Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993 12 14 PC
� a�PI, .Z1,1T COMMIS,SION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California December 14, 1993 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 93-044 Beginning Minute Motion 93-054 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-039 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Amend Title 9, Planning and Zoning of the La Quinta Municipal Code regarding minimum house size and compatibility with residential subdivisions. Action ............. Resolution 93- 2. Item ............... STREET NAME CHANGE 93-004 Applicant .......... Lake La Quinta (Jim LaLoggia) Location ........... South of 47th Avenue and east of Caleo Bay within Lake La Quinta Request ............. Approval to change Via Soud to Via Avante Action ............. Resolution 93- 3. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 27835 Applicant .......... TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) Location ........... South side of 48th Avenue west of Dune Palms Road (extended) within Rancho La Quinta Request ............ Approval of a tentative tract map for seven residential air space condominium lots, racquet club lot, and miscellaneous lots on 36± ggross acres Action ............. Resolution 93- 4. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 93-495, CONDITION MODIFICATION Applicant .......... Simon Plaza Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street Request ............ Amend Condition #36 regarding dedication of Washington Street right-of-way Action ............. Applicant request to continue to January 11, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 93-516 Applicant .......... TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) Location ........... South of 48th Avenue, east of Washington Street within Rancho La Quinta Request ............ Approval of reliminary landscaping plans for the main entry road and Casita area and approval of landscaping and architectural plans for the racquet club area. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 2. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 93-225 Applicant .......... Norwest Financial, Inc. Location ........... 78-590 Highway 111 (within One Eleven La Quinta Center) Request ............ Approval of a corporate sign for Norwest Financial. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1993. OTHER ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION MONDAY, December 13, 1993 4:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. PC/AGENDA PH # 1 CITY OF LA Q UINTA MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 SUBJECT: AMEND TITLE 9, PLANNING AND ZONING OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MINIMUM HOUSE SIZE AND COMPATIBILITY WITH RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS ISSUE: Background On October 9, 1993, the City Council directed staff to prepare a report regarding house size and compatibility standards within 60-days. During this process, staff reviewed the current ordinance and found that it lacked the, necessary regulations to address these issues. Staff then drafted language establishing the minimum square footage for a single family house and developed a review process to be used when a developer wants to change the architectural style of any new housing within an existing tract. The City Council reviewed the draft regulations at their meeting of November 16, 1993. Their general comments suggested that the proposed 1300 square foot house minimum was not large enough. It was suggested that 1400 square feet be used or perhaps a formula of a percent of minimum house size to lot would be more appropriate. For example the Special Residential (SR) Zone requires a minimum house size of 1,200 square feet on a typical lot of 5,000 square feet, the house to lot size is about 24%. The current house and lot size permitted in the R-1 Zone is 750 square feet and 7,200 square foot respectively. In the R-1 Zone the house to lot size is approximately 10%. To keep a consistent 24 percent in both the SR Zone and R-1 Zone, the minimum house in the R-1 Zone would have to be 1,728 square feet. As now drafted the ordinance would require a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet which representing 19% lot coverage. The regulations could contain both the minimum 1400 square foot house size and a percent of the lot coverage. For example, the house size may be 12 % or 1400 square feet, whichever is greater on lots 20,000 square feet or less and for lots 20,000 square feet or greater, the Planning Commission would review the house size to ensure compatibility. What this means is lots ranging in size from 7200 square feet to 11,700 square feet would have to have a 1400 square foot house. Lots between 11,700 square feet to 20,000 MEMOJH.332 square feet would have houses built based upon 12%. For example, 12,000 square foot lot would require a 1440 square foot house; 16,000 square foot lot would require a 1920 square foot house and a 20,000 square foot lot would require a 2,400 square foot house. The current drafted regulations however, require the minimum house of 1400 square feet regardless of lot size. This allows the most flexibility to the potential home buyer of larger lots as to how much landscaping or other outside amenities are wanted. In addition, as drafted, the development standards in the R-1 Zone are the same as the existing SR Zone with minimum modifications. Compatibility Standards The drafted compatibility standards would require a public hearing for any change in square footage or major design deviation such as landscaping, architectural style, etc. The maximum deviation of a house size; could be 10%. This does not preclude a homeowner from building additions of any size after the house has been completed by the developer provided the minimum setbacks are met. Additionally, the following development standards are proposed: 1) a two story house cannot be built next to an existing single story house constructed within the previous phase; 2) the interior and perimeter fencing must be the same or better than, the previous phase; and 3) the same size house must be constructed within a 100 foot radius of any lot which is developed with a house. Staff met with interested parties on two occasions to address these issues; however, no consensus could be reached. Copies of the draft standards were sent to the subject parties for comment as well as interested people in the City. Todate we received comments from Mr. Eldred PriMerit Bank and STAMKO Development Company. The STAMKO Company is requesting the Commission to consider permitting 24 % of a development to have homes which range from 1100 square feet to 1400 square feet in size or make the minimum house size 1200 square feet instead of 1400 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- , recommending the adoption of a negative declaration and the standards as drafted and attached to the Resolution. MEMOJH.332 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9, PLANNING AND ZONING, OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MINIMUM HOUSE SEIZE AND COMPATIBLE STANDARDS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-039 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the amendments of the La Quinta Planning and Zoning regulations; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City has the following objectives: 2.1.1: The General Plan shall identify residential land use categories on the Land Use Policy Diagram which provides for a variety of residential product types, densities, and development characteristics. 2.1.3: The General Plan shall utilize alternative means to ensure appropriate diversity of residential uses and development consistent with the General Plans Housing Element. WHEREAS, the City has adopted various zoning districts which permit various house and let sizes; and, WHEREAS, the City has provided for deviations from the single family development standards for senior and affordable housing developments and subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission strives to assure that partially developed residential subdivisions will be developed with compatible residential units; and, WHEREAS, the amendments have complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Planning Director considered an Initial Study and has determined that the proposed amendments will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and determined that a Negative Determination is warranted for adoption; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Text Amendments: RESOPC.125 1 1. The proposed amendments are generally compatible with the goals and policies contained in the La Quinta General Plan. 2. That the proposed amendments will not significantly impact the environment. 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 confirm and certify the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 93- 273 that the proposed Text Amendments will not result in any significant adverse effects and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the above described Zoning Ordinance Amendments for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.125 2 EXHIBIT "A" December 14, 1993 APPROVAL PROCESS TO BE ADDED TO THE R-1, R-2, R-2a R-3, R-V ZONES Single Family Dwelling Unit Development Standards All single family unit developments, regardless of zoning district, must comply with Compatibility Development Standards if units have been constructed within the subdivision. Except that senior citizen and/or affordable housing developments/subdivisions are permitted deviations from the following requirements, provided that 1) the overall density of the development/subdivision does not exceed the density (plus any bonuses) as designated by the General Plan Land Use diagram; and, 2) the senior citizen and/or affordable housing development/subdivision is reviewed by the conditional use permit process. The deviations from the standards can only be granted through the conditional use permit process. 1. Minimum gross livable area shall be 1,400 square feet, excluding the garage, as measured from the exterior walls of the dwelling except. 2. Bedroom dimensions: a minimum of ten foot clear width and depth dimensions, as measured from the interior walls of the room. 3. Bathrooms: there shall not be less than one and one-half baths in one or two bedroom dwellings, and not less than one and three-quarter baths in dwellings with three or more bedrooms, excepting that one and one-half baths may be permitted for the latter provided that both bathrooms have bathing facilities. 4. Garage dimensions: each dwelling shall have a two -car garage with interior dimensions not less than twenty feet square (20' X 20'), which space shall remain clear of mechanical equipment, appliances, or other improvements which conflict with its purpose to store vehicles. An additional four feet shall be provided to the width or depth if mechanical equipment or appliances, including but not limited to washer, dryer, and forced air unit, are contained within the garage interior. A water heater is permitted without additional interior garage area being required provided that it is located so as not to conflict with vehicular parking or pedestrian access. 5. Access between house and garage: a separate pedestrian door into the garage shall be provided as either an interconnecting door providing direct access between the dwelling and garage, or a. pedestrian door leading outside to a paved walkway area which is sheltered by a minimum thirty-six inch roof eave, enclosed within a secured, walled area and provides direct access to a keyed entry into the dwelling. DOCJH.092 6. Mechanical and related equipment: heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground -mounted and screened from all sides except for flat roofs. On flat roofs the mechanical and related equipment must be screened from all sides. The screening must be included as part of the architectural design of the house. 7. The eave-end of all dwelling roofs which run parallel with interior side property lines, measuring a distance of five feet or less from the common property line, shall be equipped with a rain gutter, and downspout directed to an approved drainageway. 8. Landscaping: the front yard of all lots, and in addition, the side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line per the requirements of the development standards of the Zoning District. 9. Screening: refuse container areas and permanently mounted bottled gas tanks shall be concealed by landscaping or block/masonry walls. 10. Underground utilities: all electric services, overhead wires, or associated structures must be installed underground from the service pole (if any) to the new residence. 11. Driveway materials: the driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and constructed in accordance with City standards. 12. Lighting: all exterior lighting shall be located and directed so as not to shine directly on adjacent properties or otherwise create a nuisance (see Chapter 9.210). 13. Fencing: refer to the fencing requirements contained in the Development Standards of the underlying Zoning District. 14. Exterior materials: siding shall be stucco, plaster, masonry or a similar material. Wood, or materials of a similar appearance, may be used as trim and design accents for up to a maximum of 10 percent of the surface wall area on any one side of the house. Excepting flat roofs, roof material shall be clay or concrete tile, and shall be rated as "Class A". 15. Eaves: roof eaves must extend a minimum of 18 inches from the wall except for flat roof houses. Eaves shall be larger where necessary to provide adequate protection over door openings. 16. Building colors: exterior siding, roof and trim colors are subject to approval. Single Family Dwelling Unit Approval Process One of the following methods shall be used to review new single family dwelling unit proposals prior to the issuance of a building permit. DOCJH.092 1. The precise plan process (Section 9.42.110) shall be used for single family dwelling units proposed for construction on a lot within: a) an approved specific plan where the unit has received prior approval; and b) a tract recorded after May 1, 1982, where the unit has received City architectural approval and no change is proposed; c) the SR Zoning District; and d) a subdivision recorded prior to May 1, 1982. 2. The compatibility, review process (Section _ J shall be used for any single family dwelling unit proposed for construction within a subdivision or any partially built -out phases within a subdivision recorded after May 1, 1982, where the units proposed are classified as a major design deviation from the previously approved units. Minor and Major Design Deviation 1. A minor design deviation can be approved by the Planning and Development Department without a public hearing. Minor design deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that involves items such as, but not limited to, columns, dormer vents, window size, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture. The Planning and Development Director may refer the minor design deviation to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for a non -hearing compatibility review. 2. A major design deviation is subject to the review and approval process of Section Compatibility Review Process. A major design deviation means any exterior architectural change, floor plan, or landscaping modification not defined as a minor change, including but not limited to, square footage, number of stories, garage sizes. DOCJH.092 A NEW CHAPTER WOULD BE CREATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE Compatibility Review Process The completed application along with the following information shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 1. One copy of the preliminary title report or deed of trust to the subject property. 2. Twenty-five sets of the site development plan (number as required by the Planning and Development Department), each set to incorporate the following: a. Dimensioned floor plan(s) relating to all building layout aspects, showing bedrooms, kitchens, hallways, baths, etc. b. Four -point elevations of the units proposed, delineating architectural feature(s), relationships to existing residential units on adjacent properties, and listing proposed building materials, finishes, colors, etc. C. A detailed site plan delineating all siting aspects of the development (i.e., setbacks, topography, fencing locations, locations provided for ground -mounted mechanical and heating/air conditioning systems, parking, accessways, adjacent streets, utilities, and drainage. d. A complete site landscaping plan, showing a listing of quantities, species, location and plant sizes to be incorporated into the final landscaping of the project. The final approved landscape plan must be stamped "approved" by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Two sets of all plans reduced to eight and one half inches by eleven inches, and submitted on other similar format suitable for presentation. 4. One eight inch by thirteen inch (8" X 13")color, material and finish sample board for the unit's exterior areas, including, but not limited to, roof covering, facia boards, tile inlays, stucco finish, wood or other plant -on materials, etc. Colors and materials shall be keyed to at least one set of architectural elevations. 5. One colored elevation of all sides of the unit oriented to public view, in accordance with the materials sample board submitted. 6. Any other additional information as may be required. DOCJH.092 Completeness of Application No residential application shall be processed until all information as required by this chapter has been submitted. Determination of completeness shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code 65943 or successor provisions. Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process The units shall only be approved when they comply with the following standards: 1. The proposed use conforms to all the provisions of the General Plan and specific plans, and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City. 2. A two story house cannot be constructed adjacent to an existing single story home developed in a prior phase of the same tract. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the developer must provide the same, or better, type of fencing including perimeter subdivision fencing. 4. For development in partially built -out phases of a subdivision or phases that abutt, homes, including the garage of the same size, must be constructed on lots that are within 100 feet from the boundaries of the lot upon which any existing home has been constructed. For this purpose if any portion of a vacant lot is within the 100 foot distance this requirement applies. 