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 5, said Block 313, a distance of 39.67 feet; THENCE continuing Southerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5, being also along the arc of a 700.00 foot radius curve to the right, tangent to the last described course, concave Westerly, through a central angle of 50 55' 53" for an arc distance of 10.35 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 5, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 840 02' 07" West; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 5, a distance of 24.56 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 410 19' 30" East, along said parallel line a distance of 32.26 feet; THENCE North 890 59' 15" West a distance of 5.32 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of a 43.93 foot radius curve, to the right, tangent to the last described curve, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 650 35' 33', for an arc distance of 50.29 feet: to the Point of Beginning, through which a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 65' 36' 18" East. Contains 1131.5 S.F. (0.03 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9-30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / 0 CALLE 0 LL1 —1 o US z: a nl > rn �Q') tom_ ro .-1 0 ttl ^ i�cdro � u POTRERO B ,NNN NG Ln \� h t° tiff IOSEPH KICAK No. 11775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXH I BIT "N" EXHIBIT "N" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 6, Block 313, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 100.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 840 02' 07" West; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 6, being also along said 100.00 foot radius curve to the right, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 350 22' 52" for an arc distance of 61.75 feet to a point in said Southeasterly line of said Lot 6, -through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 480 40' 30" West, said point also being in a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 59 and 60; THENCE North 410 19' 30" East, along said parallel line a distance of 74.09 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 6; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 24.56 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 491.3 S.F. (0.01 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / Of U// UNIT NO, 24 - SAINTA CArR�iM L ITA , r VALIE I LA Qui ,\rrA SLOC rC 60 Rx I J 1 d, M,/s„ R=2,'00' 1-A31.42' 1 30. 26 ' SCALE I " = 406 30 30' o W l 0 _ a• ,�, o g aV' 41L� .8 b r' o y C 36.03' (0./0Ac.) g 5. 89059'00"E. + I M TEMECULA in I a tim 1 E JCK � a L—� o w I a I /3 UN 1T 1\10, 20 ._,A,NTA CARIME'L1TA , r VALE A QU1NTA AIM, B, 19 / 50 -01 U CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT F JOSEPH KICAK No. 21175 Exp. Oato 9.3U 95 CIVIL ENGINEERING / EXHIBIT it011 EXHIBIT "0" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Temecula as per Unit No. 24, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, on file in Book 19, Pages 44 and 45 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said centerline of Calle Temecula, a distance of 30.05 feet to the intersection of said centerline with the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly Right of Way line of said Avenida Monteauma,being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing along said centerline of Calle Temecula, South 890 59' 00" East, a distance of 138.03 feet, to the intersection of said centerline with the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly Right of Way line of Avenida Madero, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 44 and 45; THENCE North 000 01' 45" East along said Southerly prolongation, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Northerly terminus of a 20.00 foot radius curve in the Southeasterly line of Lot 11, Block 260, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 44 and 45; THENCE Southwesterly along said Southeasterly line of said Lot 11, being also along the arc of said 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly through a central angle of 900 00' 15', for an arc distance of 31.42 feet; THENCE along the Southerly line of said Lot 11, North 890 59' 00" West, being also along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 100.90 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11, being also along a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 860 41' 00', for an arc distance of 30.26 feet to a point in said Easterly Right of Way line of said Avenida Montezuma; THENCE South 30 18' 00" East along the Southerly prolongation of said Easterly Right of Way line a distance of 48.92 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 4328.8 S.F. (0.10 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / SCALE U 111 J T JN J, J 'r SA111 TA 1 " = 40' CARNI ► 1TA , r VALE LA QU1NTA I 1�/1. 