1993 12 28 PCf
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
December 28, 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 93-046
Beginning Minute Motion 93-056
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item ............... CONTINUED - 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-
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 ............... SIGN APPLICATION 93-215, AMENDMENT #1 -
LAGUNA DE LA PAZ
Applicant .......... Roger Snellenberger
Location ........... West side of Washington Street, north of Eisenhower Drive
Request ............ To amend and relocate the previously approved permanent
monument sign for the existing residential development.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
2. Item ............... APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
Applicant .......... Mr. Jimmy R. Crowell, Century Crowell Communities
Location ........... Sanita Drive, Villeta Drive, La Palma Drive, and Estelo Court
Request ............ Approval of architectural plans for Phase VII of the La
Quetta Highlands Tract 23269 - La Quinta Del Rey
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1993.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
TUESDAY, December 28, 1993
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items.
PC/AGENDA
PH *1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1993
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-039, EXHIBIT "A"
DATED DECEMBER 14, 1993
Based upon the written comments and those received at the public hearing, Exhibit "A" has been
revised. Staff will be prepared to go through the exhibit item by item to explain the
recommendation.
To compare the changes to the December 14th exhibit, these sections were changed or deleted:
1. Single Family Dwelling Unit Development Standards: Pages 1 and 2, Items #1, #3, #5,
#6, #14, #15, and #16.
2. Single Family Dwelling Unit Approval Process: Pages 2 and 3, Item 1.
3. Minor and Major Design Deviation: Page 3, Items #1 and #2.
4. Compatibility Review Process: Page 4, Item #2 introduction and #2b, 2d, and 2e.
5. Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process: Page 5, Items #2, #4, #5,
#6, and #9.
MEMOJH.335
1
RmsEo - EXHIBIT "A"
December 28, 1993
APPROVAL PROCESS
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 93-039
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.
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.
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 enclosed within
a secured, walled area and provides direct access to a keyed entry into the dwelling.
DOCJH.092 1
6. Mechanical and related equipment: heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be
ground -mounted and screened from all sides. Equipment wells on pitched roofs and
equipment on flat roofs must be screened. The screening must be an integral 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, rock, masonry or a similar material.
Wood, or other similar material(s) may be used for facia trim, but may not make up
more than ten percent (10 %) of the surface wall of any side of the house. Roofing
materials shall either be clay or concrete tile (Class "A") for pitched roofs as defined by
the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The Planning Commission may approve alternative
roof materials using the adjustment process contained in the SR Zone regulations.
15. Eaves: roof eaves must extend a minimum of 18 inches from the wall except for flat
roof houses.
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 2
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; b) a subdivision
recorded after May 1, 1982, where the unit has received City architectural approval and
no change is proposed; c) the SR Zoning District; d) a subdivision recorded prior to May
1, 1982; and e) minor design deviation..
2. The compatibility review process (Section __) 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 using the precise plan process (Section 9.42.110). Minor design
deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that
involves items such as, but not limited to, less than five percent (5 %) change in square
footage of existing constructed or approved units; columns, dormer vents, window size
changes, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture changes. The Planning and
Development Director may refer the minor design deviation to the 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, a five percent (5 %) or
more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; any exterior
architectural modification not defined as a minor design deviation.
DOCJH.092 3
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. Eighteen (18) 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),
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 conceptual 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.
e. When new units are proposed adjacent to existing unit(s) show, with enough
detail, the architectural relationship of the existing and proposed unit(s). This
may be done with photos, new elevations, etc.
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 4
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
constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision, unless proof can be provided
showing that a two story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder.
3. 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. New homes shall be the same size and architectural detailing (including garages) when
located on the same side of the street and abut existing unit(s) within a partially built -out
phase or a new phase of the subdivision. When homes exist on either side of a vacant
lot a proposed unit must be compatible with the larger existing unit.
5. A proposed single family dwelling unit must contain similar:
a. architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door
style
b. Colors
C. Roof lines
as the existing units, or units which are approved for construction as determined on the
plans and materials board, within the same subdivision unless otherwise approved by the
Planning Commission.
6. 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.
7. All single family dwelling units proposed must comply with the requirements contained
in the Development Standards Section
DOCJH. 092
8. The single family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision cannot
deviate by more than ten percent (10%) from the square footage of the existing or
approved units provided the deviation does not create a unit smaller than the smallest unit
constructed within the subdivision (i.e., if the units approved range from 1,200 to 2,300
square feet, and the smallest unit constructed is 1,250 square feet, then the smallest unit
that could be constructed is 1,250 square feet and the largest is 2,530 square feet).
9. 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:
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 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.
DOCJH.092
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:
1. 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
DOCJH.092
DATE:
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOT
DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
ARCHITECT:
ZONING:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 28, 1993
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PHASE VII OF THE
LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS TRACT 23269 - LA QUINTA DEL REY
MR. JIMMY R. CROWELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT - CENTURY
CROWELL COMMUNITIES (A. K.A. CENTURY HOMES)
CUSTOM LOTS (LOTS 70-72, 166-173, 175, 177-181, 185 & 234-
244) AND LOTS 70-72 (BETTY WILLIAMS AREA)
SANITA DRIVE, VILLETA DRIVE, LA PALMA DRIVE, AND
ESTELO COURT
BENJAMIN AGUILAR AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING)
One month ago the applicant's plans were to be reviewed by the Design Review
Board. However, on November 2, 1993, the City Council enacted Urgency
Ordinance 236 which established new development regulations for R-1 zoned
subdivisions which are partly developed and have new developers with different
production houses (e.g. size, type and/or style). The maximum allowed deviation
in unit size(s) is 10 percent. Since the applicant had to meet the provisions of
Ordinance 236 his project was continued for further revisions (Attachment 6) . The
ordinance was to expire on December 16, 1993, but on December 7, 1993, the City
Council extended the ordinance for ten months and fifteen days. The newly adopted
ordinance is now Ordinance 240.
Tract Information
The La Quinta Highlands tract was subdivided in 1988 by Triad Development
Company. The subdivision includes approximately 255 lots on +72 acres. The map
was recorded in 1989 and since that time various builders have constructed homes
within the subdivision. Those developers include:
1. La Quinta Highlands built +45 homes at the northerly (central) portion of the
tract with units which ranged in size from 1,220 square feet (3 bedroom + 2
bath) to 1,840 square feet (4 bedroom + 2 1/2 bath) .