5. A proposed single family dwelling unit must contain the same roof material, window treatment, and garage door style of the existing units or units which were approved for construction as determined on the plans and materials board within the same tract unless otherwise determined by the Planning Commission. 6. All new homes shall contain similar architecture material, colors, and roof lines as the existing units within the same tract. 7. At least one specimen (24" box) tree shall be provided in the front or street side yard in addition to the landscape requirements of the zone. 8. All single family dwelling units proposed must comply with the requirements contained in the Development Standards Section 9. The single family dwelling units proposed cannot deviate by more than 10 % from the square footage of the existing units (i.e., if the units approved range from 1200 to 2300 square feet, the smallest unit which could be introduced is 1400 square feet and the largest is 2530 square feet). DOCJH.092 10. The Planning Commission when approving compatibility units may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within the subdivision. REVIEW BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board shall review all proposed units and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall take one of the following actions during their review: 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend modification. 3. Refer to the Planning Commission without a recommendation. The request before the Design Review Board is a non -hearing item, however, public comment can be taken at the discretion of the Board from the applicant or interested parties. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW All residential units shall be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by action of the Planning Commission, based upon the standards referred to in Section of this Chapter and the recommendation of the Design Review Board. The following findings must be made when an application is approved: The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the subdivision. 2. Applicable development standards including, but not limited to, setbacks, parking, landscaping, site design, and similar features, will be compatible with and not detrimental to, other existing units in the subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on all applications. Notice of the time, date, and place of the public hearing shall be given at least ten calendar days prior to the hearing by the following procedures: 1. Mailing to all owners of real property which is located within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the parcel, lot, subdivision phase to be considered as such owners are shown on the last equalized assessment roll. 2. Publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. The Planning Director may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius. APPEAL PROCESS The applicant or any other aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission by the following procedure: DOCJH.092 6 Appeal to the City Council within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission's decision, the applicant or aggrieved party may appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council on the forms provided by the Planning and Development Department. Upon receipt of a completed appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council not less than five calendar days nor more than thirty calendar days thereafter, and shall give written notice of the hearing in the same manner that notice was given for the Planning Commission hearing. City Council shall render its decision within thirty calendar days following the close of the hearing on the appeal. FEES The application and appeal fees shall be established by Council resolution. DOCJH.092 PROPOSED FEES Compatibility Review Application $835.00 Precise Plan Application (per unit) $ 25.00 Appeals Applicant or aggrieved party. $300.00 DocJx.o92 DATE: TO: VIA: REFERENCE: MEMORANDUM from The Law Office of Lantson E. Eldred November 12, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman, Director Planning and Development Department City of La Quinta FAX / US Mail Housing Compatibility Standards PLaNt :,� ;;CFATMENT I would suggest the following clarification/modifications to the DRAFT Development Standards for Compatibility review process applicable to build -out of partially constructed tracts. 1. Item 5 - It should be clear that the distance to be measured is not from an existing "home" (meaning the physical structure) but rather, from the boundaries of the lot upon which any existing homes are constructed. Secondly I would suggest that a larger transition zone such as 200 feet would be appropriate along a street which is partially developed. So that the transition zone would include all lots within 200 feet of the property line of existing homes measured along the curb of existing streets, and 100 feet from all other property lines. Further, the last sentence of this section makes reference to this provision as being a "request". I believe this in fact is a requirement. 2. I m 8 - I believe should provide, at least within the compatibility transition zone defined in section 5, that the visible front yard, and any street visible side yard landscaping be consistent as to types of allowed landscaping materials and specific planting standards or requirements established within the previously constructed portion of the tract, so that any higher standards established would be continued at least through the transition zone. 3. Item 1 - Contains a mathematical error, the deviation with respect to the 1350 square foot house would create a range from 1080 feet to 1620, not from 1300 to 1620. Further I believe that a deviation of 20% or even 25% from the average, mid -point or medium range of the previously D Nov/12-City of LQ 1 constructed homes would be appropriate. A suggested range of homes up to 20% smaller than the smallest existing unit through 20% larger than the largest unit creates an excessively large allowed deviation that would not appear to represent consistency nor compatibility. If the deviation is to be measured from the extremes of the existing constructed range rather than from the median or mid -point, then I believe that the allowed deviation should be no more than 10% smaller than the smallest existing structure with perhaps a larger maximum deviation from the largest structure allowed. With respect to the approval process draft, I strongly support the creation of a category of minor changes which might be approved by staff without public hearing or requiring involvement of the Planning Commission or the full Council which should be required only for approval of major changes. I applaud the time and effort of yourself and the staff in the various meetings which we have held and in developing these draft ordinances. Nov/12-City of LQ 2 STAMKO DEVELOPMENT CO. 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 277-3622 December 3, 1993 VIA FAX Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Planning & Development City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: PROPOSED MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING IN R-1 ZONES Dear Jerry: As you are aware, Stamko Development Co., a California Limited Partnership (Stamko), is the owner of 132 acres east of Washington Street, south of Miles Avenue and west of Adams Street which contains 300 lots of R-1 zoning. Stamko is presently in a deal with Inco Homes Corporation, a Delaware Corporation (Inco) for Inco to purchase from Stamko the 300 lots. Inco had feasibility studies prepared on the 300 lots. These feasibility studies showed that the 300 lots should be developed into a 1,200 to 1,800 square foot residential housing project. This footage requirement results in base sales prices of $110,000.00 to $140,000.00. Enclosed is a copy of a December 2, 1993 letter with enclosures to me from Steve Kabel, President of Inco Homes - Inland Division, addressing the minimum square footage as it relates to their feasibility studies, floor plans and sales prices. The City of La Quinta is presently considering a new minimum square footage requirement for single family detached housing in the R-1 zones. A major portion of the present market segments is first time buyers and empty nesters which has resulted in the down sizing of the houses in order to accommodate these buyer's income. As a result, Inco's feasibility studies reflect three different square footage uses which consist of 1,250 square feet, 1,550 square feet and 1,800 square feet. The 1,250 square foot plan will entice this major portion of the market segment of first time buyers and empty nesters. Mr. Jerry Herman December 3, 1993 Page 2 In order to set a citywide square foot minimum for the R-1 zone, the City of La Quinta MUST CONSIDER that the R-1 zoning north of the Whitewater Storm Channel (Channel) east of Washington Street south of Fred Waring and west of Jefferson Street can presently only accommodate 1,200 to 1,800 square foot residential houses. The 1,200 square foot house would have a base sales price of approximately $110,000.00. Please note that every additional 100 square feet added to a house results in an increased purchase price of $5,000.00. Therefore, your 1,800 square foot house would have a sales price of approximately $140,000.00. The City of La Quinta should consider increasing the present 750 square foot minimum to 1,200 square feet. As an alternative to a 1,200 square foot minimum, the City could also consider establishing a 1,400 square foot minimum allowing no more than 25% of an 11R-1 zoned project" to have residential houses in the range from 1,100 to 1,400 square feet. If you have any questions, please call me. Very ly C INE CFC/lrc Enclosure(s) cc: Steve Kabel, Inco Homes (w/o enc.) - via fax Tom Bienek (w/enc.) - via fax Carol S. May (w/enc.) - via fax Peter Kontny (w/o enc.) yours, F. CLARKE Ivy i December 2, 1993 i Christine P. Clarke Stamko Development Company 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Dear Chris: I am hopeful that this transmittal will assist the city Planning Director in arriving at a reasonable recommendation regarding the minimum liveable floor area for single family detached housing in the City of La Quanta. First, per the attached floor plans and elevations, ranging is floor area aize from 1,129 sq. ft. vo nearly 1,400 sq. ft., it should be noted that (1) the functionality of the floor plan varies only by room count, and (2) by the architectural appearance of the exterior of the home you cannot distinguish i= the home is a 1,000 sq. ft. or 1,400 sq. ft. in area. With respect to functionality, the variation occurs primarily in bedroom, count and the tycical addition of a family room as nhe plan gains floor area. By limiting the minimum floor area to 0 1,400 Sq. ft., I am concerned that we have excluded a great portion of two market segments; Namely, the entry-level buyer and the empty nester. Both of these market segments rely on affordable pricing and are not as concerned if the home contains 3 or 4 bedrooms. Our in-depth evaluation of the market, assisted by two independent market research companies and one nationally -recognized demographer, concludes that the denial of minimum aloor areas in the range of 100 to 1,200 sq. ft. and the establishment of a minimum floor area of 1,400 sq. ft. would effectively increase the most affordable -priced home by $10,000 to s15,000. The effects of such higher pricing on prospective homebuyers incoude: (1) a required 10Ps greater cash down payment; and (2) a required lot greater gross annual household earnings for loan qualification. Both of these effects have a deleterious impact the i first-time buyer and the empty -nester with fixed income. The City should give careful thought to 'looking beyond the selection of an arbitrary minimum floor area and provide kind consideration for those seeking homeownership for the first time as well as those empty -nesters, with econom-c limitations, desirous of retiring ir_ the comm•.mity of La put nta . Sin erel , Z m land Division 9v e Pree? dent Corporate Office High Desert Division 1292 W. Arrow HJMV 13911 Park Avenue, Suite 210 P 0. Box 970 Victorylle. CA 92392 Ualand, CA 91785 (e19)241-5151 (909)981.6989 FAX (619) 241.5822 FAX (909) 982-9784 wh"d Sdebdxq vm"Vfor — dad ErvarAv J%Caroamp Arimt Ilhutry2lOn KITcamt �- — — •• r' Of»orAL ►tosaAos eu i + DINING UVW0 4 CAR GARAGE 96 Emy U'M MASTER BEDROOM HALL .j BEDROOM S /DEN Dn ®pston I*r Built -In FWbUlty 1,129 sq. ft. BEDROOM 9 MasoVrSuift WIN Lop i ��- °� ... .� �� \»»»<«w.�� 2 � ..,> ^\ ::� y�� � � :: \ �d\\�. \�z \� . ..m:w � «»� 2- �....: < »> a � � � \\` .y�\ >� : . wr».www<. .� . . aa� «< �< . < -� : >.. y\� \ � ��>. � » � \\� , « «, \ % .� �w\« � . a ..� . ,��. ��.: y�� . . . \«: © ,\: yw«w: °\\ \� � \§.� . � , . «� © .. m� � » . .. � w °t \� <� .. . : . 2� :. . - ) «�� \yav � w,��.»�� \\. w:�. .�. � C >°� 2 ?� � � . � ., . �, >a w. :« . .. « ©- ©�� ± . ®- ©,� «ate � : «»»« m:}yg»a .y.� «x� ... . �. .� »<w<? » »»� �� \.3�©»� <� � - .� ��� »»<«:� r« 2�» ©� \ ; \ 2��� 2 >� � ' ? � y y� � . % 2 »� <� � � � � ' � � � � � - -- a .� :� � � � � : ~\ \ 2 w,� � � . . � <�� \yam � \ . . . � � : � 2v : a : � _- � .«w«� a. � � � - » � � © w 7�� a � � � «i « .. � � . / «� -. ?<� :� � � � � � � �� � � � � \ : y,� a . .. 2??<� y� � . �^� .. a.. . � w y, � a .. . a � �.. . � « «� �\� y�����k��\y�22� � � . » � � . rVKiW nl mUy kx)?n for ni�rrdbte nt!!� 1tt�ag wg t --- Ibr Dtnfxs 1,325 sq. ft. A optxw"/ Renras Ama —7W Perrocf Crraaay A ■ ,� 6S ANr ku 938 SOUTH GRAND AV9MWC LOB ANG"RS. CALIFORNIA 80071-a197 Cie yjv y 7089 CCNTUAY PARK CAST •08 ANGCICS• CAWP08NIA 90907.3086 SACNAM8NTO 400 CAPITOL MALL SACKAMeNTo. CALIPORNIA O68'4.4407 N R I 760 6 6TKceT 8AN 018G0• CALIPOKNIA 19101-4606 6A 4N PRANCI•CO QMS MONTeOMBRT 6TR68T. •t6COtS TOW[R BAN PKANCtSCO, CALIFOANIA 04104.4606 M'CNLO PA*" 3999 6AN0 NIL ROAD. BUILDING MSNLO AA"K. CALIFORNIA O4ONS DALLA 1717 MAIN STOMP DALLAS. TeAAS 75101-1300 ORNv1R I{Ot CALIFORNIA GTRe1T Pcknll. C060KAOC 8080"694 51ATTL[ 009 TNIND AV8NU8 6CATT69• WASNINOTON S4104.7080 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (714) 451-3894 GIBSON, DUNN $ CRUTCMKR LAWYERS JA6.A.6188CK1686.1080 W, c, owe+, 1881-1e88 JAMSDIIaB CENTcM ALSILRT CI.uT M, teeth-*W 4 NARK PLAZA IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 22714-8557 Now TOR" 800 aM AveNVR MSW Ton", NSW YORK 101e9-elea (714) 481.0800 WAs"_ I"^TON RACSIMILe1 (714) 461-4SSG 1080 CONNSCTICUT AMMON. Mw. WASHINGTON. D.C. 900119-"0& December 8, 1993 ur Lae` 4vtNue Lewes sea 8.1080 SRuSUM BSLOIUM mass 04 AVCNUC KAVNOND 100INCARj 70:10 PAR18. PRANCB • .;,c;,,� m,a�ty-.^.:- -- '" C 7Ct88 PALL MALL �t{ Ij • ri 1�„` ' !'T, : LONDON BWIT SUP {�+.}s, Li 4 • I .. - 'C ' I E "ONG KONG PLACCP. � a CONNAUGMT MONG KON DEC . i993 +o"Y 1.1-9 MARUNOCMIYQOA•KU TO"YO 100, JAPAN •..._ - _e_ ,. = _ _ �p,ip (i(�r�lTiw,`l ,T ARi1L1AT CD 9Ai10/ AAAHIA DI►IC8 �1 � Pjl: j � i 1Y �i n-M -'• Ti i t C' d� CNAMDeR 0/ COMMERes BUILOSNO *0. Cox Isere RIYAOM 114SA. SAUD1 ARABIA OVA PILL NUMMSA The Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post office Hox 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Proposed Zoning ordinance Changes Dear Planning Commission Members: T 72389-00004 This firm represents PriMerit Bank, Federal Savings Bank ("PriMerit"), the owner of certain lots in Tract 23913, which your planning staff has been referring to as the Quinterra subdivision (the "Property"). PriNerit is attempting to sell the Property to Forecast Development (now The Forecast Group, L.P.). Forecast submitted its plans for approval by the City. The Planning Commission appproved the piano, but it conditioned its approval upon compliance with Minimum house size of 1,630 square feet. That condition not acceptable to Forecast and, if left in place, would defeat: PriMerit's plans to sell the property to Forecast. Forecast therefore appealed to the City Council. on November 20 1993, the City Council declined to rule on Forecast's appeal becau8e oil of an interim ordinance adopted that day by the City is in un imposing a moratorium on the issuance of building pperms narrow circumstances that applied only to the applications of Forecast and perhaps one other builder. The stated purpose of the moratorium was to enable the City of La Quinta to consider certain changes in the City's zoning ordinances. ,-A wdbt:bo 66, 80 03a GIBSON, OUNN & CRUTCNER The Planning Commrtission City of La quints December 8, 1993 Page 3 PriMerit has been advised, though it has not received formal notice, that the Planning Commission intends to conduct a hearing on December 14, 19931 at 7:00 p.m. to consider a proposed change in the City's zoning ordinances that would limit the ability of property owners in single family residential subdivisions that have been ppartially built out to change the house sizes in those subdivisions. PriMerit and Forecast strenuously object to the enactment of such ordinance changes on the following grounds: 1. The proposed zoning change is a discriminatory measure designed to forestall the Forecast proposal even though building parmits should have been issued to Forecast long before the m-ratorium was snacted. z. The pro?osed changes in the zoning ordinances would violate California Government Cade S 65961. All developments that have been Vartially built out must have a recorded final map, and PriMerit is not aware of any final maps for such developments having been recorded more than five years ago. 'therefore, the City is prohibited by S 65961 from imposing new conditions on those developments which could have been osed at zoning ordinance isof tentative designed topdoppreciselyntha e proposed 3. The proposed zoning ordinance would violate the rights of PriMerit and Forecast to due process and equal protection of the laws under the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California. Forecast and PriMerit are entitled to have the City rule upon Forecast's appeal based upon the laws that existed before the proposed changes are put in place, and that law would require the City to remove all conditions relating to house size from the planning Commission's approval of Forecast's plans. 