19 /4 4 30' a. - � o 8,LJ�rt -2 J I �i N Z 01, m p �---- G01vT41NS I CALLE 4,308.0 S.F. M (0• /0.4c.) I5.89'5' '00"E I -4.77' M TEMECULA 0 aL Z l so �LJCI� ? 7 3I I UNIT 1\10, 2z") - SAINTA CAriNI L 1TA ;Vr VALE'. A QU1NTA ,E. 1J/10 -51 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENCINEERINO / EXHIBIT 1tP" CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "P" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. b M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Temecula as per Unit No. 25, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, on file in Book 19, Pages 50 and 51 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California. THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said centerline of Calle Temecula, a distance of 30.05 feet to the intersection of said centerline with the Southerly prolongation of the Easterly Right of Way line of said Avenida Montezuma being also the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE continuing along said centerline of Calle Temecula, South 890 59' 00" East, a distance of 138.03 feet, to the intersection of said centerline with the Northerly prolongation of the Westerly Right of Way line of Avenida Madero, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 50 and 51; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along said Northerly prolongation, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southerly terminus of a 20.00 foot radius curve in the Northeasterly line of Lot 2, Block 273, as per said Map Book 19, Pages 50 and 51; THENCE Northwesterly along said Northeasterly line of said Lot 2, being also along the arc of said 20.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly through a central angle of 890 59' 45', for an arc distance of 31.42 feet; THENCE along the Northerly line of said Lot 2 and Lot 1 of said Block 273, North 890 59' 00" West along a line tangent to the last described curve a distance of 94.51 feet; THENCE Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, being also along a curve to the left, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Southeasterly, through a central angle of 960 04' 43", for an arc distance of 33.53 feet to a point of cusp, being a point in the Easterly Right of Way of Avenida Montezuma, being also a point in a curve having a radius of 570.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 830 56' 17" East; THENCE Northerly along said Easterly Right of Way line, being also along the arc of said 570.00 foot radius curve to the right, concave Easterly, through a central angle of 20 45' 43', for an arc distance of 27.48 feet; THENCE North 30 18' 00" West along said Easterly Right of Way line, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 24.77 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains 4308.0 S.F. (0.10 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / �I I PO/NT Of _j ttl CO dEG/NN/NG 8rO 07'' l,) N < 1 C) -1 -1 RI C0 tL1 - 7- l 5 89°5860 i _a¢97- 30' 3d Q J J 0 �C �P ROFESStp / \ y JOSEPN KICAK�'i 01 \ No. 21775 ^ SCALE Exp. Data 9.30.93 A CIVIL I " - 40' ENGINEERING EXHIBIT "Q" CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "Q" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. -in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 7, Block 295, Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 7 and Lot 8, said Block 295, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 8; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 44.97 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to, the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE North 38' 43' 00" East, along said parallel line, a distance of 6.45 feet; THENCE North 140 04' 57" West, a distance of 21.34 feet; THENCE North 510 17' 00" West, a distance of 13.00 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of a 90.10 foot radius curve to the right, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 480 39' 06', for an arc distance of 76.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 870 22' 07" East. Contains 2225.7 S.F. (0.05 Acres). ' 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / or 30' 30' I Q J� I� tip ts� I I � I <-u) I co a I I � —1 z tt1 t�1 w I \ 0 I a� cv < —,L) q Pow Of i- —1 —1 &, 41NN/N6 011 CO 1 t 0/ 5.00°00'45�iY. 2/.05' i 1� / t. 4' /OOO�y O O,' -i < e© e \ QJ / Jp. D Q�pFE3Stpa� �� KIC ExIO No. 21775SCALE � \ SCALE p.Date 9.30.93 tt CIV40 1 \GINEERING EXHIBIT IIRII CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "R" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 9, Block 295, Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 9, said Block 295, a distance of 21.05 feet; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 9, being also along a 100.00 foot radius curve to the right, tangent to the last described course, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 190 50' 50" for an arc distance of 34.64 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 9, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 70' 07' 25" West; THENCE South 890 58' 00" East, along the Easterly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 9, a distance of 6.86 feet to its intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE North 380 43' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 70.46 feet to the intersection of 'said centerline with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 9; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation, a distance of 44.97 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1328.5 S.F. (0.03 Acres). �j ti7 IT) t�l 7: l cQ ul I / L/ � 3p, Of --� rQ 0� / nl c� LL1 7 POINT OF BE6/NN/N6 °gym 2l� / r'F'J �sy ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 E.,. Date 9.30 93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / or y PGA' � P / \ SCALE I " = 40' ll� CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT T ►1^J1 EXHIBIT "S" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 10, Block 295, Unit No. 27, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Page 82 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 100.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 700 07' 25" West; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 10, being also along said 100.00 foot radius curve, to the right, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 180 51' 28" for an arc distance of 32.91 feet to a point in said Southeasterly line of said Lot 10, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 510 17' 00" West, said point also being in a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 19, Page 82; THENCE North 386 43' 00" East, along said parallel line a distance of 36.61 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 10; THENCE North 890 58' 00" West along said Easterly prolongation a distance of 6.86 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 68.5 S.F. (0.002 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / C A L L E CHILLON t1.1 ��. Lj cj. 17) LLl t\l Z, < U N IT NO. 23 SANTA CARMEL1TA 30' .so' AT VA I_ r L A Q U 1 NTA Jail . S. ? 0 / �5 O Q S I O C K 25l a BN�� 90,0/ Gib" � - �.�' 1 1 � z � N69"9B GYJ "W O� �"59. /O ' ` an CONMIA15 amor -!` r r V (9 lGto6 Ate) � �4pp'h �' 2/.40' ��• h•/ ��926g. CJ P o �J� JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp, Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT 'IT" EXHIBIT "T" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. -in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Westerly line of Lot 11, Block 251, Unit No. 23, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 20, Page 25 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being the Northerly terminus of a 20.00 foot radius curve in said Westerly line of Lot 11, and the Easterly Right of Way line of Avenida Navarro, 30 feet distant from the centerline of Avenida Navarro, (measured at right angles); THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the Southerly prolongation of said Westerly line of said Lot 11, a distance of 27.13 feet; THENCE South 310 47' 03" East, a distance of 13.71 feet, to a point in a 180.76 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 26" 22' 53" West; THENCE Southeasterly along said curve to the right, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 120 20' 07" for an arc distance of 38.92 feet; THENCE South 88° 41' 19" East, a distance of 21.40 feet to a point in a line parallel with, and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas, as per said Map Book 20, Page 25; THENCE North 380 43' 00" East, along said parallel line being also along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 11, a distance of 65.82 feet to the Northeasterly terminus of a 30.00 foot radius curve; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 11, being also along the arc of said 30.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 510 19' 00", for an arc distance of 26.87 feet; THENCE along the Southerly line of said Lot 11, North 89° 58' 00" West along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 59.10 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 11, being also along a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 90° 01' 00'. for an arc distance of 31.42 feet to Point of Beginning. Contains 2637.1 S.F. (0.06 Acres). ' 10SEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / Of �o Q„afess�y� / P �\ JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 or Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / Of R= 20.004 Oki 5 2B2B �E M� a / \aP Quo CL J�� �`¢1 gILI BE6�NN4F —� Po tt� 1 ao \� 58 5900e L t� 46 It I O I �� cif Z � W 5 Q t c1 F0 E CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT SCALE 4C IT it tt EXHIBIT "U" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 18, Block 179, Unit No. 18, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 30 and 31 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE North 000 02' 45" East along the West line of said Lot 18 and Lot 19, said Block 179, a distance of 76.24 feet; THENCE Northeasterly along a curve to the right, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Southeasterly, through a central angle of 410 15' 45" for an arc distance of 14.40 feet to a point on the Southeasterly Right of Way line of Avenida Montezuma, 30.00 feel. distant from the centerline of said Avenida Montezuma (measured at right angles); THENCE South 410 18' 30" West along the Southwesterly prolongation of said Southeasterly Right of Way line, a distance of 51.63 feet; THENCE South 030 41' 30" East, a distance of 28.28 feet to a point in a 80.00 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 410 18' 30" West; THENCE Southeasterly along said curve, to the right, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 200 35' 42" for an arc distance of 28.76 feet, to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 18, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 610 54' 12" West; THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation, a distance of 9.46 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1669.8 S.F. (0.04 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / id-) @�tOFESSlON4 P / J JOSEPH KICAK w No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL AL0 / ENGINEERING 06 OP oo 50 r� v Imllvr t S. 8905�9'g0 ; 's\1�6 NN�N6 —1 o o..t U fo CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT SCALE 4d EXHIBIT 11v EXHIBIT "V" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 17, Block 179, Unit No. 18, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 30 and 31 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 02' 45" West along the West line of said Lot 17, said Block 179, a distance of 37.74 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 80.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 280 08' 33", for an arc distance of 39.29 feet, to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 17, through which point a line radial to the radius point of said curve bears South 610 54' 12" West; THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation, a distance of 9.46 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 116.0 S.F. (0.003 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 UP. Date 9.3D•93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / Of 9o5y113 5.5� (R•) tic) \l 1 PoitiDo of � 8EG/AMIA49 0 C� IN L ttl W — — — — — CQ ?q2 •• � - ��� cif ). � N 1 -rAoy? — ------ op t� S. SB.26 7y I P076 4' CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT CALLE "I EXHIBIT 't W" EXHIBIT "W" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 7, Block 167, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 1010.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 55* 15' 54" West; THENCE Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 7, being also along, the arc of said 1010.00 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 5' 36' 30", for an arc distance of 98.86 feet, to a point of reverse curvature through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 60 52' 24" West; THENCE continuing along the Southwesterly and Southerly line of said Lot 7, Southeasterly and Easterly on a curve to the left , having a radius of 30.00 feet, concave Northerly, through a central angle of 111 15' 42", for an arc distance of 58.26 feet, to a point of cusp, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 50 23' 18" West, being also the intersection of said 30.00 foot radius curve with a curve having a radius curve of 530.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 80 42' 49" West; THENCE Southwesterly along the arc of said 530.00 foot radius curve, conceive Northwesterly, through a central angle of 1' 11' 28" for an arc distance of 11.02 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 79 31' 20" West; THENCE leaving said curve, South 89' 57' 15" West, along a line parallel to the North line of said Lot 7, a distance of 107.64 feet to a point in a curve having a radius of 950.