2. La Quinta Vistas built +46 homes at the northwest side of the tract with units
which ranged in size from 1,609 to +2,300 square feet.
DRB.010
3. Williams Development Company built +22 homes at the northeast side of the
tract with units which ranged in size from 1,470 (3 bedroom + 2 bath) to 1,818
square feet (4 bedroom + 3 bath) .
Century Homes recently received Design Review Board, Planning Commission,
and City Council approval to complete 22 single family homes in this area with
their Plan 3, 4, and 5 units (Phase VI). The units ranged in size from 1,606
square feet to 2,010 square feet. The 2,010 square foot home was later
reduced to 1,995 square feet as required by Ordinance 236.
4. Century Homes built +76 homes at the southeasterly side of the tract with
units which ranged in size from 1, 006 square feet (2 bedroom + 1 bath) to
1,678 square feet (3 bedroom + 3 bath) (Phases I, III, and V) .
5. Individual Custom Lots consist of +33 lots at the southwesterly side of the
tract. Currently a majority of the area is vacant; however, there are a few
one story single family homes which are 2,014 square feet to +2, 700 square
feet.
Century Homes Background
Century Homes purchased 76 lots in 1991 and received Planning Commission approval
on October 8, 1991, for four unit types to be built within Phases I, III, and V (Lots
79-94, 96-148, 245-251) . The Plans 1-4 ranged in size from 1,006 square feet to
1,567 square feet excluding bonus room expansions. A larger fifth unit for Phase
V, Plan 5 (1,678 square feet with a 3-car garage) was approved by the Planning
Commission on January 12, 1993. Since their approval, they have built all 76 homes
and all units have sold. Their existing models are on Las Vistas Drive and Sanita
Drive and their existing homes are on La Palma Drive and Sanita Drive to the west
of the Palm Royale Park (+5 acres) at Arosa Way and La Palma Drive.
Their Phase VI project (22 homes) is under construction and 17 units have been
sold. Phase VI is located at the northeast side of the existing tract on Sonesta Way
and Villeta Drive. They received approval for this phase in 1993.
New Request(PPhase VII)
Century Homes has purchased most of the remaining vacant lots in the custom lot
area and three lots across the street from the existing Palm Royale Park which were
not built on in the early 1990's . Century Homes has purchased the remaining 29 lots
(Phase VII) with the intention of building part of their product line that they had
previous approval to build in Phases I, III, V, and VI. A copy of their building
schedule is attached. The La Quinta Highlands project will be completed once these
remaining lots are developed. Their minimum house size for this phase is 1,606
square feet and the largest house is 2,467 square feet. The developer is planning
to use his three largest plans for Phase VII with each unit including a two car
garage.
DEB. 010
Building Schedule
Plan
#
Square Footage
Stories
Bedrooms
3
3
1,606
1
4
4
8
1,818
2
4
5
12
2,010
1
4
5L
6
2,467
2
5
29
Note: (1) All homes have 2-car garages.
(2) The square footage totals include garage conversions to livable or
habitable rooms.
New Model Design (5L)
The applicant has submitted a new design for his Plan 5 unit. The unit is called the
5L and the "L" stands for loft. The second story loft is +373 square feet. See the
attached exhibits stamp dated December 6, 1993, and December 22, 1993. The loft
is located over the master bath and living room areas at the middle, rear section of
the home. A total of six of the Plan 5L homes are proposed.
Plan 4 Modification
The large set of plans (dated October 22, 1993) reflect the applicant's initial
submittal which has 1, 567 square feet with a 3-car garage or 1, 732 square feet with
a 2-car garage. This plan was approved by the Design Review Board for Phase VI
on October 6, 1993. This plan cannot be used in Phase VII because of the City's
existing Urgency Ordinance requirements. In order to conform with Ordinance 240,
the applicant has submitted a new Plan 4 (The Del Rey) which contains 1,818 square
feet with a 2-car garage (see the attached exhibit stamp dated December 22, 1993) .
The applicant believes that the new "Del Rey" plan is consistent with their
previously approved Plan 4 unit.
Architecture
A Spanish/contemporary architectural style is proposed which is similar to the
abutting character of the neighborhood. The color scheme will have seven different
combinations using two different tile colors, red/brown with a spatter of grey and
brown with a spatter of golden yellow. Five different alternate colors (brown,
beige, and off-white) are being proposed for fascia and garage doors. Seven
alternate stucco colors are also being proposed (all desert shades) . Seven accent
colors including muted greens, blues, and browns are also indicated. Each plan has
two or three different street elevations.
The Phase VII homes are all one story except for the Plan 4 and Plan 5L designs
which are two story plans. Fourteen two story units are plotted throughout the area
(+48% of the total units) .
DRB.010
Previous Design Review Board Action (Phase VI)
On October 6, 1993, the Century Homes' application request for Phase VI was
considered by the Design Review Board. Mr. Pavelak, representing Century Homes,
explained the predicament they were in concerning their building plan check and the
fact that they could not be issued a building permit until the Planning Commission
recertified their plans for their new phase. He also explained their past marketing
program. He explained that his company was aware of the Forecast (Quinterra tract)
application and he said his company was not proposing homes which are not
compatible with the existing one and two story homes around Phase VI. He stated
that their homes have been selling well here in La Quinta and Indio and that some of
the larger builders in La Quinta have gone out of business trying to build homes
larger than 2,000 square feet (e.g., Windsor, Topaz, Williams Development
Company, Lake La Quinta, etc.). He reiterated that they are ready to begin
construction as soon as they can receive approval by the City.
The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project because the units are
compatible with abutting single family homes. The Board conditioned the project to
have 18 inch roof eaves and that the developer meet the State's Title 24 Energy
requirements (S . E . E . R . value of 10.0 or better) for air conditioning condensers.
The Planning Commission approved the project on October 26, 1993. The applicant
acquired his building permits on October 27, 1993, and began construction on
November 22, 1993.
Design Review Board Action (Phase VII)
On December 15, 1993, the Design Review Board recommended approval of the
applicant's plans to build 29 homes in Tract 23269. The Board's recommended
conditions are attached. The final vote was 6-0 (Board member Curtis was absent) .
The recommended conditions are similar to those imposed for Phase VI on October 6,
1993.