4. Pursuant to California Government Code S 65961, PriMerit and Forecast are entitled to have Forecast's plans submitted for a ministerial plan check without further conditions being placed upon thew. Insofar as the proposed zoning ordinance would defeat that result, it is illegal. WdvJ:V0 66, 80 33C PIA 318SON, DUNN & CRUTCMER The Planninq Commission City of La Quint& December 81 1993 Paqe 3 PrIMerit and Forecast urge a "no" vote on the proposed zoning ordinances. Very truly yours, Robert 4WLOswOn RWL/dk cc: Dawn c. Honeywell, Eaq (via telecoPY) OASIMIM a+ b.H WdSZ:VO 66, 80 03Q riverside county region U,Acjn dg industry cmocntlon of southem cai forma, Inc. December 8, 1993 Mayor John Pena 51910 Avenida Navarro La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mayor Pena, Some weeks ago the City Council created a study group to consider the adoption of a development compatibility regulation as a modification to existing zoning ordinances. That group consisted of staff, two members from the public and members from the build- ing industry as represented by the Building Industry Association (BIA). We were the members appointed to represent the BIA. Several meetings were held by the group, with not much in the way of consensus being achieved. As a result, City staff has pre- pared a draft recommendation for your consideration, on which I would like to comment in behalf of the BIA. The proposal before you`now would affect the entire city and aU future single family residential construction in the R-1, R-2, R- 2a, R-3 and R-V zoning, and goes well beyond the issue of compat- ibility. Some of the proposed items are currently a part of the SR zone, others are modified SR requirements or new altogether. Attached herein is a copy of the draft ordinance as it was presented to our committee. Also attached as exhibits "A" and "B" are detailed responses by the BIA to each of the individual items of the draft proposal. While the material is voluminous, we feel the issues are significant and require our careful consideration. BIA is supportive of all efforts to make the communities in which we build better for all residents. The term better also includes affordability and socially responsible attention to the needs of our constituents. Decisions affecting the entire community will hopefully be made in a reasoned responsible way and not merely as the reaction, and conceivably overreaction to a specific issue or incident of a passing nature. While elected and appointed representatives of a city certainly need to be sensitive to the needs of their constituents, their task should not include trying to create a set of rules that have as their purpose someone's idea of what it takes today to assure recent homebuyers a profit from their purchase decision. Previous administrations in the City of La Quinta have deemed that architectural difference is good. The existing SR zoning ordinance for the Cove area clearly encourages difference as 4333 Oiange St., Ste. 3600, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 781-7310 Telefax # (714) 781-0509 /7 .,I)M Country Club Dr., Ste. 400-B, Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 360-2476 Telefax # (619) 772-3372 opposed to sameness. Specifically, section 9.42.080, Building design standards states in part: " B. Architectural Variety. When houses using similar architectural styles are located with(in) two hundred fifty feet of each other, exterior building elevations shall make provision for architectural variety by using different colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments, garage door treatments, and similar methods." The staff proposal as drafted changes that direction and would put the City in the business of specifically telling builders what they are to build. The proposal before you allows the planning commission to choose which floor plans and how many of each of those plans to be built in any development. Is it appro- priate for the City to tell Simon Motors what cars they ngst sell (Cadillacs versus Pontiacs) or Walmart what products they must sell? Might those kind of decisions be better left to someone willing to put their money where their research and judgement dictates? Might the City be taking on some legal and/or economic liability by dictating product mix if their choices are not successful in the marketplace? The marketplace is dynamic. Tastes change, family compositions change, needs change, architectural preferences change. Let us provide an environment that accommodates that inevitable change. Let us not overreact to what is certainly an emotional and difficult situation, but nevertheless a passing one. We appreciate having been invited to be a part of the process and offer the thoughts constructively. We look forward to continued dialogue. Michael Marix Cornerstone Developers, Inc. BIA Representative MM:mm Attachments CC: All Planning Commission members All City Council members Robert Hunt v'' ,Terry Herman Allan Levin Sunrise Company BIA Representative Exhibit "A" Proposal 01. Minimum gross liveable area shall be 1,300 square feet..... Response: The minimum square footage currently allowed in the various political subdivisions in the Coachella Valley is as fol- lows: ntity Desert Hot Springs Palm Springs Cathedral City Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Indian Wells , La Quinta Indio Coachella Riverside County Minimum 1200 1000 1100 1400 1000 Varies with lot size 2000 750 (R1), 1200 (SR) 1100 1050 750 The purpose of this proposal would seem to be to exclude more affordable homes and is generally against State and Federal policy. A 1200 square foot minimum would seem more appropriate, is consistent with the current SR Zone require- ment and would be in keeping with the policies of the major- ity of other cities in the valley. This topic was discussed during the meetings of the Council appointed study group, however, the recommendation by staff appears to somewhat arbitrary. We object strongly to this recommendation. Although exempted by virtue of being able housing", the proposed sizes of "affordable" houses directly across Quinta city hall would not meet this Proposals 12 through 5. classified as "afford - the soon -to -be built the street from the La requirement. These are carried over directly from the existing SR Zoning requirements. We have no objection. 1 Proposal 1 6. ....heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground -mounted and screened from all sides. Response: The current SR Zone has this provision but states "....shall be ground -mounted r comolg oU screened from all sides". This change disallows roof mounted units, wh tther or not he are screened. We feel this is language change is uncalled for. Proposal # 7. This is carried over directly from the existing SR Zoning requirements. We have no objection. Proposal # S. Landscaping....shall be landscaped.... per the requirements of the development standards of the Zoning District. Response: This is a new requirement, not contained in the existing SR Zone. The development standards of the Zoning District are not now defined. This is not a customary requirement in cities throughout the valley, and will add cost to the over- all cost of building a house. We prefer to have a landscap- ing construction standard or specification developed much as existing standards for curbs or other construction items. Proposal 1 9. Refuse containers ..... shall be concealed by landscaping or block/masonry walls. Response: Carried over from the SR Zone, but modified. Current SR requirement reads .....shall be concealed by landscaping or other means. We feel the language change is uncalled for and simply adds unnecessary cost. 2 Proposals 1 10 through 12. These are essentially carried over from the existing SR Zone and we have no objection. Proposal 0 13. Fencing: refers to the fencing requirements contained in the Development Standards of the underlying Zoning District. Response: This is a new requirement. The Development standards sec- tion says "....the developer must provide the same type of fencing including perimeter subdivision fencing". This says no change in the type of fencing previously provided. Perhaps this ought to address only those fences that are visible from the street. If in an existing development concrete block walls were provided, then the requirement could be that those walls that are visible from the street shall be of the same material, but would not make that requirement between houses when not visible from the street. The cost ramifications are significant, amounting on average to several thousand dollars per house. Proposal 1 14. Exterior materials: siding shall be stucco, plaster, mason- ry or a similar material. Wood, or materials of a similar appearance, may be used as trim and design accents for up to a maximum of 20 percent of the surface wall area ......etc. Response: This is a new requirement. It works now absent such a requirement. Architecture, materials used and styles are ever changing. Let the marketplace dictate. We think such a requirement is unnecessarily inflexible and inappropriate. Proposal 1 15. Roof eaves must extend a minimum of 18 inches from the wall except for flat roof houses. 3 Response: This is a new requirement. Architecture, materials used, styles are ever changing. Some current architecture specif- ically does away with overhangs. See the Topaz development in La Quinta. Let the marketplace dictate. We think such a requirement is unnecessarily inflexible, excessive and inappropriate. If the objective is to be sensitive to energy requirements, then it is currently already considered by the State of California Title 24 calculations, which are specifically fashioned for this part of the state for the specific house under consideration, including the orienta- tion of that house toward the sun. Proposal 1 16. Building colors subject to approval. Response: This is a new requirement. Why is a change needed? Home- owners repainting their own homes are not subject to such a requirement. We object to this requirement. one of the following methods shall be used to review new single family dwelling unit proposals prior to the issuance of a build- ing permit. Proposal 1 1. The precise plans process (Section 9.42.110) shall be used for single family dwelling units proposed for construction on a lot within: a) an approved specific plan where the unit has received prior approval; and b) a tract recorded after May 1, 1982, where the unit has received City archi- tectural approval and no change is proposed; c) the SR Zoning District; and d) a subdivision recorded prior to May 1, 1982. Response: This is a new requirement. As written, it would appear that all single family dwelling unit proposals, prior to the issuance of a building permit, must undergo a new review process, even if those buildings have received prior aRprov_ 4 Why? The definitions are vague. For example, a major change is defined as something not defined as a minor change. A minor change means modification of some specified items, but not limited to those items. What then is a minor change? The Draft Ordinance includes a section that indicates a new chapter would be created in the zoning ordinance entitled: Except as noted, we have no comments. Proposal Section 2d. Requires complete site landscaping plan.... stamped "ap- proved" by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office... Response: Currently CVWD reviews such plans. If that be the case, recommend no change. As to City review, recommend such a plan be limited to that landscaping that constitutes the perimeter of the development. It would be our hope that the City would develop a "standard" specification for individual houses, indicating numbers and sizes of required landscap- ing, and approved plant material and trees. If at least in conformance with that "standard" no individual house land- scape plans would be required. Proposal Sect on 4. Color boards required. Response: Typically each house is designed with three elevations. Typically a subdivision has three or four different floor - plans. Typically, four or five color schemes are selected. If a color board is required for each house and each eleva- tion, potentially 60 color boards would be required. Sug- gest one color board for each color scheme, with "typical" plans shown. Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process The units shall only be approved when they comply with the following standards: Proposal # 2. General justification language proposed. 6 Response: When classified as requiring compatibility review, a sub- division has been recorded, and probably partially or completely improved. It is therefore inappropriate to provide for a review process that considers needs for dedication of streets, review of drainage, etc. Those improvements would already be in place. Changing the size of the houses proposed for the lots is not going to change those needs. Proposal 0 3. A two story houses cannot be constructed adjacent to an existing single story home. Response: What if the previous builder or approved development provid- ed for one and two story houses? Proposal 1 4. Lot fencing. Developer must use same type of fencing.... Response: As indicated above, recommend this be limited to that fenc- ing that is visible from the street. Also, fencing should be allowed to be upgraded from the original approval without further hearings by the City. Proposal 1 5 Homes that are constructed must have a garage of the same size as an existing home within 100 feet. Response: It is unclear whether or not the proposed new homes could have three car garages if the prior homes provided only two car garages. Taken literally, it would appear from this re- quirement that garages larger than two car garages have become status symbols. At what point does this requirement end? In a "custom" subdivision, in which houses would be 7 built on scattered lots, would this require the same size garages for all houses. Is the requirement to consider simply square footage of the garage or simply the width of the garage? It's certainly possible to have a 600 square foot garage that would have a garage door for only two cars, but to provide additional tandem parking. Proposal 1 6 Proposes single family dwelling must contain same roof material, window treatment and garage door style of the existing units within the same tract. Response: As indicated in the cover letter, this requirement is a direct reversal of the existing SR ordinance, section 9.42.080 says: Architectural Vari !"✓hen houses using similar architectural sty es are located withtin) i !q ndred feet of each o�hPr exteri r bui/ ink -- -vat/onshall makED�visi r_! for archi ecturaLvari tv y using different Mors, styles. roof trggLmppU, window treatments garage door treatmentL and simdar methods. " fEmahasis aMdJ We feel the current policy of encouraging architectural difference is appropriate. If this is such a good idea, why might it not be applied in neighborhoods that have been developed for the construction of custom homes? Do you really want an entire neighborhood to be the same? Proposal # 7. New homes shall contain similar architectural material, colors and roof lines as the existing units within the same tract. Response: See item 1 6 above. Same response. Proposal 1 8. Must provide a 24" box tree in the front yard. Response: 8 This was never discussed by our committee. It adds approxi- mately $50 to the cost of a house, depending on the type of tree installed. This appears to be an arbitrary requirement suggested by staff and seems to us unnecessary. Proposal l 00. The single family units proposed cannot deviate by more than 20% from the square footage of the existing units. Response: We have prepared a detailed response which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Proposal Ill The Commission when approving compatibility units may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be con- structed within the subdivision. Response: This item is new, was never discussed in the committee meetings of the Compatibility committee and we feel is entirely inappropriate. We feel that the City and/or its representatives, staff or elected/appointed commissions is not qualified to make marketing decisions as to which products anv merchant in the city ought to offering at their place of business. Further, should the City put itself in the position to dictate prod- uct, we feel there may be some economic liability that the City will assume. Is that really a position the City wants to put itself in? 9 Exhibit "B" BZA Response to proposal # 10 of the proposed Compatibility Review Process. We have prepared a chart, which is enclosed, of all the current and recent developments in La Quinta, and other developments of interest, indicating thereon what the range of houses sizes are/were as offered by the original developer. The chart indicates the cumulative sales rate per week for each of the developments, the number of lots remaining for development and the current status of the ownership of the development. Also indicated on the chart are the sizes that would be allowed if that developer or a new developer would propose to change his product for one reason or another, using 20, 30, and 40% deviations from the originally approved plans, assuming in all cases that the minimum square footage per- mitted is 1200 square feet. As can be seen from the chart, the average range in original square footage is 697 square feet from smallest house to largest house. It can also be seen on the chart that the development that initially raised the issue of compatibility, Quinterra, is above the average square footage for the smallest house for those developments on the chart and below the average for range of square footage offered. That means it had bigger houses than the norm, and a narrower range of footage of- fered than the norm. Additionally, the chart shows that houses of all sizes, starting at 1006 square feet, are in the immediate vicinity of Quinterra. At the outset of the discussions of the City Council ap- pointed committee of homeowners, staff and BIA members, staff presented sample ordinances from other cities which have adopted so called "Compatibility" ordinances, namely Moreno Valley, Hemet and San Jacinto. The ordinances for those cities varied in allowable variation percentage be- tween 25 and 35% of the original footage range and only the San Jacinto ordinance spoke to the question of minimum square footage, which is 1000 square feet. The original staff draft ordinance that was presented for discussion 1 contained a 30% variation provision. The draft of the La Quinta ordinance that we have available as this is written provides for a 20% variation, and we are advised some in the City are arguing for a maximum lot variation. The bottom line objective of the proposed compatibility ordinance would appear to be to create building requirements that would somehow assure that present homeowners will not experience a reduction in the value of their homes by in- sisting subsequent builders build essentially the same houses as were built originally. That's not a solution. By way of example, within the 18 Quinterra houses that were built by the original builder, there is wide variation in the sales price for the same floor plans built by that original builder, due to the lender taking over the develop- ment and deeply discounting the remaining houses. Buyer Plan Price Size $/SF Closing Comments Cau�ie�d 3 247,900 2593 95.60 9/30/92 Ludlum 3 199,900 2593 77.09 12/7/92 Kneur/ 2 169,900 2363 71.90 5/20/93 Bernot McCombs 1 198,900 2072 95.99 6/18/92 Job 3 1821148 2593 70.24 5/28/93 Crouch/ 2 205,000 2363 86.75 3/12/92 Leiman Mercy 1 1990900 2072 96.47 1/27/92 Bradley 2 169,900 2363 71.90 5/25/93 Williams 1 149,900 2072 72.34 8/25/93 Dupaix 1 155,000 2072 74.80 9/15/93 Saunders/ 3 179,900 2593 69.37 4/27/93 Robertson Miller 3 175,000 2593 67.48 9/30/93 Rowlett 1 149,900 2072 72.34 5/14/93 Rowlett 2 159,900 2363 67.66 5/14/93 Tette 1 185,640 2072 89.59 1/28/93 Hunter 1 179,900 2072 86.82 6/2/93 Model Dewy 3 210,000 2593 80.98 7/2/93 Model Bradford 2 199,900 2363 84.59 5/13/93 Model SUMMMY plan Low Price High price_ Ran Range 1 149,900 199,900 50,000 33% 2 159,900 205,000 45,100 28% 3 175,000 247,900 72,900 42% The range in prices for the houses differs by $98,000 or 65%. Because of the decline in the general real estate market, home values, new and used, have declined. For the same reasons, lot values have declined. Lenders who have taken back lots from developers are deeply discounting them, thus if a new builder built exact the same house as the origi- nal builder, he could sell it for substantially less than the original builder, as essentially evidenced by the Quint- erra sales price differences. Thus, it is impossible to regulatorily solidify home values. To perpetuate the mis- takes of the past will not solidify existing home values. Some of the loudest opponents of the original proposal to build smaller houses within Quinterra were folks who took advantage of the deeply discounted prices offered by the foreclosing lender. They experienced no public opposition from the buyers that preceded them. In our democratic society, is it fair, as in Quinterra, that in a development consisting of those lot owners get to dictate the fate 98 lots? 3 the case of of 116 lots, 18 of the remaining ye• • RR its N Nn I }Qj �y O f Q$N p I IQQ( N17NIrlrl�pCbNNN p yppp���pp ��jj ��j{17q�00 17 Nr �g{N�ICy pmr♦ NNf NIV I �p�p0l��/M�����iVN ♦rl o Q$ A117 f� IRA Q$ �y H 17 yn�f�f{ N17N 14�Qa 17f '►I^9 N ' � � �rjrr.