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point: of said curve bears South 59' 55' 13" West; THENCE Northwesterly along the arc of a 950.00 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 4' 39' 19", for an arc distance of 77.19 feet to a point thereon, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 550 15' 54" West; THENCE North 55' 15' 54" East along the Northeasterly prolongation of said radial line, a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 5,929.3 S.F. (0.14 Acres). JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30-97 ..CIVIL OF o w T o 3, � N 30' C3) % C W On a Ill 0) D C U `r / Q u M to Polwr OF �cjI yPD JOSEPH NICA9 No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL EXGINEERING / CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT ° XIJ EXHIBIT "X" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 6, Block 167, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California, being a point on a curve having a radius of 1010.00 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 510 44' 17" West; THENCE Southeasterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 6, being also along the arc of said 1010.00 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 3° 31' 37', for an arc distance of 62.17 feet, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 6, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 550 15' 54" West; THENCE South 550 15' 54" West, along said radial line, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point in the Southwesterly Right of Way line of Avenida Montezuma (Lot "0'); THENCE Northwesterly along said Southwesterly Right of Way line, being also along the arc of a 950.00 foot radius curve, (concentric to said Southwesterly line of said Lot 6), concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 30 31' 37", for an arc distance of 58.48 feet, to a point thereon, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 510 44' 17"; THENCE North 510 44' 17" East, along said radial line, a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 3619.4 Sq. Ft. (0.08 Ac.) ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL . ENGINEERING / 25 a 0 I C) nl z w W a ttl f �o/NT OF u � / f.3�•G/NN/NG —1 M t% A / °05 47" R• %9 3300, h 10 9 o�.0. �+vl ►P 5• �L I �n 5 cl1 a Lt� Z QROFtssroy�� JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 EaP. Data 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING of �f CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT 0 W a EXHIBIT "' EXHIBIT "Y" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Block 167, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 39° 21' 30" East along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 5, said Block 167, a distance of 45.17 feet; THENCE continuing along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 5, being also along a 1010.00 foot radius curve to the right, tangent to the last described course, concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 10 05' 47', for an arc distance of 19.33 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 510 44' 17" West; THENCE South 510 44' 17" West, along said radial line, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point in the Southwesterly Right of Way line of Avenida Montezuma (Lot "0"); THENCE Northwesterly along said Southwesterly Right of Way line, being also along the arc of a 950.00 foot radius curve, (concentric to said Southwesterly line of said Lot 5), concave Southwesterly, through a central angle of 1° C5' 47', for an arc distance of 18.18 feet; THENCE North 391, 21' 30" West, along said Southwesterly Right of Way line, a distance of 45.17 feet; THENCE North 500 38' 30" East, a distance of 60.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 3835.6 S.F. (0.09 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.913 CIVIL ENGINEERING 2 o I Rj o � Lu w Q so' n rf) Rl l Poi/vr of ,wl -Na z2 �W �m4IAIAIIAA; _ IQ til /B 75' -• o/ -- r cQ = 4g. 7 �t = 27.gi' Q 7..50' a 9 to 0P (D0 Opoe � CO t() } }-' CD.0< 0. cn C1 — G � �O Q 9 .' z 0 G �i Q<tOf ESS�py� 7 JOSEPH NICAK y6�� No. 21775 rrr�'i Exp. Date 9 3D•93 p CIVIL ENGINEE OF �\ EXHIBIT 11 Z 11 CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "Z" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 8, Block 167, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the Westerly line of said Lot 8, said Block 167, a distance of 18.75 feet; THENCE continuing along said Westerly line, Southeasterly along a curve, having a radius of 40.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 390 24' 00", for an arc distance of 27.51 feet; THENCE continuing along said Westerly line, South 39" 21' 30" East, along a line tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 7.50 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; THENCE South 500 38' 30" West, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point in the Southwesterly Right of Line of Avenida Montezuma (Lot "0"); THENCE North 390 21' 30" West, along said Right of Way line, a distance of 58.29 feet, to the intersection of Right of Way line with a curve having a radius of 49.57 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said radius curve bears North 230 50' 29" East; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 49.57 foot radius curve, through a central angle of 1110 03' 27', for an arc distance of 96.