Tract Issues
In September, 1993, staff received a petition from the La Quinta Vistas and custom
lot residents during the Forecast Homes application stating that they desired to be
notified when a future builder was planning to build in this area. Staff notified the
residents on December 17, 1993, of this meeting.
Effect of Ordinance 240
The minimum size home size the applicant can build in the custom lot area is +1, 815
square feet and the maximum size is 3,022 square feet based on the 10% deviation
standard of Ordinance 240. The applicant's plans are to build 1,818 square feet to
2,467 square feet which is consistent with the interim zoning standards.
The three lots which are across the street from the Palm Royale Park (La Palma Drive
at Adams Street) are in the Betty Williams area and the existing single family homes
range in size from 1,470 square feet to 1,818 square feet. Therefore, based on
Ordinance 240 the minimum house size is 1,323 square feet and the largest house
which can be built is 1,997 square feet. The developer proposes three #3 plans
(1,606 square feet).
DRH.010
CONCLUSION:
The existing homes within the immediate area were developed by various builders.
The homes range in size from 1,470 square feet to +2,700 square feet which is similar
to the submittal of Century Homes. The only exception is the existing custom homes
have three car garages,, metal garage doors, and masonry walls. One existing home,
Lot 174, has converted the single car bay of the 3-car garage into livable area. This
unit now has a 2-car garage. The Century Homes will have two car garages.
The Century plans are compatible and consistent with the existing homes
surrounding ]Phase VII provided the attached conditions labeled Exhibit "A" are
imposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 93- , approve the architectural plans of Century Homes to build
29 homes in Phase VII of Tract 23269 (La Quinta Highlands), subject to the attached
conditions ( Exhibit A) .
Attachments:
1.
Location map
2.
Phase VII Map
3.
House Size Survey
4.
Developer Map (TT 23269)
5.
Draft conditions
6.
Ordinance 236 / 240
7.
Large plans
DRB.010
I- PROJECT I-
0 SITE v
in
YI
Y I LES
AWA
P'A'AWOW E
ATTACHMENT 1
DRIVE
W
N
AVENUE
J
a WESTWARD
HO
111
❑ A
VICINITY MAP
N. T. S.
Y
40
ATTACHMENT 2
W
o�aaork,
g
4J
L.
O
10
]ATM — SVISIA-
_ .
ATTACHMENT
3
..
.... _ .. _... .
•r-M
v► O to
i-J r L.
(n
c •P 4J ro
E
O ro 0)
O
^
.�
E�
V1
a n. Or_
y 4-'
+
•a�
rornc
0o
+ern
ac•.-a)
4- ro
•P L1
f•.
y 'p ar �
y
ro
i a)
• ro
r r Q1P•
O
y
0
0 01
0
P q U
C� +3 C
E
C
LS aJ
CO ro
00r
O
z
—0
y O aJ
01 toO�
n
CA n.
IC�r
4-1
b
C%j
is
al 0)
0
O
•r
C7
on-
c C i.
a)
CA to y ro
O S
W
S
•r •P to
•0
r- >
4- r y a 47
O
O
S
J
IN
i-) 4J
P--S
C X Q' O s.
ro
>1 a)
ut us C
Q .L
.. w N -0 to
U
CM 4-3
5 E
� O
r •r
3 S
+s
y O'
a) Q1
S-
•P
U N
O
X to
w J
W
a
n
r vs j
= AW --
.r
•r •r �
X X O
W wQ]
01
O
'n
1
r-4
Y.
fV
O
�O
�O
Lill
� ;O
�
�
to
T7
+J
c
4J
J
O
c
m
�
0
4J
O•
+J
U
IA
ro
J
v
t—
•11 IIIII
'illllllllll
c
0.
•r'
4J
R1
u
•r
M.
d
to
UG
ATTACHMENT 4
' ,
�.•- �� L _Os refs. 6.95 PeF/too
�
zy
dr ra o��vi
Cq-
h b -
r r
r
h
~ P � � � �1 ; � Dom_- �. •
wi
w
h 4 a 7ct �varv� 4
37d vy-
/cyr—
y, Ito r.
lV N T ►� N h N N ti N r 41 U
OLA. to o �o
J v+ a+
Q o �' a �' ••� Ai 0.J N N N o- a +> >
/cz CY a+ r- v
�l1 ' a -
ow / O ..J t) W J
1
. 09
LZ
P ` `
ti
\ �v 6 ' O/V N
a .G�'Zo9'a Al i (az 299)
ATTACHMENT 5
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CENTURY HOMES (PHASE VII)
DECEMBER 28, 1993
Modified by staff on December 21, 1993
1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots,
shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street
pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence.
2. The landscaping for each lot shall include one 24"-box tree and one 15-gallon
tree on interior lots and one (24"-box) tree and four (15 gallon) trees on
corner lots, minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape
of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying
appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the
standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual
on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas
required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met.
The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley
Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
5. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, fencing, etc.) .
6. The concrete roof tile in Phase VII shall be similar in color and style to the
abutting homes.
7. The minimum roof eave shall be 18-inches.
8. Sectional metal roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garages.
9. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase VII (custom lot area) shall be
1, 818 square feet excluding the two car garage.
10. The developer shall meet the minimum Title 24 State requirements for energy
efficiency during plan check (e.g. 10.0 SEER or larger for the condensing
unit) .
11. All requirements of Tract Map 23269 shall be met during plan check.
12. * The applicant shall provide perimeter masonry block walls for all new homes
in the custom lot area if one does not exist at this time. A new block wall is
not required in those areas where an existing wood fence has been installed
for an existing home. The masonry block walls shall be built prior to final
occupancy clearance of each dwelling unit.
CONAPRVL.007
Conditions of Approval
Century Homes (Phase VII)
December 15, 1993
13. * No two story homes shall be built next door to any existing one story home.
The rear yard of a two story home can abut a side or rear yard of a single
story home.
14. The requirements of Ordinance 240 shall be met.
CONAPRVL.007
SECTION 1. That a Section 9.32.020 G be added to Title 9, Chapter 9.32 of the
La Quinta Municipal Code and to read as follows:
"No building permit, design approval or subdivision
amendment shall be granted to construct a unit in a
residential subdivision where some portion of the
subdivision has previously been constructed and the
square footage of the unit to be constructed will
deviate more than ten percent (10%) from the
square footage of that portion of tTie subdivision
previously constructed.