•Q ^^N1�11{�A OIV IV IV iV^N--- rr. .yylyy��� P --0'���N N----- Ipp Ip�NN yy�� $$$ s �i HMM.;R§iGxiiG111I N r r@ r 51 iG$ri ��Rs a�r8af ffi fi gg gg IIQ� gg�� �y yQ s aa gg pailS MC �N�����V�OONNYN��OI.N �Ipp 8I p spy pn rr.+rH �ppi r$$.-rpp q NNgAFF f7��'.-•'O ���pppp®p ^�tl�Y_1 In j VC$! Nrr �Q♦♦pp gg Ji ate$ INININ a�$ s r N r r �f frisi �n- AP:2 pi aisiR1i$%'11ii3'e:!� life mompiclor o Doc;oorgpoo=����."a� N/Vr e0000�:"�71a53 o oe eoo 000c�0000 ore000 0 SENT BY;xerox w ecopser •ru[u i>>— a—ss , 4•u4rr + IV10#1+ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF LA QUINTA MEMORANDUM RUSSELL ROBERTS MIKE MARIX JIM CROWELL LANCE ELDRED TERRY HERMAN. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ah IV NOVEMBER 9, 1993 REVIEW OF DRAFT REGULATIONS RELATING TO HOUSE SIZE AND COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS Attached is the verbiage drafted to deal with house sizes and compatibility. The draft is on the Council Study Session at 3:00 P.M. on the November 16, 1993 meeting. Should you wish to provide written a?mments, please get there to me by Friday morning (November 12th). The Planning Commission will conduct a formal public hearing in December and a Council hearing in January. Your written and verbal comments can also be given during or before these meetings. I'll send you a notice of the hearing. Any questions, please give me a call (777-7125). cc: City Council City Manager RECEIVED COMMSTONE DEVELOPEi MEMOJH. 323 1 Or -III Dr -nerve IV IrGUV1Ur [ULU , i i- 0 -JJ + n' Vrrs 1 APP'ROYAL MSS TO BE ADDED To 11M R-1, R-2, R-2a R-3, R-V ZONES - Sin 1g g FamiLy Dwelling ni DmIopment .Standards ; All single family residential ups shall comply with the following development standards. 1. :Minimum gross livable area shall be 1,300 square feet, excluding the garage, as gyred from the exterior walls of the dwelling except in senior citizen or affordable housing subdivisions (the State regulations for affordable housing will be used). i Though a conditional use permit process, the standards may vary as follows: a. The minimum, gross livable area may be a minimum'750 square feet, for a senior citizen or affordable housing subdivision providicd that the overall density of the subdiviAon/develnpment does net exceed the density as designated by the General Plan Und Use Diagram. 2. Bedroom dimensions: a minimum of ten foot clear width and depth dimensions, as measures from the interior waits of the room. 3. Bathrooms: there shall not be less than one and one-half baths in one or two bedroom dwellings, and rest less than one and thraarter baths in dwellings with three or more tredrooms, excepting that one and one-half baths may be permitted for the latter provided that both bathrooms have bathing facilities. . 4. Garage dimensions: each dwelling shall have a two -car garage with interior dimensions not Iea than twenty feet square (20" X 20% which space shall remain clear of mechanical equipment, appliances, or other improvements which conflict with its purpose to store vehicles. An additional four feet shall be OMded to the width or depth if mechanical equipment or appliances, including but not ]limited to washer, dryer, and forted air unit, are gmund-rmxrmted within the garage interior. A water heater is permitted without additional interior garage am being ' ed provided that it is located so as not to contfict with vehicular parlring or access. S. Access between house and garage: a separate pedestaan door into the garage shall be provided as either an interconnecting door providing direct access between the dwelling and garage, or a pedestrian door leading outside to s paved walkway area which is sheltered by a minimum thirty-six inch roof eave, enclosed within a secured, walled area and provides direct access to a keyed entry into the dwelling. 6. Mechanical and Mated equipment: heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground -mounted and screened from all sides. noaat{.092 1 r atni UT-mrox ieiecopier 70Z0 ;11- V-93 ; 4:05PM 1618777?101-o U2537814 3 7. The eave-end of all dwelling roofs which run parallel! wi r p T nNesuring a distance of five feet or less from the ;eontmon party line, shall be equipped with a rain gutter, and downspout directed to an approved drainageway. 8. Landscaping: the front yard of all lots, and in addition, the side yard of corner Iot%, shall be landscaped to property line per the requiremnlnts of the development standards of the Zoning District. i 9. Screening: n-.fuw containers and bottled gas tanks shall be concealed by landscaping or blxktinasonry walls. 10. Underground utilities: all electric services, overhead wires, or associated structures must be installed underground. 11. Drivetiv vay materials: the driveway shall be surfaced iwith concrete and constructed in ac;ordanoe with City standards. 12. lighting: all exterior lighting shall be located and dir" so as not to shine directly on adjacent properties or otherwise create a nuisance. i I 13. Fencing: refer to the fencing rogtdrements contained yin the Development Standards of the underlying Zoning District. 14. Exterior materials: siding shall be stucco, plaster,! masonry or a similar material. Wood, or materials of a similar appearance, may be used as trim and design accents for up to a maximum of 20 peneent of the surface wall ales on any one side of the house. Excepting flat goofs, roof material shall be clay or edncrete tile, and shall be rated as "Class Al. 15. Eaves: roof eaves must extend a minimum of 18 inches from the wall except for flat roof houses. Uaves shall be larger where necessary to prvvida adequate protection over door openings. 16. Building colors: exterior siding, roof and .trim colors are subject to approval. �ing_le IFa ' � �jait va] 1111 g One of the following methods shall be used to review new single family dwelling unit proposals prior to the issuance of a building permit. II 1. The precise'plan process (Section 9.42.110) shall be usbd for single family dwelling units proposed for construction on a lot within: a) an approved specific plan when the unit has received prior approval; and b) a tract recorded after May 1, 1982, where the unit has removed City architectural approval and no change is proposed; c) the SR Zoning District; and d) a subdivision recorded prior to May 1, 1992. ..o., pR �AFT JG191 01 -A r-UA 1618GuPiur NLU r l - v-vi , 4• vorw , 1014 V[ V[ I U I" nJL7J 1V 11" 4 DRAFT 2. 7119 compatibility review process (Section ) shall be used for any single family dwelling unit proposed for construction within a subdivision that was recorded after May .11 1982, and partially built out in phases and the units proposed are classified a major change from the previously approved units that. Minor I 1. A minor change can be approved by the Planning and evelopment Department without a public hearing. Minor change means a modift of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that involves items such as, but, not limited to, columns, dormer vents, window sine, plant -on locations, color, and stinceo texture. The Planning and Development Director may refer the minor change to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission for a non -heating compatibility review. 2. A major change is subject to the review and appoval process of Section Compatibility Review Process. A major change means any ;3xtaior architecture change not defined as a minor change. A major change means any exterior architectural change, floor plan, or landscaping modification not defined as a minor change, including but not limited to, square footage, number of stories, garage 031 DOCJH.092 3 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ►11— 9-93 : 4:05PV 16197777101-4 E3253M;# b L)RAFT i A NEW CHAPTER 'WOULD BE CREATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE The completed application along with the following information shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Depmrtment. 1. One copy of the preliminary title report or deed of trust to the subject property. 2. Sets of the site development plan (number as required by the Planning and Development Department), each set to incorporate the following: a. Dimensioned floor plan(s)ri•„lft to all bl 'ldin layout aspects, showing bedrooms, kitchens, hallways, baths, etc. b. Fours -point elevations of the units proposed, 'Heating architectural fcature(s), relationships to existing residential units on adjacent properties, and listing proposed building materials, finishes, colors, etc. C. A detailed site plan delineating all siring aspects of the development (i.e., setbacks, topography, fencing locations, locations provided for ground -mounted mechanical and heatinglair conditioning systems, parking, accessways, adjacent streets, utilities, and drainage. d. A complete site landscaping plan, showing a listing of quantities, species, location and plant sizes to be iticorporated Into the final landscaping of the project. The final approved landscape plan must be stampW "approved" by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office ;tor to the issuance of a building pit i I Two sets of all plans reduced to eight and one half inches by eleven inches, and submitted on other similar format suitable for presentation. 4. One eight inch by thirteen inch color, material and Lsh sample board for the unit's exterior areas, including, but not limited to, roof oovesing, facia boards, file inlays, stucco finish, wood or other plant -on materials, etc. Colors and materials shall be keyed on at least one set of architectural elevations. S. One colored elevation of all sides of the unit oriented to public view, in accordance with the materials sample board submitted. i 6. Any other additional information as may be required. ` Com�lns of Avulication No residential application shall be processed until all information as required by this chapter has been submitted. Determination of completeness shall be in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code 65943 or successor provisions. uocax.09$ 4 Ii I i I SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11— 9-93 ; 4a07PO 15197777101-o 93253791;9 5 jr%kRAFT j velonment Standards mPA1i¢ilily R•ojoy The units shall only be approved when they comply with the;fallowing standards: 1. ne proposed use conforms to all the provisions of ihs General Plan and specific plans, and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City. 2. 7be overall development of the ]and is designed for t e profttion of the public health, safety, and general welfare; conforms to the logi* development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of surrounding property. The plan considers the location and need for dodiccattion and, improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic cahgesdon, and takes into account topographical and drainage conditions, including' the need for dedication and improvements of neomsaiy structures as a part thereof. 3. A two story house cannot be constructed adjacent to an existing single story home developed in a prior phase. 4. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, they developer must provide the same type of fencing including perimeter subdivision fencing. S. Homes including the garage of the same size must be bonstructed on lots that are within 100 feet of any existing home. For this purpose if any portion of a vacant lot is within the 100 foot distance this request applies. 6. A proposed single family dwelling unit must contain. the same roof material, window treatment, and garage door style of the existing units within the some matt. 7. All new homes shall contain similar architecture material, colors, and roof lines as the existing units within the same tract. S. At least one specimen (24" box) tree shall be provided in the front yard in addition to the Iandscape requirements of the zone. 9. All single family dwelling units proposed must comply with the requirements contained in the Development Standards Section 10. 'lire single family dwelling units proposed cannot d 'ate by more than 20% from the square footage of 11re existing units (i.e., 1,350 squa foot house can range from 1,300 to 1,620 or a 2,350 square foot house can range fro 1,880 to 20820). 11. The Commission when approving compatibility units riwy limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within the subdivision. MUM DOCJH.092 5 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11— 9-93 ; 4:0BPM ; 15197777101-+ 932537914 7 The Design Review Board shall review all proposed units and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board shall take one of the following actions during their review: ' 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend modification. I Refer to the Plining Commission without a recommendation. no request before the Design Review Bosh( is a non hearing (teen, however, public comment can be taken at the discretion of the Board from the applicant or interested parties. FLANNffG All residential units &hall be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by action of the Planning Commission, based upon the standards referred to in Section of this Chapter and the rwommendation of the Design Review Board. The �Wowing findings must be made when an application is approved: 1. The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the subdivision. 2. Applicable development standards including, but no limited to, setbacks, parking, landscaping, site design, and similar features, will be cgmpadble with and not detrimental to, other existing units in the subdivision. ]�LI�C,�iEARING,S .' The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on all applications. Notice of the time, date, and place of the public hewing shall be given at least ten;calendar days prior to the hearing by the following procedures: j I. Mailing to all owners of real property which is located within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the parcel, lot, subdivislon phasi to be considered as such owners are shown on .the last equalized assessment roll. 2. Publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. The Planning Directoc may require that additional notice be given by enlarging the notification radius. The applicant or any other aggrieved party may appeal the decWon of the Planning Commission by the following procedure: DOCJH.092 8 SENT HY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11— 9-93 ; 4:09PY 16197777101-6 93253791;# 5 1. Appeal to the City Council within ten calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission's dedsion, the applicant or aggrieved party may appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council on tho forms provided by the Planning and Development Department. Upon receipt of a completed appeal, the City Clerk shall set the matter for �, axing before the City Council not Im than five calendar days nor more than thirty calendar days thereafter, and shall give written notice of the hearing in the same manner that noticx was given for the Planning Commission bearing. City Council shall render its decision within thirty calendar days following the close of the hearing on the appeal. The application and appeal fees shall be established by Can:'Coun:d resolution, t3O=. 092 7 SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ;11— 9-93 ; 4:09PR ; Compatibility Review Application Precise Plan Application Appeals Applicant or aggrieved party. DOWN. 092 16117777101-1 I1 1 �5.00 $ 25.00 93253791;# 9 ►RAF_T PH #2 DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DEC EMBER 14, 1993 STREET NAME CHANGE 93-004 LAKE LA QUINTA (JIM LALOGGIA) APPROVAL TO CHANGE VIA SOUD TO VIA AVANTE SOUTH OF 47TH AVENUE AND EAST OF CALEO BAY WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA The applicant is requesting Via Soud, which is a cul-de-sac within the off -water area of Lake La Quinta north of the Lake, be changed to Via Avante. This will coincide with the name of the project (Avante), and be the street location for their model complex. This hearing is being held in order to comply with the Municipal Code and State requirements for changing of street names. ANALYSIS: Presently the subject property is vacant and owned by the applicants. Therefore, changing the name would not have a negative impact on the property owners. RECOMMENDATION: By Resolution 93- , move to recommend to the City Council approval of a street name change from Via Soud to Via Avante. Attachments: 1. Location map showing proposed street name change location. 