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 870 12' 58" West. Contains 2341.0 S.F. (0.05 Acres). ogOFEsft JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING d wt, 7 JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / (R ) 73-21o'35"k/ I ttll N Powr Q� W BEG/AvI rr- — i j Q3 8 « ca % h P —• ttl ^ I LO -' all N I � �g \ Y2o f n \ Q ca d \ Z M W CALLE SCALE NOGALES I lix40' EXHIBIT "A- CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "A -A" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 16, Block 166, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the West line of said Lot 16, said Block 166, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; THENCE North 890 59' 00" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 16, a distance of 3.56 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 590.24 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 830 26' 35" West; THENCE Northerly along the arc of said 590.24 radius curve, through a central angle of 40 52' 03", for an arc distance of 50.14 feet to the Point of Beginning, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 880 18' 38" West. Contains 71.2 S.F. (0.002 Acres). IOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30- 93 CIVIL ENGINEERING JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL MINEERING / m POWT OF tw-G/NNI" <C �1 1 ,Lr) rn / -0.1i L 11.45' 20� m \ w ' I oy �Q CALLE SCALE \ NOGALES I If= 40 CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT m i 1■ . EXHIBIT "B-B" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 15, Block 166, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the West line of said Lot 15, said Block 166, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; THENCE North 890 59' 00" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 15, a distance of 11.45 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 590.24°feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 780 31' 39" West; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 590.25 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 40 54' 56', for an arc distance of 50.64 feet to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 15, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 830 26' 35" West; THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation a distance of 3.56 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 356.9 S.F. (0.01 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING a F 10SEPH KICAK ` No. 21775 ExD• Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / N W Q I..a I �l _A 'v76*y, , S ?7a45;� �� 5 2405E QOIJ \ �Q M ca 1 t>a l t� I l9 0.1• $®9 59'Q7 E Ltl �, a�� I��FMOXQNO OF < 0) p I 00. 49' 0 Z I ? k F--- Vi 0 7 i1j 7_' O ' \ � M CALLE SCALE \ NO GALES IIt= 40 HIBIT 11C-C CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "C-C" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 166, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the West line of said Lot 14, said Block 166, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; THENCE South 890 59' 00" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 14, a distance of 20.42 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 529.76 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 820 24' 05" East; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 529.76 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, through a central angle of 40 38' 29', for an arc distance of 42.91 feet to a point of reverse curvature through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 770 45' 36" East; THENCE Northeasterly along a curve, having a radius of 590.24 feet, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 000 46' 02', for an arc distance of 7.90 feet, to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 14, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 780 31' 39" West, THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation a distance of 11.45 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 814.8 S.F. (0.02 Acres). ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. Date 9-30.93 CIVIL ENGINEERING J ' JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 Exp. U3te 9.30-33 CIVIL k ENGINEERING / lK a F- 1-1-1 TZ 20 2 ;9'A7E —� 82024 75% ' Pb/NT OF \ Y20 (R� _� BEG/NN/N6 to m a cc a (�) N.89°59'AO'W. 2465' r' Q � � O � t \ Z Q M 4 CALLE SCALE ` NOGALES 1 40 CITY OF LA QUINTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "D—D" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 13, Block 166, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the West line of said Lot 13, said Block 166, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; THENCE North 89' 59' 00" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 13, a distance of 24.65 feet to its intersection with a curve having a radius of 529.76 