SECTION 2. This Chapter 9.32.020 shall expire and be of no further force and
effect on December 16, 1993, but may be extended pursuant to the procedure set forth in
California Govci ;iment Code Section 65858(a).
SECTION 3. This Interim Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation
of the public health, safety, and welfare, and therefore it is hereby declared that this is an
urgency ordinance which shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
interim ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in three public places in the City of La
Quinta, and the same shall be in full force and effect immediately after its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of La
Quinta, California, on this = day of , 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN J. PENA, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California ATTACHMENT 6
DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
ORDDRFT.039 2
Amendment Request
On December 6, 1993, staff received a new request by the applicant to modify the
Planning Commission's approval of August 24, 1993. The new request proposes
placing the sign at the northeast corner of the Laguna De La Paz project (i.e.,
Washington Street and 48th Avenue) . The developer has stated that moving the sign
will provide better exposure than its previous location because the original location
was partially blocked by existing trees. He also said he would like to emulate the
new Rancho La Quinta signage on Washington Street. The sign is approximately five
feet high and seventeen feet long with terraced sides. The sign graphic area is
approximately 12 square feet. In order for the sign to be visible, the applicant
proposes to remove the easterly most 171611 of the existing perimeter wall along the
north property line. Copies of the developer's plans are attached (Attachments 5
& 6).
The developer's sign application is different from the previous approval in the
following ways:
(1) The sign is larger and has been relocated from the southeast portion of the
site to the northeast corner of the development.
(2) The original sign was perpendicular to Washington Street (two-sided) versus
the new sign which is one-sided and proposed to be diagonal to Washington
Street and visible to south bound traffic.
Design Review Board Action
On December 15, 1993, the Design Review Board reviewed the new application by Mr.
Snellenberger. The applicant was not present to discuss the case. Therefore,
without proper representation the Board could not discuss their thoughts or ideas
on revising the monument sign base. Board member Anderson submitted a design
concept which he thought would upgrade the character of the sign. See attachment
# 9. The Design Review Board voted 4-2 (Commissioner Curtis was absent) to deny
the sign application request because the monument sign base was not architecturally
consistent with other newly approved residential tract signs. The majority of the
Board members felt the sign should have more bulk and be three dimensional.
However, even though the Board voted to deny the request, they stated they were
not opposed to the location, sign materials, or other characteristics of the single -
sided sign.
Conclusion
Staff has spoken to the sign contractor about the Design Review Board's actions of
December 15, 1993. The sign contractor states that Mr. Snellenberger is receptive
to building the sign base as drawn by Board Member Anderson at the meeting.
Therefore, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request
per the attached conditions because the sign will be constructed to match the design
concept as presented on December 15, 1993 (Attachment #10) .
STAFFRPT.023
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 93- , approve Sign Application 93-215 (Amendment #1) subject
to the recommended conditions (Attachment #11).
Attachments:
1. Site Plan
2-4 Previously approved Exhibits
5-6 New Sign Application Request
7. Planning Commission Minutes
8. Design Review Board Minutes
9. Design Review Board Sign Design Concept
10. Revised Sign Exhibit (Applicant)
11. Recommended Conditions
STAFFRPT.023
z �
a) O
V) r
O -N
Q. ra
O t7) U
5_ •r O
a- CnJ
r i
ro O
C
r 4-3
� C �
•r O� U
S •r O
r-ll rn
ATTACHMENT 1
0
O
Z
OJ
-4-3
ra
C:
>1 -0
S S..
-P r0
S-_ :3
W CS
0)
S-- (3)
•r 0)
i--) rO
N C
r Q1
x r
W V)
ATTACHMENT 2
>> 'A
Le
t
ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOC., INC.
LAND DEVELOPMENT
55-695 PEBBLE BEACH
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
August 27, 1993
ATTACHMENT 4
Mr. Greg Trousdell
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
Subject: Sign Application 93-215, Laguna De La Paz
Dear Greg,
The following are the apecification for the above referenced
monument sign.
Material Type: Structure will be slumpstone, similar to the perimete
wall. The structure itself will be reinforced with #2 rebar.
The tops will have a Blockwall CarThere
footing. As can be seen by the drawingthe widthewill�nimstaum 18
rt at"
seven feet at the bottom decreasing gradually to four feet at the
top. The total height will be five foot, top to bottom. Depth
will be one foot„
Colors:
Slumpstone will be painted the same color as the perimeter wall.
"Laguna" will be in the teal color, "De La Paz" in Black color.
"Laguna" will have 12" lettering, "De La Paz" will have 6" lettering.
I will give spec's on the logo at the meeting. g
If lighting is used, we will get all approvals from the planning
director during plan check.
If you have any questions, please call at (619) 777-7767.
Sincerely,
Je f Petrus
Roger Snellenberger and Associates
f
AUG 27 1993 . °�
I
91
--1 7 .
z
S?
AL
.I
C3
ATTACHMENT 5
-1
O
cu
0
ATTACHMENT 5
-1
O
cu
0
Ln
aj
LLi
)cj EOO
-1:3W ),S ENE) I S 9906 CLZ 6 t 9 SO:tl
90—at—E
ATTACHMENT 6
MEMO
73W AG SNJIS 9906 6ZZ 6t9
90,11 80-zt-E
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
5. There be' no further discuss' , it was moved Commissione llson
ands ded by Chairwo Barrows to a t Minute Mot' 93-040
appr ing Specific PI 84-004 "Ran La Quinta" chitectural
el tions for reside al units, subie to conditions. nanimously
proved.
VI.
Sign Application 93-215; a request of Roger Snellenberger for a sign adjustment
to allow a permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower
Drive.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Abels asked staff to clarification the location of the sign
and power box at the corner. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant,
showed the location and gave a brief explanation of why the sign was _
needed.
3. Commissioner Ellson questioned the location as being the same location
as the Building Industry Association signs and in addition if this sign was
allowed, the for sale sign (billboard) would be removed. Staff stated the
temporary sales sign would expire on its own.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-041 approving
Sign Application 93-215 to allow a permanent monument sign, subject to
conditions. Unanimously approved with the addition of Condition #6
which requires that if the sign is built on Washington Street, no additional
permanent signs will be allowed on Eisenhower Drive.
Commissioners lson/Marrs moved
Minutes of J N, 1993 as submitte
OTHER -
Fseconded a mot' to approve
nanimously apV5ved.