2. Letter from applicant dated September 28, 1993 requesting street name change. 3. Draft resolution PCST.156 1 5NG qb-oo4- ^q Tr4^ L4KL LA QLJINTA S E P 3 0 1993 September 28, 1993 Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of LaQuinta LaQuinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: On behalf of Lake LaQuinta, Wilma-LaQuinta and Landrex California, I am requesting a name change for a street at Lake LaQuinta, tract #26152. The lots on Via Soud are owned by the developers but have been reserved by customers for future purchase. All of these buyers have requested the change of the existing name as it is difficult to say and not consistant with other street names in the tract. The new street name requested would be "Via Avante", the same name as the off water program. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. S ' ncerel)(1 Jim LaLoggia Project Director of Lake LaQuinta 47-305 VIA RAVENNA , LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 619.564-5407 FAX 619,564-5204 6d T. 5 S. fib 7 E. . _ _ _ , _ MAP INDEX D 546 AMP INDEX N4 o0 1 4 a A 1� Imay.. o� � c o ��•/ � � -_. _ I - !� t� � • a � � �`�/ 7 Rio -R4 _- _� � O i (PRIVATE STREET C07 B a 4 ram .� 76 b ®w �O b VIA 9)do 71 y* ct36 [ y I2 4 e 7s.[[ �� [:e.o► d n � ti •' A M ©4 ` ` V j� i" vas► ai_r���� _ is p • a y �j•IC1 � `�-•--� t y /ey (pR/YAT � � I w p �O A.$) trh.n .fee EEr/ [OT 0 �� =S4r w ?PAP �! 97a[ w 4S0 o o w 1a, p \ �� *®u j� ®4 O © �tlj NI O! ^1 ' Gt ^ b • O � 6 I /Pg1Y4 ° I tW 7F �-R V s r-Esj Slaw cb •li [�•� r A d O liy y y .e.7 % . e Res, •ryR^ es `"� � O� +� ° O�� 9.� �' � I ` � I 7OI. fM .i' iJIO 3Cl. H I ® ® O PLANNING COMMSSION RESOLUTION 93-, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THE APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME VIA SOUD TO VIA AVANTE. CASE NO. STREET NAME CHANGE 93-004 - LAKE LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of December, 1993, in accordance with Section 14.08.110 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, did consider a street name change from Via Soud to Via Avante, and/or other change; and, WHEREAS the Planning Commission at the meeting of December 14, 1993, did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation to the City Council: 1. The street name change would not conflict with other surrounding names. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission has followed the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 14.08.110 pertaining to street name changes. 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Via Soud be changed to Via Avante. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held this 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.124 PH #3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 27835 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR SEVEN RESIDENTIAL AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUM LOTS, RACQUET CLUB LOT, AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON 36± GROSS ACRES. APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT ENGINEER: THE HOLT GROUP LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF 48TH AVENUE WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD (EXTENDED) WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #90 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 127-E), WHICH ENCOMPASSED A MORE EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAN THAT APPROVED BY SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, OF WHICH THIS PROJECT IS A PART. APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: G (GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE) AND LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2-4 DU/AC) ZONING: R-2 20,000/PD PCST.157 1 BACKGRO�JND: The property is a part of Specific Plan 84-004 which was approved by the City on November 20, 1984. In addition to the specific plan, a Development Agreement also exists on this property. Recently, Tentative Tract 27840, which is immediately to the west, was approved by the City Council. This tentative tract map is located on the south side of 48th Avenue immediately west of Dune Palms Road if it was extended into this project. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel borders the tract along the easterly side. The property to the east of the Evacuation Channel is a future phase of this project. To the west of this project is an existing golf course while to the south the temporary golf club house and golf course exists. PROTECT PROPOSAL: This tentative tract map proposes seven residential lots for air space condominium units, future golf club house lot, two parking lot lots, a CVWD water site lot, the racquet club and pool area lot, and other miscellaneous lots. Six of the residential lots are proposed to contain Casitas (duplex units) products. The tentative tract map shows the general layout of these residential units. Proposed Lot 7 shows the future pool area, tennis courts, and racquet club structure. Lot E is proposed to be a parking lot area for the golf course clubhouse on Lot 8. Presently, there is a temporary golf course clubhouse on Lot 8. Along the northern side of the tract, access is provided through the main entry road from Washington Street. This road will continue eastward beyond the La Quinta Evacuation Channel when that area develops. Access from 48th Avenue to the project will be provided at Dune Palms Road. This entry is anticipated to be a resident only entrance. Circulation through the tract will be provided by a series of loop roads. The most westerly road will provide primary access to the racquet club and future golf course clubhouse and adjacent parking lot. The interior loop road which will empty on the main loop road will provide access to the Casitas units. This road is proposed to be 26-feet wide and will not allow parking on either side. In lieu of on -street parking, the applicant is proposing that parking bays, driveway parking, and garage parking take its place. The applicant has submitted an exhibit which indicates off-street parking for the Casitas units. For Phase I which is west of the racquet club, and the initial units to be constructed, the applicant shows for the 32 Casitas units, 28 off street parking bays, a minimum 48 driveway parking bays, and 64 garage parking spaces. This amounts to 4.4 spaces per Casita unit. For Phases II and III which are east of the racquet club, a total of 4.25 spaces per Casita is shown. The applicant further notes that the golf course parking lot is at the southern end of the Casita area and could provide overflow parking. Additionally, Lot F which is located at the northeast corner of the site, adjacent to the Dune Palms Road entry, is noted as a parking and landscaping lot. A minimum of 15 parking spaces could be provided within this lot. However, its location is near the Phase II area and would be inconvenient for use for Phase I. PCST.157 Generally speaking, the Casita pad elevations are 9 to 14 feet higher than that of the pool and racquet club area. The pad elevations are also higher than the surrounding golf course to the west and south. Approximately two thirds of tract area are proposed to drain via subsurface storm drains to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel with the remaining one third of the tract draining to either the existing golf course or existing lake #1 which is to the west of Lot 1. ANALYSIS: The specific plan for this property allows a total of 1500 single family residential units and 80 guest cottages. This proposed map along with the first tract map approved (Tentative Tract 27840), would bring the number of approved units to 219 of the potential 1500 units. The map as drafted is in compliance with the previously approved specific plan and Development Agreement. In situations where parking is not permitted on street, there is always a concern that adequate off street parking for guests is provided. The applicant has provided off street parking which is relatively well spaced out throughout the residential areas. Based on the off street parking bays and driveway parking, approximately 2.4 spaces per unit is provided. For most normal situations, this amount of parking should be adequate. For overflow situations when a person has a party there is overflow parking available in the golf clubhouse parking area. The Engineering and Fire Department have reviewed this map and feel that with conditions, it is acceptable. FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this tentative tract can be made and are attached in the draft resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of Resolution 93- , recommend approval of Tentative Tract 27835 to the City Council subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Aerial view exhibit 3. Tentative tract map exhibit 4. Comments from other City Departments and agencies 5. Draft ]Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval PCST.157 3 C41) of f Z• 2 am 41: 28 9. 30 C.4 Psi fit !T,aiiw Park Trailer Nut OT MT TM 'I Nut 33 31 32 C7. IF Q q) A WAO ra 16 • '01 a 6 ....... .........4 F . •'`w`r y _ _�'- _� • � ''"# •., ..t►'ads �' t'• - r �„ � � '�,A :,i �u�; `� „':„,°. � w � � ��' . }i.� �; ; t f i y j �'� �� "L,Fi � "� "?r ' •� �•;�� ;,a `` .trs � �� � +� � .7•. � F�• ��� #• �'1 #Y •� :, q�1��k .�,- �°'' ' •'yam og Y pr.k}� ,jJ �„ �''So c �r �s 5� * �-.+y4.¢�•�»,a,';;. ' ` :'' r 'r. '�. � '�r � i # a `�'C ` e "s?t h, M n "3�",. � ;;e� �• a• x ,�;� ' • 7 � » A 14+.;. k..:�.�����'ie'Ae 'll, `+�� .•?• tjiA.fy.a ��lar .� �I .'.0 o iy .x 1 ,•�i�." '. n', t� S. :A+ y� �. 1 e�� �Sl'i �; '�' ,`,.11 i�� ,+iY, �p y§yP •J�.. syY .q,��.Ay .` -°.-T�"�{.0 ,�y$d1 .a�Q . �y�". � �..a:. i..,''" ��, �c�. •. r fi{..„,}�,i"�#E�.r}p'•^'iW':�YrJw-�yMt�+"�'YNt`—(�Y•+i'} �� F i'• "T-��-�_� •• ^+Fmir� •'V�r,,,y� - of '.,�,} � .. 1,..• {s'i�,?'�` .. a70�.,, .,. v'` �,`,,.%'sl �.:�A '.�°d •k �;�,a 4�'s.,,,y,g'.. �3,..e:.'�+.-••++'�xY_ ._ ,,#.i' a*'•�. � ,' ..'�'�+!�'•.`A-'.i�i?d9`°'?:��c,,,�.tes""' "� -.:'"��; � r.� �q, E�,'�n�<�- e�°��h�aq �''"g'° � •.'i' 11y`i`• 1TI yd yyR, t :f qv i S ii �� �-, . ���� •-.ls.f'�. E�='-•�,. �ni � s"r' '',,1,� . I ' t , +'3` , , . x' , ' g '�+ • r��y� � �� �'� �� � i������� . `,4r� 1'�G.i • E � r . fir^ a�tr�):,., � 1�.-d.�;'�.'$ .r"`��t..:• • �� i. w � �' 1 e'y � i ID �,t�'� -''"' •11_ �`i ' '�Eq'�'S d���_k�' +� .a : ,O •t;r' `�A�; p�� �. �k�",-a�,'. �� . _ '..rem �,+` s � aY� � �y�� �' < -�1-"'1�Y�a�'„».'".°.+ ,��'•r.^'"�` .°�`ys (' is yr �`r7'Mi h � '�z 1y .3r :.,{�` r' "y. * .°�j.o�``t i � a��R ,. , �a,: „}� '�r,:•a7tt. �. : . k .,�',a a r w p? •� ys • -+'m,• � r , a, ° .`�: l..S'. {� �" � �• ��� ` �'^a .r H� � �a`i�s'"�',t.,, � . ��, per•^ . � � or ' i • ID. 2` „i f :� '� ;''a'�Ay i i.` "'q i!. +.�y,�y s N.- ��'+�• fir- � �#_ ' di, (� ., s, :`{ ` dc• !i.' �% �•�� iv • 'L, !i e � . ' R �'"' f� r E « _xY-s y � x: �.p�Ai - � ° +a,, '� ���� ' t �" ` 4 � A "3;_ " 'tom .rr� r• .K24 • ' ? 'r _ ��`• i? Str `�,°j. Ny+ (r,�i "` '•�.t' =/�Mi'^4 'S; �'Sa�� _ ¢' _.;�'•'" q .ar. Y¢� '� "�`�yq,,�ge•�—aY'.•��•�ry�.. '^ .� �+' # a^ 1�, fi 4. I t "' ..�'� � a.& ' '� '"• a�;�iR'F" "°� �Y. - _ *.•n.;;'� � . �Y'M .7d M1 � - 1z � T"y,�'lr ,�'kY;"� '� •*. , t. g>;_:..• i}y ` ~�:. "�'+�' '�R,` 1' :.R , t 'fit ' 3 !... to '` � � 'i"� .. S' .� «'!': a .3 � r ... k � ��,ti.a t '.y 'x g�•(�,,�k ..7P. #U '�. fir. � # .•�E 4°'�.x t ,a_ .� ��!. i '?,��'.� � � R � +'r K{rr . x *rre= ' yvr a�x _ �, r' /� �� �. ys r .i'':';'h, �'` �• �° �'°• ' .e%T7 #ID 7r� ''� � _ l •�`x�y," "� ;' MID,'„ :•� �.y, F� •° r.-•,c ,t•' Ia ..• �� �'Y" j��i,$�'•�`•i.. y�' - _ r2C ^' ',Cd�, + R •-,.,y4. ~Q�, r .} �' �` a..a .` y• "lj 3_"• "- may• r,`' �4 ri��: ,,f a! 'lf ,y{{' :°'� �'3' y ! d'i ay .. •i i' a+' a �� 7 Tr,� �pATEA ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY 8►sTRect COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECTORS CODEKAS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER R LLISCO R RUMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY JOHN W D R RU EN OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER J O N W M DELAY REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODOREJ FISH November 10, 1993 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 Subject: Tentative Tract 27835, Portion of the North Half of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. We request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way. The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvemenLS, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission -2- November 10, 1993 Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:lmf/e2/TT27835 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT UVERSIDE COUNTY ,O1S BYRD, SHERIFF Sheriff 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-899� November 1 City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 Atten: Stan Sawa Principal Planner RE: TT #27835 Dear 11I1r. Sawa: 1W DEPAhij&T Regarding the above mentioned project, we have the following comments from a crime prevention point of view. Regarding Project Design - All parking areas, entrances/exits and walkways should contain ample lighting which will deter criminal activity and provide a safer environment for all residents. The project entrances should also be well lighted with street addresses highly visible to aid any responding emergency vehicles in locating the facility. We recommend that address numbers be mounted on contrasting background. The numbers should be of sufficient size to be legible from the roadway and should be situated near the roof line on the corners of the residence. High pressure sodium lights are recommended as they provide the greatest amount of light per kilowatt and are the least expensive to operate. All residential doors should have an industrial quality key and latch system. Deadbolt locks are suggested for all exterior doors. The locks should be installed using three inch set screws to provide maximum benefits. All exterior doors without windows should have peepholes installed to allow good visibility of the outside area without having to open the door. Windows should not be placed close enough to doors, which would allow persons to break glass and unlock the door by hand. Shrubbery and bushes should be trimmed low to the ground to eliminate hiding places for criminals and to allow better visibility from the street for patrolmen. Windows should never be concealed by vegetation. Page 2 EIR Letter TT #27835 11-12-93 The crime prevention measures outlined in this letter are merely suggestions and are not required as a prerequisite for plan approval. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law enforcement point of view. Sincerely, CO1S BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Captain Indio Station Commander �r . PLANNING CONDUSSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 36 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 48TH AVENUE AND WEST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 27835 - TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on 14th day of December, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as requested by TD Desert Development on the request to subdivide 36 acres into a lot seven subdivision with associated street, common area and recreation lots, generally located on the south side of 48th Avenue west of Dune Palms Road. PORTIONS OF PARCELS 2, 5, 8, AND 9 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, that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum EIR have been adopted. Therefore, no additional environmental documentation is deemed necessary; and, WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on December 14, 1993, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation for approval of said tentative tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Tentative Tract Map 27835 was recommended for approval by the La Quinta Planning Commission based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on December 14, 1993, did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said tentative tract map: The design and improvements of the approved Tentative Tract 27835 are consistent with the current goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Tentative Tract 27835 is consistent with current standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division Ordinances. 3. The subject site is physically suitable for residential and recreational development. 4. The design of Tentative Tract 27835 and its related improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat provided that approval conditions related to mitigation measures for the flora, fauna, and archaeological resources are complied with during project development. RESOPC.123 Planning Commission Resolution 93- 5. The design of Tentative Tract 27835 and the type of improvements are not likely to cause public health problems nor would they conflict with existing public easements. 6. There is no evidence to suggest that approval of Tentative Tract 27835 could have a major adverse impact on the environment. 7. The location and appearance of the proposed dwelling units will be made compatible with the area in which the development is located. 8. The proposed private circulation system will provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles within the project, and the use of small private streets within some areas of the project will not impact the overall safety of the future residents. 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 concur with the environmental determination and grants approval of the above -described Tentative Tract 27835, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as recommended by the La Quinta Planning Commission and modified herein. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERKY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.123 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 27835 - RANCHO LA QUINTA DECEMBER 14, 1993 GENERAL: 1. Tentative Tract Map 27835 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire and become void within two years after City Council approval unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to recordation of final map, the issuance of a grading 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: - City Fire Marshal - Public Works Department - Planning and 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 Per Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith or the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 4. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan No. 84-004 and applicable Development Agreement. 