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 870 49' 51" East; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 529.76 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, through a central angle of 5° 25' 46", for an arc distance of 50.20 feet to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 13, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 820 24' 05" East; THENCE South 89" 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation, a distance of 20.42 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1146.4 S.F. (0.03 Acres). )OSEPN KICAK No. 21175 Exp. Uato ,iQ•S3 CIVIL . ENGINEEMG OF I *% r JOSEPH KICAN ` No. 21775 Exp. Date 9.30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / ri R 2 Ed \ V ro N MINT OF I r�95/ E NMIMNIN A i� n8 , IA � 1�5 A�gggg .59C���✓• 0 CAALE _ SCALE \ NOGALES I It= 40 EXH I BIT OE-E CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "E—E" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 12, Block 166, Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 03' 00" West along the West line of said Lot 12, said Block 166, a distance of 39.99 feet; THENCE Southeasterly along a curve, having a radius of 20.00 feet, tangent to the last described course, concave Northeasterly, through a central angle of 900 02' 00", for an arc distance of 31.42 feet, to a point in the South line of said Lot 12; THENCE North 890 59' 00" West, along the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said Lot 12, a distance of 31.31 feet; THENCE North 440 59' 00" West, a distance of 18.38 feet, to a point in a curve having a radius of 529.76 feet, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 870 05' 03" East; THENCE Northerly along said 529.76 foot radius curve, concave Easterly, through a central angle of 50 05" 06", for an arc distance of 47.02 feet, to the intersection of said curve with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 12, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears South 870 49' 51" East; THENCE South 890 59' 00" East along said Westerly prolongation a distance of 24.65 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 1484.0 S.F. (0.03 Acres). _ QgtOfESstp,�,,_ JOSEPH KICAK No. 21775 UP• Date 9-30.93 CIVIL ♦ ENGINEERING / ReY2294 CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT JOSEPH KICAK c, No. 21115 a EJ p, to 9.30.91 VIL EN" P�Y:/ EXHIBIT itF—F`1 EXHIBIT "F-F" That portion of Section 12, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, Block 43, Unit No. 3, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 18, Page 59 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 89' 57' 15" West along the South boundary of said M.B. 18/59, a distance of 24.23 feet; THENCE North 39° 21' 30" West along a line parallel with and distant 12.00 feet Northeasterly of, measured at right angles to the Southwesterly Boundary of Unit No. 17, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 19 and 20 of Maps, records of said County, a distance of 21.01 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the centerline of Avenida Montezuma, as per said M.B. 18/59. THENCE North 19` 28' 22" West along said centerline, a distance of 57.53 feet to the intersection of said centerline with the Westerly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 2; THENCE North 890 53' 38" East along said Westerly prolongation, a distance of 60.03 feet to the Easterly terminus of a 20.00 foot radius curve in the Northerly line of said Lot 2; THENCE Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 2, being also along the arc of said 20.00 foot radius curve, to the left, concave Southeasterly through a central angle of 109' 22' 00", for an arc distance of 38.18 feet; THENCE along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2, South 19' 28' 22" East along a line tangent to the last described curve a distance of 46.56 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 2364.8 S.F. (0.05 Acres). 103EPH KICAK �c\ No.21775 n� Exp. Date 9-30-91 n CIVIL i �r Of CALLE POTRERO to M Z Q J tom- 30, 30 O (\� •�i� �41� �1 o._ 9 aP -� M cf ci IOSEPH NICAK No. 21775 Ev. Date 9.30 93 CIVIL ENGINEERING / 'v SCALE I—r_ 40 CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT °G-G11I EXHIBIT "G—G" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly terminus of that certain 30.00 foot radius curve in the Southerly line of Lot 2, Block 314, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 410 19' 30" West along the Southwesterly prolongation of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 30.00 feet; THENCE North 480 40' 30' West, a distance of 30.00 feet, to a point in said 30.00 foot radius curve, through which point a radial line to the radius point of said curve bears North 410 19' 30' East; THENCE Northeasterly along the arc of said 30.00 foot radius curve, concave Northerly, through a central angle