A. Jeff Petrus stated hioOrconcern that theofoblem with the interra tract
ed a solution and builder could of d to build the lar size homes.
PC8-24 10
ATTACHMENT 8
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
the Board regardiagoffie lack of information on thSAMCvings, Mr. Garland
asked that oard continue his project to gWiText Design Review BoAW
meetir
jKo give him time to prepare uate drawings.
00
3�Planning Commissioner A oardmember Rice mov d seconded a
motion to continue C itional Use Permit 93-008 Variance 93-023
to October 6, 1 Unanimously approved.
gi_gn Application 93-215: Laguna de la Paz Subdivision; a request for approval
of a permanent monument sign on Washington Street north of Eisenhower Drive.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department. It was noted that Boardmember Anderson
submitted written comments.
2. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern that the plans were distributed
to the Board without complete information showing the details they need
to make a decision on the project.
3. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant, explained the sign lettering to
the Board. Boardmembers asked questions concerning the lettering,
colors, and manner in which the letters would be attached and the way the
edges would be finished. Mr. Petrus stated the letters would be made of
baked aluminum (painted teal) in a teal color, and would be attached flat
to the slumpstone and the edges would be capped similar to the perimeter
block wall with a radius edge.
4. Boardmember Wright asked Mr. Petrus to explain why he wanted to sand
the slumpstone and eliminate the effect of the slumpstone. Mr. Petrus
stated only the area where the letters would be mounted would be sanded
so the letters would lay flat against the stone.
5. Boardmember Wright stated his confusion regarding the dimensions of the
drawing submitted. He questioned how large the sign was and from
where. Mr. Petrus stated it was five feet at its widest point and they
would build upon the footing (±20 square feet).
6. Boardmember Wright asked how many courses of slumpstone masonry
block would be used. Mr. Petrus stated there would be ten courses above
grade with the cap on top, and the widest part would be five feet wide.
DRB9-1
Design Review Board Minutes
September 1, 1993
IV.
7. Boardmember Campbell stated he had no problem with the applicant's
intent, but reiterated that he was unable to respond to the sign with the
information on the drawing. Mr. Petrus stated he felt everything was
shown on his drawing except the manner in which the letters would be
attached. Discussion followed regarding an explanation of the drawing.
8. Chairman Curtis asked if Mr. Petrus was going to build the sign as it was
drawn on the drawings. Mr. Petrus stated he would build the sign
according to Code as he felt the drawings showed. Members stated they
understood what the applicant intended to do, but they did not have the
working drawings to approve. Boardmember Rice stated he would have
no objection to approving the sign if the applicant would submit a
complete drawing to staff. Discussion followed with Mr. Petrus regarding
the applicant's intent for the project.
9. Following discussion, it was moved by Boardmember Rice and seconded
by Planning Commissioner Abels to approve Sign Application 93-213 as
submitted with the condition that the applicant submit a complete set of
drawings to staff before a building permit is issued. Unanimously
approved.
Chairman Cu asked if there were any
Bo Ame r Harbison asked that on
Chang "canyon", and on Page 10, po
...t wn onto the trees and large h er
I
n and seconded by Boardm ers
Unanimously appr
V. OTHER
corn ons to the Minutes of August 4, 1993.
P 5, paragraph 10 the word " ity" be
graph 5 add the words "to be" the sentence
s...". There being no furthe orrections it was
Harbison/Campbell to a ove the Minutes as
A. Chairman Crtis asked if there were any er matters to discuss. Bo ember
Campbe stated his concern that staff that complete dra;ac
ngs presented
to the ard for review. He furth asked if there was not . klist given to
thKhecklist.
plicants when they filed it applications. Staff statthat this list was
worked on by the D gn Review Board and at esent there was no
Staff hoped toy ave this information befo the Board at their next
meeting. Discussion folowed regarding what in . ation the Board wanted to
see and the problerlestaff faced in keeping the ojects moving forward.
DRB9-1 3
LU
IA
an
ATTACHMENT 9
Design Concept prepared
by Board member Anderson -
on December 15, 1993
ffi®r,=,
a
O
h
ti
wl
r-
N r-
i r�
J 3
d.3 4-
4) 4- —
.-.) O C
_ Q Y
�O N i tUp
O � C: r-•
� O U
1 r-
O U Ox
C' E +- U
�C i. 4J RS
•r- N O r-
MC+JJCO
V) E v ••
i r� r- N i
0 < .. � O
O O
EZ7 C m U
C Y C) S.-
0 4f to N m
i m_ 1 O CO
ATTACHMENT 10
c
a
N
d
{ V
— �
)z
z
LU
G
U �
i
Revised Sign Exhibit
as requested by the D.R.B.
■
ATTACHMENT 11
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SIGN APPLICATION 93•-215 (AMENDMENT #1)
LAGUNA DE LA PAZ
DECEMBER 28, 1993
1. The sign shall be a minimum distance of 19'-6' from the back edge of the
existing street curb.
2. The sign will be non -illuminated unless a lighting program is approved by the
Planning Commission (e.g. Sign Adjustment) .
3. The sign colors shall be consistent with the existing color scheme of the
existing signs on Eisenhower Drive.
4. No additional permanent signs will be allowed for the project once this sign is
installed.
5. The monument sign shall be constructed of slumpstone masonry block similar
in size and shape to the perimeter security wall. The sign background shall
be painted white or off-white to match the existing wall. Each upper level
terraced section of the sign should include a masonry cap (e.g. 4-inch)
similar to the sign structures on Eisenhower Drive and the design of the
perimeter security wall.
6. The sign letters shall be flush mounted or raised 1 / 2-inch from the slumpstone
block wall surface (e. g. sandblasting the masonry surface) . The letter
material shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Development.
7. The final construction drawings for the sign shall be approved by the Director
of Planning and Development.
8. A building permit shall be required to construct the sign.
com%pHn. oll
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
December 14, 1993
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who lead
the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioner Abels moved to excuse Commissioner Marrs. Commissioner
Ellson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS -
A. Zonina Ordinance Amendment 93-039; a request of the City to amend Title 9,
Planning and Zoning of the La Quinta Municipal Code regarding minimum house
size and compatibility with residential subdivisions.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. Ms. Chris Clark, STAMKO Development Company, stated her
objection to the ordinance. She stated that they owned land that was not
a part of any pre-existing subdivision and would like to develop their land
to accommodate all income levels. She further stated that the projections
for the Coachella Valley were for a 50 % growth increase for the first time
buyers and "empty nest" buyers and the 1400 minimum square foot house
size would eliminate these people from being able to own a home. Fixed
income people need the smaller house. Ms. Clark felt 1200 square feet
should be the minimum house size.