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. CONAPRVL.112 1 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 6. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. 7. Applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 8. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN 11. Development of the project site shall comply with tentative tract map Exhibit A, as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Tract 27835, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 12. The development of custom, single-family lots shall be governed by the following: A. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract 27835, landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained. B. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. C. No two-story units shall be allowed within 75-feet of 48th Avenue per the specific plan approval. D. All dwelling units shall have a minimum two car garage measuring 20-feet by 20- feet in overall size. The garage can be either attached or detached. 13. Any minor changes in lot mix, sizes, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to any final map approvals for recordation. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 14. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or on the proposed site or shall be installed in underground facilities. Electric power lines over 66KV are not subject to this requirement per the specific plan. CONAPRVL.112 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 15. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 16. All conditions and requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District shall be met as noted in their letter dated November 10, 1993, on file in the Department of Planning and Development. MANAGEMENT: 17. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval. A. The document to convey title; B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and, C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision map is recorded. A Homeowners' Association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the Homeowners' Association. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 18. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map. The applicant shall develop tract phases in the order of the approved phasing plan so that improvements required of each final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within subsequent final maps. CONAPRVL.112 3 conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of any final map(s) under this tentative tract map. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 20. If tract improvements are phased with multiple final maps, off -site improvements (ie: streets) and tract -wide improvements (ie: perimeter walls, common -area and setback landscaping, and gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the engineer. The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of off -site and tract -wide improvements with development of two or more phases within the tentative map. DEDICATIONS 21. The applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications required of this tract include: A. Avenue 48 - half of 110' right of way Street right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 22. The applicant shall dedicate common -area setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Avenue 48 - 20' Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs. Where sidewalks, bikepaths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes. CONAPRVL.112 4 conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting the streets: C. Avenue 48 Access to these streets shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency access locations. 23. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox clusters. 24. 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. TRACT DESIGN 25. The requirements of the City's off-street parking ordinance shall be met concerning all supplemental accessory facilities. The Applicant shall provide sufficient off-street parking opportunities, as determined by the City Engineer, to discourage on -street parking by residents or guests. GRADING 26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. 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. 27. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 28. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s). The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. CONAPRVL.112 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La guinta December 14, 1993 Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 28. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. 29. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained or channeled in facilities on the adjacent golf course or piped to the adjacent CVWD stormwater channel. Drainage from Lot C and Lot G shall not be conveyed via surface drainage or culverts without the approval of the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 30. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3: L If retention is on individual lots, the retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet. 31. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 32: 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 for this development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below. CONAPRVL.112 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 33. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent to the 20-year design strength. 34. 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. 35. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending beyond tract boundaries. 36. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. Lots A, C & G - 26' (18+18 for one-way couplet on Lot Q. Lots A, C & G shall be posted "No Parking" with a sufficient number of signs that at least one sign is clearly visible from each potential on -street parking opportunity. B. Lot B - 36' (20+20 for one-way couplet at entry drive). CONAPRVL.112 7 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 LANDSCAPING 37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the following streets: A. Avenue 48 The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of street curb. 38. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. QUALITY ASSURANCE 39. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the quality -assurance program. If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans, specifications and applicable codes. 41. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans 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. CONAPRVL.112 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 FIRE DEPARTMENT 42. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 21/2" X 21/2) shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. 43. The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 1500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. 44. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plan shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company will sign 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.". 45. 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. 46. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox key operated switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Know Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation. 47. If public use type buildings are to be constructed, additional fire protection may be required. Fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Department. MAINTENANCE 48. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and related improvements. 49. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowner's association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of tract improvements by the City Council. CONAPRVL.112 9 conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 FEES AND DEPOSITS 50. 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 the plan checks and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 51. On- and off -site grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, gate, and perimeter wall plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for plan checking. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. 52. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings. 53. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales facilities, and/or signs on the subject property. 54. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided in the vicinity of golf course, and a permanent golf course and homeowners maintenance facility shall be constructed on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development. 55. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed, including street and common area, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. 56. Applicant/Developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462. The applicant/developer is required to work with Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project: A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and steel & aluminum cans. B. Developer shall provide proper on -site storage facilities within the project for green waste associated with golf course and common area maintenance. Compost materials shall be stored for pick-up by Waste Management, or an authorized hauler for transport to an appropriate facility. CONAPRVL.112 10 Conditions of. Approval Tentative Tract 27835 - Rancho La Quinta December 14, 1993 C. Curbside recycling service shall be provided in areas where no centralized trash/recycling bins are provided or utilized. 57. The specific plan requires ten acres of land to be dedicated for park purposes. 7.8 acres has been dedicated to date. The balance of 2.2 acres shall be paid as a in -lieu fee prior to recordation of the final map. 58. Per the specific plan Conditions of Approval, a contribution of $100,000 as a fire mitigation measure, shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit for production homes or any custom homes. 59. A complete pedestrian and bicycle path system shall be provided within the project. The design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning and Development Director. 60. Per the specific plan, a noise study shall be completed prior to sidewalk and perimeter wall construction beginning to insure compliance with applicable noise standards. 61. The Dune Palms entry design layout (traffic) shall be approved by the Engineering Department, Fire Marshal, and the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of the final tract map. 62. The parking lot layout for Lot "E" shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development and Engineering Departments. Landscape design for said parking lot shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 63. Lot "F" shall be used as a parking lot for Phase II of the Casita product. The lot shall be installed prior to final occupancy of the tenth unit in Phase II. CONAPRVL.112 11 PH #4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-495 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC., MR. PHIL PEAD LOCATION: THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #36 OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BACKGROUND The City Council approved the "Simon Plaza" Development on May 18, 1993. The project consists of 22,013± square feet on a 5.6 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111. The approval users are: medical offices, restaurant, business offices, and a two story parking garage. REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the last sentence of Condition #36 be changed. Condition #36 reads as follows: "Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follow: A. Washington Street - provide right-of-way as required by the Washington Street specific plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection - provide right-of-way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of- way). (*)Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way within thirty (30) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City." PCST.159 1 The applicant would like the last sentence (*) of the condition to read: "Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit." ANALYSIS: City staff sent the land conveyance documents to Mr. Pead (the developer) on June 9, 1993. On July 16th, staff sent a letter reminding the developer of the noncompliance status of Condition #36. On July 26th, staff granted a time extension for the dedication to August 24th and again continued to October 4th. The developer was informed that the matter would be referred to Council or the applicant could apply for an amendment to the condition. On November 8, 1993, the applicant submitted a request to modify Condition #36. The applicant has indicated that the reason for not dedicating the right-of-way was because of the unforseen delay in obtaining financing. The improvements to the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street are greatly needed. Without this right-of-way, the City has no alternative but to make the necessary intersection changes within the existing right-of-way. The Conditions of Approval are attached for your review. The entire project is before the Commission for review and the Commission has the right to modify any of the other conditions as they wish. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: The request does not change the project, therefore, the prior environmental review is adequate. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has requested a continuance to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1994. Attachments: 1. Continuance request 2. Conditions of Approval PCST.159 December 9, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Plot Plan 93-495 Dear Jerry, This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Betty this date regarding continuing consideration of the above referenced Plot Plan from December 14, 1993 meeting to the January 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, SIMON PLAZA, INC. r I� Philip M. Pead President CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED PLOT PLAN 93495 (REVISION) MAY 11, 1993 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 *** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93-495, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested. as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 11, 1994. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off-street parking requirements. 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fences) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. CONAPRVL.037 I 1 conditions of Approval plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) May 11, 1993 Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State and Federal requirements. 8. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance gradingof permit, whichever comes ntfirst. treetse study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinance. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 11 I and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Pub lic 13.` The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan w �°� artifact herunrecorion and recovery. Prior to ded ded information, hall be archaeological studies for this site as well analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study prior to any on -site activities. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CONAPRVL.037 2 conditions of Approval Plot plan 93-49S (Revision) May 11, 1993 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District 0 Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans (District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway I I I when said street improvements are re -installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) May 11, 1993 18. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape dust program r the entire site which shall be for the The land owner hall institute blow sand purpose of wind and erosion and d and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and landowner hall comply wping to reduce ith fects requirements requirements o the n adjacent properties and property owners. Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 19. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code reQuirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 23. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 24. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 -14CA r. • Conditions of Approval plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway III. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. C. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway I I I within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. F. The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May S, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. CONAPRVL.037 s Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) May 11, 1993 The maximum floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. The roof design for the 4-story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. M. The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the 4-story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the 4-story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. Structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. The applicant shall include the following features into the 4-story medical office building: 1.***east. 2.* Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. 3.* Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Board. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6.*** 7.::: -LI W%'Wing shall be a o g (delete !be exis6fig CITY FIRE MARSHAL 25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. CONAPRVL.037 6 conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) May li, 1993 26. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system W X 4' X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 27. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/ Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/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.' The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 28. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 30. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 31. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 32. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 33. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Install a Class I Standpipe System. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) may 11, 1993 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 36. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements ii conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right-of-way as required by the Washingtoi Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right-of-way cut bacl as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of-way). Applicant shall dedicate the required right-of-way within thirty (30) day after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 37. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimuc width adjacent to the following street right-of-way: A. Washington Street - 20 feet wide; B . Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 38. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site excep for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing 39. AWHeant-sWk-reimburse-C44y-.f0f_desig r-end-eonstruet a- cost- for -all-scree impro vments to -be -installed dry the City -located -east of-%1ft9M rgtoFr Street-Speeifi, plan-CemerHne and eorAiguotrs- to -tire project -site: - -The yvew4m°prevementw inelud, street widesirV;c%rrh-and -gutter ; pbelt-eenc *4e-everivy;-rets 6medimisle& w;th4andscepirgend -herd seape,-8fo04-w -9id*We -., traffie-striping and-s4ft* and- sigrang,- alongrHth-aH- app-artenent drrcidentals -and-impr�o%,emeats-neede+t prepeiiy-kttegTete and lair 4egtther-the -neew-and-existing #mpirovements- 390 Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all stree improvements to be installed by the City located east of the existing kashingtoi Street curb and gutter improvements and contiguous to the project site. The nei improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay landscaping and hardscape, 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk, traffic striping ani signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed toproperl, integrate and loin together the new and existing improvements. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffi signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection. 41.' Applicant-shall-Mmburse-00y- For -4%ofthge_Casttedesignend 4nstaWtrefffesipv at -(fie Simm Drive/fllghway- 3 i 1-itrtei^9 C4ioa 41. • Applicant shall reimburse City for 12. 5% of the cost to design and install traffi signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection. 42. - Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" o. Highway 111. Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-49S (Revision) May 11, 1993 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shalt be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 48. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1-hour duration, 25-year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the Applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible she extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. C:ONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revislon) May 11, 1993 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway I11 in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and .quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the 'as built' plans that says 'all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction. for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer'. B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-49S (Revs®ion) may 12, 1993 C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIA 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. * The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Review Board. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off -Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off -Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. CONAPRVL.037 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) May 11, 1993 The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recycling) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R-1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (#220) shall be met. 72.** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway III and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and/or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73. ** The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40-foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150-foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 12 T4'y� 4 4 QN&M 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA GUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 Fee: $380.00 Date Received 11-8-93 Received By t NOV 0.8 1993t REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED 'ESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT PLAN CITY U iA A PLAW41t.i. UEP-4,V,40NT ,-P!,ease-complet,aLthis application form. The fee to process this request is $380.00. rx a separate sheet c f paper explain tI odificationz requested , siting the condition :.-gulatiorn to be changed . Plot Plan Number 93-495 --- --- Location/Address SIMON PLAZA Assessor's Parcel Number Section/Township/Range Applicant's Name Philip M. Pead NOV 15 1,( �Vfi Mailing Address fF_0•.1�ox 461 LaQuinta, CA 92253 Signature Owner's Name Mailing Address Phone: (619) 773-2345 Phone: ( ) Signature / / /0 /8! Rr 7446� *b � �enn �/' OZVX ,o )0.1�L (NAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 FORM.018/CS 0, C /0,**, 'A November 8, 1993 Due to the unforseen delay in obtaining financing, Simon Plaza requests an extension of time on condition #36. kCA i i c)4 1 LA 6-& Since ly, Philip M. Pead P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWY. 111, LA ®UINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773-2345 • FAX: 619/568-4567 ' POMOna FOrSt Federal Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: Subject: Simon Plaza/Plat Plan 93-495 November 16, 1993 V 01 `.. U NOV 18 1993.1 Ci r1f 4 t 6,1;4 TAi PLONINu DEPARTMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93-495. It is requested that the Condition read that "dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, POMONA FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION z-- 4,-UA- Gilbert F. Smith Senior Vice President General Counsel GFS:dmn Administrative Offices: 350 South Garey, P. O. Box 1520 • Pomona, California 91769 • (714) 623.2323 • (800) 332-4733 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNERSHIP M(CLUCANG PROFESSONAL WRPORATK)NS LAWYERS ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' ELISE K. TRAYNUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO GLEN E. STEPHENS- ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM D DAHLING, JR. MARY E. OILSTRAP WILLIAM R. DeWOLFE• GREGORY K. WILKINSON MATT H. MORRIS GLENN P. SABINE BARTON C. GAUT- WYNNE S. FURTH JEFFREY V DUNN CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON PAUL T. SELZER- DAVID L. BARON STEVEN C OeBAUN JOANE GARCIA-COLSON DALLAS HOLMES- GENE TANAKA ERIC L. GARNER PHILIP J. KOEHLER CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' BASIL T. CHAPMAN DENNIS M. COTA DIANE C. WIESE RICHARD T. ANDERSON- TIMOTHY M. CONNOR RACHELLE J. NICOLLE REBECCA MARES GURNEY JOHN D. WAHLIN' VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W. HARGREAVES DOROTHY L ANDERSON MICHAEL D. HARRIS' DANIEL E. OLIVIER JANICE L. WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W. CURT EALY' DANIEL J. MCHUGH PATRICK H. W. F. PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S. SLOVAK' HOWARD B. GOLDS KIRK W SMITH DINA 0. HARRIS JOHN E. BROWN' STEPHEN P. DEITSCH JASON 0. DABAREWER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL T. RIDDELL* MARC E. EMPEY KYLE A. SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A. JURY' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A EASTER PATRICK O. DOLAN MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A. MUELLER DIANE L FINLEY DEAN R. DERLETH FRANCIS J. BAUM' J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELLETTE HELENE P. DREYER ANNE T. THOMAS* VICTORIA N. KING DAVID P PHIPPEN, SR EMILY P. HEMPHILL D. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANDALL SUSAN C. NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH CHRISTOPHER DODSON JOHN 0. PINKNEY WILLIAM W. FLOYD, JR. JACK B CLARKE. JR BERNIE L WILLIAMSON GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS ELAINE E HILL KENDALL H. MaaVEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD KEVIN K. RANDOLPH CLARK H ALSOP' SHARYL WALKER JAMES B GILPIN RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957) DAVID J. ERWIN' PETER M. BARMACK MARSHALL S RUDOLPH JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1975) MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KIM A. BYRENS EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) ' A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 10, 1993 City of La Quinta Mr. Jerry Herman 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Simon Plaza / Plat Plan 93 - 495 Dear Mr. Herman: 600 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY POST OFFICE BOX 2710 PALM SPRINGS. CAUFORNIA 92263 TELEPHONE (619) 325.7264 TELECOPIER (619) 325-0365 OF COUNSEL JAMES B. CORISON OFFICES IN RIVERSIDE (909) 686-1450 RANCHO MIRAGE (619) 568-2611 ONTARIO (909) 989-8584 iE� CA ►1t L. Nnu 15 1993 t.t M OF I1- r U1,STA Pi.E.' !sih+f DEP.PRTMENT We are aware and agree to the application submitted by Mr. Philip Pead on behalf of Simon Plaza requesting an extension of time on Condition 36 of Plat Plan Approval 93-495. It is requested that the Condition read that "dedication of the land required by the City of La Quinta will be made by Simon Plaza prior to the issuance of a building permit for the site". PTS/sk Thank you for your continued cooperation. Yours very truly, THE 3 S PARTNERSHIP, a California nArtncrchin 3049 at FILE COPS' T4hf P 4 090 78.496 CALLE TAMPICO -- LA AUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777--7000 FAX (619) 777-7101 November 15, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc, P. O. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: CONDITION MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR PLOT PLAN 93-495 Dear Mr. Pead : We are in receipt of your request to modify Condition #36 regarding the dedication timing for Washington Street right-of-way. Please be advised that the following information is required: 1. Two sets of property owner mailing labels for the area 300 feet surrounding your property; and 2. Letters of authorization from the current property owners allowing you to process this request. Please provide this information by November 19, 1993. ery truly flours, ERR HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JH : kas cc: City Council City Manager Public Works MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 78.495 CALLE TAMPICO -- LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-7000 FAX (619) 777.7101 October 13, 1993 Mr. Phil Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. P. 0. Box 461 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA PLOT PLAN 93-495 - RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION Dear Mr. Pead: I have reviewed your request for more time or City participation in right-of-way acquisition for Washington Street relating to your development. As a reminder, staff sent the land conveyance documents to you on Iune 9, 1993. Per Condition #36, you had 30 days in which to dedicate the subject right-of-way. On July 16, Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, sent you a letter reminding you of your noncompliance with Condition #36. On July 26, 1993, Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director granted you until August 24th to comply with Condition #36. On September 9th a letter was sent granting you until October 4th to dedicate the right-of- way for Washington Street. This last time extension was granted based upon a letter from C.G.I. Financial Corporation's commitment to release the necessary funds within 40 days. The options available are: 1. You can seek a formal amendment to the approved plot plan. This will require submittal of an application with the appropriate fees. Your request would be to amend Condition #36 to permit a different dedication schedule; however, the Planning Commission and City Council can modify the project or any of the conditions during the public hearing process on the amendment. 2. A second option is for staff to recommend the Council terminate your plot plan approval for failure to comply with conditions. In order to resolve this issue, your response, in writing or submission of the completed application with fees and drawings, is required by November 8, 1993. Should you apply for the amendment, the earliest that it could be scheduled for Planning Commission consideration would LTRJH.288 #I MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 0 be December 14th with Council consideration on December 21st, provided the meetings are not continued or cancelled. Should you need additional information, please contact Jerry Herman in the Planning and Development Department. Sincerely, &bl- fi UI ROBERT L. HUNT City Manager RLH:JH:bjs cc: City Council Public Works Administrative Services LTRJH.288 BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 1993 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-516 APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHUCK STROTHER) ARCHITECT/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ROBERT LAMB HART REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE MAIN ENTRY ROAD AND CASITA AREA AND APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR THE RACQUET CLUB AREA LOCATION: SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: The subject property is Rancho La Quinta and was previously known as "The Pyramids". In recent months a number of items have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission including the maintenance building on 50th Avenue, the main entry at Eisenhower and Washington Street, and the administration building entry on 48th Avenue. The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan for the main entry road from Washington Street east. This plan includes the Adams Street entry for which a design was recently approved as a separate application. Also included in this request is preliminary approval of the landscaping for the Phase I Casita area and architecture and landscape design for the racquet club area which is located within Tentative Tract 27835 (presently under review). LANDSCAPE DESIGN OF ENTRY ROAD: The main road starts with the Washington Street entry which is presently under construction and ends at the racquet club area which is between Adams Street and Dune Palm Road near 48th Avenue. From the Washington Street entry, the landscape concept transitions into a formal double road of Date Palms at 45 feet on center with a lush oasis type planting within the center median which exists only adjacent to the Washington street area. Interspersed around the Date Palms PCST.158 will be plantings of Pepper Trees and where needed for screening of residential lots, tall flowering shrubs. Ground covers along the majority of the roadway will be low drought tolerant flowering shrubs and ground covers which provide color. Views of the golf course will be taken into consideration with plant materials in view corridors being low profile. Additional plant materials to be utilized consist of Brazilian Peppers, African Sumacs, and Eucalyptus for windrows. A continuous five foot wide meandering concrete sidewalk will be provided along the south side of this entry road. The Adams Street entry while shown on this plan was previously approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. For the most part, along the roadways bermed landscaping will be utilized to screen the roadway and cars from areas developed with residences. RACQUET CLUB AREA: Landscape Design The overall concept for this area is to provide a lush tropical garden setting under a formal date grove with scattered Queen Palms in terraces and low flowering ground covers and small accent trees. The formal date grove is laid out in such a fashion that it will unify the racquet club, golf clubhouse (to the south) and common parking area (to the south). The submitted plans include the landscaping concept for the Casita units to the west which are part of the Phase I Casita development. Flowering shrubs and ground cover are proposed to be used with scattered Eucalyptus trees. There will be some lawn utilized within the areas around and in between the units. Additional trees utilized as part of the streetscape concept consist of Brazilian Peppers, African Sumacs, and Acacias. Landscape and walkway lighting will be limited to low level path lights. Racquet Club Architecture The proposed racquet club will be approximately 41-feet by 167-feet and consist of approximately 6,800 square feet of floor space, including an open breezeway. The facility will consist of a pro shop, exercise room, locker rooms, storage area, office area, and small club grill area. The architecture of the facility is Spanish/Early California to conform with the architectural theme of the project. The one story structure will be at a maximum 23-feet high and utilize a two piece 18-inch barrel vault clay tile roof material. Two roof pitches will be utilized on this building. A covered veranda of 16-feet width will be provided on the three main sides of the building on the fourth side the overhang will be smaller. However, this area is only utilized for tennis storage, pool storage, and a mechanical room. The walls are proposed to be stucco with a mission finish. The veranda floor around the building is proposed to be washed aggregate panels with bands of inset Mexican pavers. The doors, windows, and siles will be painted a teal color. Any wood exposed will be stained. The applicant has indicated that the material and color board utilized for the administration building on 48th Avenue will be the same utilized for this building. PCST.158 2 ANALYSIS: Design Review Board Action The Design Review Board considered this request at their meeting of December 1, 1993. There was discussion regarding the type of Eucalyptus trees to be used, the use of Date Palms in public areas, and architectural design of the racquet club building. The Design Review Book took action to recommend approval of the project subject to the staff conditions recommended. Those conditions are noted in the draft Conditions of Approval for this project. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93- , staff recommends approval of this request, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Plan exhibits 2. Location map 3. Staff Conditions of Approval PCST.158 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93-512, TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 9, 1993 GENERAL: The development of the site shall be general in conformance with exhibits contained on file for Plot Plan 93-516, unless otherwise amended by the conditions. 