of 900 00' 00" for an arc distance of 47.12 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 193.1 S.F. (0.004 Acres) JMEPN KICAK f. 21775 b6 Data 9-30.93 civic, ENGINEER4N8 or �7 T ElD (c) RI L,1 t m Q cC rn 1 U Ul 7 Q ler rn t� Pow OF d= 4� •�e'38" n1 R= 42.90, /-= 30.93' CALLE ., TECATEo to 30, 1 30, a a Q � -- w z x w cr- > w a = I i CITY OF LA QUI NTA RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PLAT EXHIBIT "K-K' EXHIBIT "K-K" That portion of Section 13, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, S. B. B. & M. in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 12, Block 312, Unit No. 28, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, as per map on file in Book 19, Pages 59 and 60 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, State of California; THENCE South 000 00' 45" West along the East line of said Lot 12, said Block, 312, a distance of 7.08 feet; THENCE Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 12, being also along a 42.90 foot radius curve, tangent to .the last described course, concave Northwesterly, through a central angle of 41 18' 38" for an arc distance of 30.93 feet; THENCE North 41* 19' 30" East, along a line parallel with and distant 30.00 feet Northwesterly of, measured at right angles to the centerline of Avenida Bermudas as per said M.B. 19, Pages 59 and 60, a distance of 47.12 feet to the intersection of said parallel line with the Easterly prolongation of the Northerly line of said Lot 12; THENCE North 89" 58' 00" West, along said easterly prolongation, a distance of 20.43 feet to the Point of Beginning. Contains 268.0 S.F. (0.01 Ac.). SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS EXHIBIT "L-L" SCALE: 1 " = 4 0' N 89'59'00" W 67.25I � z L 0 T 6 30,00 J'� BLOCK 259 30.00, 4r' I 1� o� P.O.B. 2 W o � 2 LOT R� A = 164'11'15" R - 20.00' T =, 144.02' 1% o L=57.31' O N 1 INDICATES AREA OF 1 PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY C . 1/ACATION �np 7hlot was prepared from record data only and does not represent a survey shown, hereon. \ N 89'S9'00J 34.95' a 0 zOWN LU 89'59' 15" W 10.00' Q�pFESSIO 5 p F w T4o.C•24iY6 � IAES 121311 wry CIVIL gr6OF CA' CALLE MADRID Right -of -Way Vacation CITY OF LA Q UINTA Pre -pared by; Applicant; JAMES D. FEIRO, CE-LS PBrian Burch .o. Box e65 41-625 EMECTIC ST., SUITE C-1 La Ouinta, CA 92253 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 1 Site Address; (619) 346-8015 54-140 Avenfda Montezuma EBHIBIT "L-L" Le -gal Description: Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets Beginning at the Northeast Comer of Lot R, Block 259, Unit No. 24, Santa Carmelita at Vale 'La Quinta, as recorded in Book 19, Pages 44 and 45 of Maps, Official Records of Riverside County, Thence S 0000'45" W, along the East line of said Lot R, a distance of 108.71 feet; Thence N 89"59'15" W, perpendicular to the East line of said Lot R, a distance of 10.00 feet, to a point on the West line of said Lot R; Thence N 15°48'00" W, along the West line of said Lot R, a distance of 107.32 feet, to the cusp of a tangent curve, concave to the northwest, having a radius of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 164011'15", said point is also the Southwest corner of Lot 6; Thence along the common line of Lot R and Lot 6, and the arc of said curve Southeasterly, Easterly, and Northeasterly, a distance of 57.31 feet, to the point of beginning. Said area contains 2130 Sq. Ft., more or less. 4��fES3/Qr�� D. FF � w f4o C•21176 cc, SIRES 1213119 �TF OF V C A L EXHIBIT "M-M" SB EET 2 OF 2 .vz-4, ti. _+ N v� 7?'0 C3 O Q�pfESSIO�, �� ` VEY 44 As No. 12571 7O "NG I OF Croi-�i: ga1A1r/_1, 41zvirAvd 4 03V / ' \ D�-Z3 9v F/1"C,A1 E'NGIAIEERs INC. f' O. BOX -u3S P44 M OeSE'.oPT C4. 9z2,6/, 6'/9 -3*ff . 76'6' 7 EXHIBIT " m-M" DESCRIPTION SHEET 1 OF 2 That portion of Avenida Montezuma, Lot "H", as shown on map of Unit No. 4, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta, recorded in book 18 page 62 of Maps, Riverside County records, described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 13 Block 50 of Unit No. 4, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta; thence North 74' 26' 07" East 7.65 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius'of 20.00 feet and a central angle of 12° 29' 17" and a length of 4.36 feet, thence alon§ said curve a distance of 4.36 feet; thence South 25° 38" 48 East 10.21 feet; thence North 80° 59' 38" East 11.51 feet to a curve concave to the Northeast having a radius of 64.00 feet and a central angle of 56° 32' 01" and a length of 63.15 feet; thence along said curve a distance of 63.15 feet to the South line of Lot. H" of said tract; thence South 74° 26' 07" West 69.35 feet; thence North 480 41' 23" West 71.64 feet; thence North 74° 26' 07"' East 47.76 feet to the point of beginning. �WESSIp,��,q No. 12571 =•, �,OF