PC12-14
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
3. Mr. David Darren, representing PriMerit Bank, stated his objections to
the ordinance based on a letter received by the Commission from Mr.
Robert Loewen, stating their legal objections.
4. Mr. Allan Levin, representing Building Industry Association, stated his
objection to the ordinance and expressed his objections to:
a. Development Standards: #1 - the minimum house size is to high
and recommends 1200 square foot.
#5 - objected to having the pedestrian access door being covered.
This would prevent the planting of any trees.
#7 - rain gutters and downspouts should be an architectural and
builders prerogative. This should not be the Planning
Commission's decision.
b. Approval Process: #1 - the precise plan process needs to be
clarified; if the unit has prior approval why does it need additional
approval.
C. Compatibility Review Process: #2.b. - four -point elevations
including adjacent existing units, etc. is asking too much detail.
#2.d. - requiring final landscaping plans at this time is to great an
expense. This should be a conceptual plan only.
d. Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process: #2 -
two story houses being constructed next to existing. This is unfair
if the original builder planned a two story house then the
homeowner of the existing house would have known a two-story
house was planned for that area and the new owner would not be
deviating.
#4 - built -out subdivision garage sizes, obligates you to build only
the same size garage that was previously approved. In addition,
the 100-foot radius around the lot, the Planning Commission
should only address the houses on the same side of the street or on
the opposite side of the street where they face each other.
#5 - requiring the same window and roof material allow for no
variation.
#7 - requiring a 24-inch box tree - the new developer should not
be required to put something in that the previous builder was not
required to do.
#9 - 10 % deviation - this should be a minimum of 25 % .
PC12-14 2
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
#10 - Planning Commission allowed to determine which units can
be built. The City should not be in a place of determining
marketability. It puts the City in a liability situation if the units
cannot be sold.
5. Mr. Michael Marix, representing the Building Industry Association, stated
his objection to staff ignoring their extensive comments on the ordinance
and to allow him only three minutes to address such extensive questions
is not fair. He requested that the Commission continue the matter to
allow more time for everyone to review the ordinance.
6. Ms. Jeannine Robertson, representing some of the North La Quinta
property owners, stated her objection to the Building Industry's
statements. She stated that Inco Homes was building and selling larger
size homes in other areas and proposing smaller ones for La Quinta. She
presented a comparison list of minimum house sizes from the cities of the
Coachella Valley. She stated the North La Quinta property owners
strongly supported this ordinance and asked that the Planning Commission
require the 1400 square foot minimum house size.
7. Ms. Carol May, attorney for STAMKO Development, stated her concern
that, they had not heard of this ordinance before last week and asked that
the Commission continue this matter to give them more time to review the
ordinance.
8. Mr. Bruce Strickland, representing Forecast Homes, stated his objection
to the ordinance as it related to his project directly which is under appeal
to the City at this time. He strongly supported the BIA comments.
9. Commissioner Abels stated he felt the Commission needed to determine
the minimum square foot house size. He agreed with staff, but also
agrees with the STAMKO representatives and felt the deviation should be
10-20 % .
10. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to clarify the requirements for affordable
housing. Staff briefly stated the Commission/Council would set these
requirements during the conditional use permit process. There are no
minimums until that time. Commissioner Ellson asked if the homes would
be subsidized and how do you determine affordability. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated this was determined by criteria set by the State
and each applicant would have to meet these standards. Discussion
followed regarding these requirements.
PC12-14 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
11. Commissioner Adolph asked if these requirement for low income housing
applicants was brought up before or during the application process. Staff
stated the application could not be processed unless this information was
known from the beginning. Discussion followed.
12. Commissioner Ellson asked if affordable housing in the R-1 Zone could
be constructed on smaller lots. Staff stated that this would be determined
through the conditional use permit process. The possibility did exist.
13. Mr. Allan Levin, BIA, asked what would happen to the person who is
making to much money for affordable housing but not enough to buy a
1400 square foot house.
14. Commissioner Adolph stated there was a problem with establishing design
criteria for new developments and for the existing unfinished subdivisions.
He felt there needed to be a method to meet both needs.
15. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the Commission could collectively take a
tour of the area. Staff stated the logistics of doing that would be difficult.
16. Ms. Jeannine Robertson, stated that affordable housing was not the issue
and the Commission needed to deal with the issue of minimum house
sizes.
17. Ms. Chris Clarke, stated her support for the North La Quinta residents
who were in a different situation that she, as they were part of an
unfinished subdivision. She, on the other hand, was trying to build on
vacant land and needed the ability to develop what the market would allow
and provide housing for those who needed smaller houses.
18. Commissioner Ellson asked if a tract could be conditioned in such a way
that those conditions are in existence for the life of the tract. Staff stated
this is what created the problem.
19. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell reminded the Commissioners that the
tracts are governed by conditions the City places on them based on the
Zoning Code adopted by the City. If the Commission wanted to establish
new standards then the Zoning Code would have to be amended.
20. Commissioner Abels asked if individual ordinances were needed to
address the two issues. City Attorney Honeywell stated that one
ordinance was needed with two sections addressing both issues.
PC12-14 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
21. Commissioner Adolph asked if there was a problem with the legality of
the Commission setting these standards. City Attorney Honeywell stated
the Commission had every right to set these standards. Mr. Michael
Marix stated that the issue of regulating downsizing had not yet been
tested in court and yes it did open the City up for possible litigation. City
Attorney Honeywell stated that the property would have to be downgraded
by the City to the point that there was no value for this to be an issue.
22. Commissioner Adolph asked Mr. Strickland how he liked dealing with the
requirements of Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Strickland stated that Rancho
Cucamonga was very difficult to deal with but they allowed the full range
of houses sizes to be built.
23. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff if this item could be continued to a study
session. City Attorney Honeywell stated this was a public hearing and
any discussion would have to be held during a public hearing.
24. Commissioner Ellson questioned the limited amount of exterior materials
and the restriction of wood gates and asked staff what the rationale was
behind it. Staff stated that additional information would be available at
the next meeting.
25. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Ellson to continue this public hearing to the meeting of December
28, 1993. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Street Name Chafe 93-004; a request of Lake La Quinta (Jim LaLoggia) for
approval to change Via Soud to Via Avante.
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. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. As no one wished to address the Commission regarding the
issue, the public hearing was closed.
3. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Abels/Adolph moved
and seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-044
recommending approval of Street Name Change 93-004.
PC12-14 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson,
Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs.
ABSTAIN: None.
C. Tentative 'Tract 27835; a request of TD Desert Development for approval of a
tentative tract map for seven residential air space condominium lots, racquet club
lot, and miscellaneous lots on 36± gross acres.
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 Commission that a condition was going
to be added regarding artifacts until staff found that the specific plan
covered the matter.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked how access to the channel would be
restricted. Staff stated that CVWD had not addressed that.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked if the condition regarding the artifacts was
specific as to how the artifacts would be cared for. Staff stated it would
be specific regarding what type of discovery work would be done on the
east versus what had been done on the west side of the development.
Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that a condition be added
whereby any artifacts found would be held in La Quinta and not sent out
of town. Chairwoman Barrows stated the City needed to consider how
these artifacts would be stored.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was any provision for the storage of
bicycles in the vicinity of the racquet club. Staff stated they were not
aware of any provisions at this time but a condition could be added to the
plot plan (PP 93-516).
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the parking for the pool will be in a central
location and if the pool and tennis club would be open to the Casita
members. Staff stated they would defer to the applicant.
6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Chuck Strother stated he was in agreement with
all the conditions.
PC12-14 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
7. Mr. Strother went on to answer the above questions. He stated that any
screening of the evacuation channel would have to be approved by CVWD
and at present they have not done any land planning for this portion of the
tract. They would probably plant the channel as part of the golf course
to the east with the planting going up to the backyards of the homes. If
any portion was sold then they might install boundary walls.
8. Mr. Strother stated that in reference to the racquet club and the associated
amenities, that all the amenities were for the exclusive use of all owners
of Rancho La Quinta and the golf members.
9. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the development was planned so that
bicycles could be ridden throughout. Mr. Strother stated they were
included in the circulation plan and he would have no problems with a
condition being added requiring bicycle racks, since they were planning
on providing them anyway.
10. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any provision for the use of golf
carts instead of vehicles for the internal circulation. Mr. Strother stated
they would encourage it and the streets would accommodate it.
11. There being no further questions, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public
hearing.
12. Commissioner Ellson asked if staff had any problem with the parking.
Staff stated they did not.
13. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Adolph/Abels to recommend approval of Tentative Tract
27835 to the City Council by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution
93-045.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson,
Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for approval to amend Condition #36
regarding the dedication of Washington Street right-of-way.
l . Planning Director Jerry Herman stated that staff had received a request of
the applicant to continue this matter to the Commission's meeting of
January 11, 1994.
PC12-14 7
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
2. Commissioner Adolph asked if any further discussion had been held with
the applicant regarding what had been given to them. Staff stated they
had not.
3. Commissioner Abels asked what would happen if the Commission denied
the request. Staff stated the applicant would be in default with the
conditions and staff would have to consult with the City Attorney.
Discussion followed.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant was conditioned to contribute
to the construction of the corner and if it was done in two phases would
it not be more expensive. Staff stated it would be more expensive.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Commissioners
Abels/Adolph moved to continue Plot Plan 93-495 to January 11, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 93-51 6; a request of TD Desert Development for 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.
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 that a condition be added requiring bicycle
storage.
3. Mr. Strother stated he was available to answer any questions.
4. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern about approving the plot plan
without seeing a more detailed plan. Discussion followed regarding the
food service area, columns, dormer vents, and whether the item should be
continued. Mr. Strother stated his need to have approval so he could
proceed with his project. Commissioner determined that a conceptual
approval could be made with progress drawings submitted at a later date.
PC12-14 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Ellson/Abels to approve Plot Plan 93-516 by the adoption
of Minute Motion 93-054, with the addition of a condition requiring
bicycle storage and with progress drawings be resubmitted. Unanimously
approved.
B. Sign Application 93-225; a request of Norwest Financial, Inc. for approval of a
corporate sign for Norwest Financial.
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 Abels asked if the height of the letters was the same as the
other tenants. Staff stated it was.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked what the width of the tenant's building was.
Staff stated they were uncertain but the sign did not take up the entire
width of the frontage as only 75 % was allowed.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked that staff supply the Commission with photos
of the buildings and the adjoining buildings when presented with this type
of request.
5. Mr. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign Company, stated he was available to answer
any questions of the Commission. Commissioners asked if the banners
were only temporary. Mr. Engle stated they were for temporary
identification only.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Adolph to approve Sign Application 93-225 by
adoption of Minute Motion 93-055. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of November 23, 1993, Commissioners
Ellson/Adolph moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
VH. OTHER
Commissioners discussed with staff items that could be discussed during the study session
period.
PC12-14 9
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
Commissioner Ellson asked that staff look into having "signs" added to the agenda for the
Planning Commissioners Institute Conference in March, 1994. Staff reminded the
Commissioners that only three Commissioners would be allowed to attend.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Abels to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
December 18, 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 8:50 P.M., December 14, 1993.
PC12-14 10
44 -215 V! 1 !eta Dr ,
La Quinta, CA 92253
December 17, 1993
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 9225:--;
Attention: Mayor John Peha and City Council Members
Subject: Real Estate Column by Bradley Inman
Dear Mayor PeKa -
The enclosed editoLial from the Real Estate section of the
December 12th issup of the Los Angeles Times also appeared in
The Deseit Sun on the pi evious day. Its contents seemed to me tc
he directly apropos to our current situation here in La Quinta.
The obseivatioDs made by Mr. Inman appear to be well founded and
make sense. He obviously has his fingers an the pulse of the
California housing situation.
if, as he nuncludes, current lower interest rates and larger
families are motivating IT households to buy bigger homes, why
are we, as an upscale community, giving the time of day to
opportunists like Forecast Homes, who are demanding the "right''
to glut uur fair city with 1100 square foot cracker -box homes?