2. The plot plan shall be used within one year of Planning Commission approval date of December 14, 1993, otherwise it shall become null and of no effect. "Be used" means beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within one year and thereafter dilligently pursued to completion. 3. That all applicable conditions of Specific Plan 84-004 shall be complied with as necessary. 4. That the landscaping and irrigation plans allowed by this project shall be reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the Coachella Valley Water District specialist prior to City approval. 5. That final working drawings for uses allowed by this permit shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of any building permits and/or any work occurring, whichever occurs first. 6. That any above grade utility boxes shall be screened by landscaping and shown on the landscaping plans„ 7. Parking spaces shall comply with applicable code requirements, including provisions for handicapped persons. 8. Gate on 48th Avenue shall be decorative metal, with final location layout (turnaround, stacking, etc.) and design subject to approval of the Engineering Department, Fire Marshal, and the Planning and Development Department. 9. Provisions for trash disposal/recycling shall be provided. Trash enclosures and/or locations to be approved by Waste Management of the Desert and the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Prior to the issuance of a grading 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: CONAPRVL.113 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-516 - T. D. Desert Development December 14, 1993 • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (grading permit, improvement permit) • Planning and Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) 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 approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 11. Landscape, street, and walkway lighting shall be in compliance with the City "Dark Sky" Ordinance. 12. Street name sign, design, and location, shall be approved by the Engineering and Planning and Development Departments prior to construction and installation. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: 13. Drip or emitter irrigation shall be utilized to the greatest extent. 14. The final landscaping, irrigation, and architectural plans, materials and colors, pavement patterns, etc., shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of permits or beginning of work. CONAPRVL.113 � ' I DATE: CASE NUMBER: REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: SIGN CONTRACTORS: REPRESENTATIVE: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 14, 1993 SIGN APPLICATION 93-225 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CORPORATE SIGN FOR NORWEST FINANCIAL NORWEST FINANCIAL, INC. (DES MOINES, IOWA) 78-590 HIGHWAY III (ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER) IMPERIAL SIGN COMPANY, INC. AND PORTER BOWER SIGN COMPANY, INC. MR. JAMES ENGLE, JR . The master sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center was approved by the Design Review Board on October 17, 1990, and the Planning Commission on November 13, 1990. Since the initial approval, some amendments have been approved by the Planning Commission. The current sign program for in -line tenant spaces is as follows: - One per frontage - Fifty square feet (maximum) - Letter style: Helvetica Light (two lines of copy permitted) - Colors: white, red, blue, yellow, and green - Internally illuminated individual letters - Logo: 25 0 of sign area (rri.aximum) Note: National or regional tenants with more that five outlets will be allowed to use their standard sign if approved by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. No more than two adjacent, separate tenant signs shall be the same color without City approval. One color only per sign other than logo unless approved by the City. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: On November 16, 1993, staff received a request from Norwest Financial to install their corporate sign on their new facility at 78-590 Highway 111. Their store is west DRB.009 of Desert Sound Waves, and east of the PGA West Cleaners. The applicant proposes individual channel letter signs which are internally illuminated. Upper-case letters are proposed and the sign will read "Norwest Financial". The letters are 14-inches in height and the length of the sign is approximately 15-feet. The sign is mounted on the existing building fascia and centered between the two existing vertical columns. The sign letters will have white plexiglas faces with dark bronze returns. The reason the sign requires Design Review Board and Planning Commission approval is that the lettering style includes both Helvetica Light and Helvetica Bold. The adopted sign program allows Helvetica Light unless the applicant is a national or regional business. The applicant, Norwest Financial, has submitted a letter explaining that they meet this requirement (Attachment 2) . The landlord has approved the applicant's request. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board examined the signage request on December 1, 1993. The Board recommended approval of the request, as submitted on a 7-0 vote. ANALYSIS: As previously noted, national or regional tenants are allowed to utilize their standard sign design if it is approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. As you will recall, Payless Shoes, Clothestime, Baskin -Robbins, and McDonald's were granted minor exceptions to the adopted sign program because they were national chain organizations. In reviewing the sign, staff feels that the sign is acceptable. The sign will be visible from Highway 111. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93- , approve the request by Norwest Financial, subject to the attached conditions, to install a permanent building sign. Attachments 1. Sign exhibits 2. Letter from Norwest Financial 3. Draft Conditions DRB.009 C ��� .woSF. .000 S.F. to C a f3a � ON A X xi+ E �3 c A C a JU N y O � u _ .c o A v a� c C > N A O � � o A cl a +' tj A O v � � 0 3 0 v c 41 O j S N14,t W i s ooa't t° N (1) i'S 008'1 o tnzm Q� C Z Q O N X 'A N r 4-) C� C O u tobL O O 6! +�-) A C l S 009 arn c om -v tP - i�S 0091 ro > V 6i d'S 009't C -) M 'I'S 009'1— W ` i s Dort N .O O r _ 6. m O G YS 000*9 I:S 006 0 :I.S O .+ i s Dos u __�_$_ O A S 96L' t 'J S- o 4-) to O �=eiN ^N is om-cl L r7 EA U - - � � — 41.- — " - � — � — 5 � a �- a :� � d C" S� r mob U. Z O Z 0 w i M ' N A u1 il+ i1. 1 V 0 IL w Ic 1.. a C e 3 r. I I I I I I !RIII _ I I I I I somir uNi _uffs AN)RW*'SrFINANCIAL 1V/O November 15, 1993 Norwest Financial, Inc. 206 Eighth Street Des Moines, Iowa 50309 5151243-2131 Mr. Greg Trousdel l C 0 V 2 2 1993 City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department C,TY 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Norwest Financial California, Inc. One Eleven La Quinta Center 78590 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA Dear W. Trousdell: As you know, we are requesting an amendment to the adopted sign criteria in order to use our trademark letter style at the above referenced location. Norwest Financial is a 96 year old, $4.5 billion company that currently operates 885 offices in 46 states and throughout Canada. We are a wholly -owned subsidiary of Norwest Corporation, a $45 billion company providing banking, investments, insurance, and other financial services through 1,800 locations in all 50 states and internationally. Considering Norwest Financials national exposure and that our signage is a registered trademark we request that this change be authorized. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at (515)237-7289. cerely, ON R . KURTH nch Leasing and Facilities Management CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION #93-225 - NORWEST FINANCIAL DECEMBER 14, 1993 1. The channel letter returns shall be painted matte black per the adopted Sign Program. 2. The sign shall be internally illuminated. 3. No exposed raceways, crossover, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc., shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the building fascia. 4. The sign contractor shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the sign permit. 5. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to the internally illuminated sign, thus assuring that the sign meets industry specifications. 6. A building permit shall be obtained from the City's Building & Safety Department to install the sign on the building. 7. The sign color shall be white (#7508 or #7328 plexiglas) . CONAPRVL.009 CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California November 23, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows and Commissioner Ellson was asked to lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Plot Plan 93-511; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for approval of plans for a maintenance building for Rancho La Quinta project located on 48th Avenue. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff informed the Commissioners that Condition #18 had to be modified to lower the height of the maintenance building to the correct maximum of 14 feet highand the fertilizer building to a maximum of 11 feet high. 2. Staff further informed the Commissioners that the immediate, adjacent, and surrounding property owners had been notified of the project. 3. Mr. Chuck Strother, representing the applicant, explained the reason for this location and described the site. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked the applicant to show the Commission the location of the building on the aerial map displayed in the Council Chambers. PCII-23 1 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1993 5. Commissioner Marrs inquired about deliveries. Mr. Strothers stated the only semi -trucks would be the delivery of annual rye plantings. All other deliveries would be with standard trucks. 6. Commissioner Adolph asked how many employees there would be. Mr. Strothers stated there would be 22. Commissioner Adolph asked how the gates would be operated. Mr. Strothers stated the gates would be open during the course of the work day. 7. Mr. Peter Ministrelli, developer of the projects (Painted Cove and Bajada) to the south, stated there were 14 families in his projects with homes ranging in excess of $500,000 in value and he was there to voice their objection to this project. He stated their project had experienced several problems with the children from the schools and this was an open door for more problems. He further stated that he had originally asked for his project to have an entrance off 50th Avenue and had been denied and now this project was being given approval. His objections to the project were the location, noise, odors, and the look of a commercial strip such as Highway 111 along 50th Avenue. 8. Ms. Marsha Hanover, homeowner in Painted Cove, stated her concern for the traffic on Park Avenue and the noise, health hazards, and earthquake risks with the fuel facilities. 9. Mr. Al Durrett, Bajada builder, stated his concern for the traffic on 50th Avenue, security problems with an open entry gate, and he felt the use needed to be relocated. 10. Commissioner Ellson asked where the median breaks were to be located. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the median at present ends at the entrance to the maintenance building but will be continued to the entrance to The Orchard project. Discussion followed relative to traffic circulation on 50th Avenue and other maintenance building entrances off major streets throughout the City. 11. Commissioner Abels asked the applicant to explain the fuel facility to the Commission and property owners to alleviate their concerns. Mr. Strothers explained the system and the safety factors that were incorporated into the system. 12. Commissioner Adolph asked if the future interior street would have access onto 50th Avenue. Mr. Strothers stated there was an interior loop road and eventually there would be a 50th Avenue entrance to match up with The Orchard project and it would be signalized. PC11-23 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1993 13. Commissioner Adolph asked if Mr. Strothers would be willing to close the proposed 50th Avenue maintenance facility entrance and let the maintenance people utilize the other entrance access from the orchard. Mr. Strothers stated their concern for having non-members use this entrance for security purposes. 14. Chairwoman Barrows expressed her concern about the entrance gates being open all day and the potential problem with the children. Discussion followed about having a chainlink fence to separate the building from the parking lot. Mr. Strothers stated they were considering doing this for their own security purposes. 15. Commissioner Ellson inquired about the lots on the northwest corner of the Painted Cove being limited to one story. Discussion followed regarding what had been approved for the surrounding tracts. 16. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern for gas tanks and the odors. Mr. Strothers stated the tanks were above ground for safety purposes and they were the state-of-the-art in technology for safety purposes. The refueling would be only once a month and there should be no gas fumes. 17. Commissioner Ellson asked if leaf blowers were to be used. Mr. Strothers stated there would be no maintenance being performed in this area as all the landscaping was designed to be as maintenance free as possible. 18. Mr. Strothers stated that in order for him to relocate the maintenance yard to a different site it would be a financial burden as the remainder of the development had not been planned and it would be a hit and miss situation to determine a location to put the yard. 19. Commissioner Adolph asked if there were any plans to expand the yard at a future date. Mr. Strothers stated there should not be a need to do so. 20. Commissioner Ellson asked if the facilities could be moved easily if it were necessary. Mr. Strothers stated the building is the least of the costs, the major costs were in the infrastructures and external costs. 21. Mr. Durrett suggested the entrance to the yard be through the tract opening on 50th Avenue as it was going to be difficult to control the time the workers will begin. Discussion followed regarding work hours. 22. Ms. Hanover asked if there were any statistics regarding the location of the combustibles in regards to earthquakes. Mr. Strothers stated there were none and discussion followed regarding the safety features of the combustibles. PC11-23 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1993 23. Commissioner Ellson asked if there had been objections received from the schools. Mr. Strothers stated he had received none and none had been received from the Boys and Girls Club either. 24. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. Strothers to show the location of the proposed entrance off 50th Avenue on the aerial. She then asked if the golf course doubled would the number of employees double. Mr. Strothers stated there are no plans to expand the golf course and he felt if it should, the number of employees would remain the same. 25. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff if there were any conditions on the project regarding safety and proximity to the school site. Staff stated Condition #28 addressed the issue. 26. Commissioners discussed the delivery truck hours as well as the work hours as they related to the hours school was in session. 27. Chairwoman Barrows stated she felt the Commission had thoroughly addressed the issued that concerned the Commission as well as the public. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 93-052 approving Plot Plan 93-511, subject to conditions. The motion carried unanimously. B. Conditional Use Permit 93-007, Amendment #1; a request of McDonald Corporation for approval of an amendment to a conditional use permit which allows construction and operation of a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru lane. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked what the tree pallet was for the center. Staff explained. 3. Commissioner Ables asked what the spacing was on the Oleanders. Staff stated they were fairly close, three to four feet on center. 4. Commissioner Marrs stated the landscaping in between was for color and not for screening. Staff stated that was correct. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the Ocotillo trees could be replaced with trees to give more shade and soften the height of the building. Discussion followed relative to alternative trees. PC11-23 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1993 6. Chairwoman Barrows questioned the height of the playland structure. She requested that three additional trees be required in Condition #35 for shade on the playland structure. Discussion followed again regarding the variety of trees to be used in the southeast corner. 7. Mr. Rob Jenkins, representing McDonalds stated the glass structure for the playland structure was not a typical glass. It was designed to keep heat out. Following a discussion regarding shading the area, it was decided three Queen Palms 15-20 feet in height should be used. 8. Chairwoman Barrows also stated her request to see an additional 5-6 trees be planted on the berm between the drive-thru and the sidewalk. She suggested that Acacia, Palo Verde, and Mesquite trees be used and the Ocotillo trees be moved over. 9. Mr. Jenkins questioned who the authority was in Condition #47. Staff stated it would be the Planning and Development Department. 10. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the 3:1 slope for the berm would be adequate, but a 2:1 would be a problem for soil erosion into the drive-thru lane. Discussion followed regarding the berm. 11. There being no further comment, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 93-053 approving Conditional Use Permit 93-007, Amendment #1, subject to the amended conditions and requiring a minimum of 5-6 trees and replacing the Privit tree with the Queen Palm and relocating the Ocotillo trees. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of November 9, 1993, Commissioners Ellson/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VH. OTHER Staff reminded the Commission that the joint meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board would be November 30, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Adolph asked that staff determine whether the Citrus development had approval for signs on 52nd and Jefferson Street. Staff stated they would investigate. PC11-23 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 1993 VIU. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on December 14, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:42 P.M., November 23, 1993. PC11-23 6