1 urge yoj to keep the contents A Mr. Inman's column firmly in
mind as you review and enact the pending Development Standards
and Compatibility Roview ordinances that you have before you.
t'
Very kruly youns,
Li
obey! T. 711or
cc: Mr. Jerry Herman,
Planning Director
Ma Katie Barrows,
Plarini'ag
Us Angeles Mimes
SECTION
I
I�
SUNDAY
DECEMBER 12, 1993 ❑
CALIFORNIA TRENDS
Once Shunned,
the `Big House'
Is Coming Back
By BRADLEY INMAN
SPECIAL TO THE TIMES
The small, stripped -down house that
many real estate experts expected to
be the standard for the 1990s in
California may be giving way to a larger
house.
There are signs that lower interest rates
and larger families are motivating many
households to buy bigger homes.
Even California's first-time home buy-
ers, who in the past have been strapped
getting into the real estate market at all,
are finding they can buy more house
because of falling mortgage rates and
because of new house plans that boast
both size and value.
Several developers are producing a new
line of entry-level homes that are more
spacious but still modest in style and that
are affordable.
f or example, developer Ira Norris is
producing three new models from 1,887 to
3,010 square feet in Murrieta that are
priced from $132,990 to $168,990. Houses
of that size are usually built to meet the
demand of more affluent move -up home
buyers but because of the price and
today's low interest rates, half of the new
homeowners are first-time buyers, ac-
cording to Norris, who heads INCO
Homes, Upland.
Los Angeles -based Kaufman & Broad
Home Corp. will soon be introducing its
"big value" home in 12 locations across
California with floor sizes up to 2,500
square feet. "We aren't increasing the
number of bedrooms, but just making
everything bigger," said K&B Vice Presi-
dent Eric Elder.
The housing industry watches K&B and
INCO closely because in the late 1980s the
Please see HOUSES, K2
HOUSES: Buyers Want More
Continued from HI
two firms bucked industry trends
by pioneering low-cost starter
homes at a time when most build-
ers were building expensive,
move -up houses.
When the market turned south
in the early 1990s and big homes
were out of favor, the two compa-
nies dial well -with their stripped -
down, entry-level homes with an
average size of only 1,100 to 1,500
square feet. It wasn't long before
most other builders began to jump
into the entry-level market with
more modest floor plans.
Norris is quick to point out that
his larger home models aren't a
return to the gold-plated, move -up
houses of the 1980s. But he is using
size to distinguish INCO in the
crowded entry-level market. His
three models are marketed as the
"big, bigger and biggest"
house.
"This [bigger model] isn't in lieu
of the entry-level market, it's a
segment of it," Elder said. He
expects some of the buyers to be
moving -up from a condo or town -
home, knowing exactly what
size and type of house they want
next.
"Everybody likes space if they
can get it and they can afford it,"
said Mitchell Rouda, editor of
Builder magazine, Washington,
D.C. As the baby boom population
has children, they require more
space, consequently "we have
never seen such a need for family
housing," he said.
Santa Barbara architect Barry
Berkus agrees that families are the
motivation for "blowing up these
small houses." And there is a
specific plan for where the space is
being added: bigger bedrooms
the children.
Instead of a "little 10-by-
utility room for the kids, we
designing bigger spaces for t
children," said Berkus. With col
puters and electronic games, th
spend more time indoors and ne
more room, he said.
"Parents don't necessarily wa
to give up the master-bedroc
suite, but they may be feeling
little guilty about putting their ki
in these little bedrooms," Eld
said.
Another trend with the larg
homes is a more flexible flo
plan that gives buyers some choir
es in how rooms will be configure,
Now even in (mass -product
subdivisions] "buyers can sit dow
before a computer and actual.
choose where walls will be ar
how rooms will be configured
said Berkus. This trend towai
customizing homes in large subd:
visions is made possible with corr.
puter-designed home constructio
techniques.
Berkus says this is necessar
because people are staying in the:
homes longer and because th
bigger homes will often be thel
first and their last house.
"These are houses that peopl
are going to grow into and nc
merely invest in temporarily," sai
Gary Hambly, president of th
Building Industry Assn. of North
ern California.
Inman is a syndicated real estat,
writer basked in Oakland.
DEC. 21, 1993
CITY OF LA QUINTA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
78-495 CALLE TAMPICO
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTN: JERRY HERMAN, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: LA QUINTA VISTAS TRACT 23269 (PHASE 7)
LOTS 70-72, 166-173, 175, 177-181, AND 233-244
DEAR CITY STAFF,
AS PER YOUR REQUEST, WE ARE SUBMITTING OUR COMMENTS TO
THE PROPOSED PLANS OF CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES FOR THE
ABOVE REFERENCED CITY LOTS. WE FEEL THAT THE FOLLOWING
CONCERNS MUST BE ADDRESSED FOR THE PROJECT TO HAVE SOME
COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EXISTING HOMES:
1. ALL FENCING BETWEEN THE HOUSES MUST BE BLOCK WHICH
IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BLOCK USED ON THE EXISTING
HOMES. THIS WOULD INCLUDE REPLACING THE EXISTING
WOODEN FENCE BORDERING THE BACK OF LOTS 245 THRU
251 WITH MATCHING BLOCK.
2. ALL GATES SHOULD BE DECORATIVE IRON WHICH IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE MOST IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT
EXISTING HOMES.
3. GARAGE SIZES NEED TO BE OF A MINIMUM SUCH THAT THEY
CAN ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST TWO (2) FULL-SIZE CARS
(I.E. 20' X 20'). IN ADDITION, THE DRIVEt+;AYS MUST
HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 24' FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO
THE GARAGE.
4. A THIRD CAR GARAGE OPTION SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE
PLAN NOS. 4, 5, AND 5L. THE OPTION WOULD RETAIN THE
MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PROPOSED OF 1,818, 2,010, AND
2,467, RESPECTIVELY. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT
THESE PROPOSED MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AREAS ARE
BASED ON THE HOME HAVING AT LEAST A 2 CAR GARAGE.
5. ALL GARAGES SHOULD HAVE ROLL -UP :METAL GARAGE DOORS.
WHERE APPROPRIATE, A DECORATIVE DESIGN DOOR PACKAGE
SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS AN OPTION TO THE BUYER.
6. '-'HE BACKLIGHTED STREET ADDRESS SHOULD BE DELETED AND
REPLACED WITH AN ADDRESS WHICH IS LIGHTED CONSISTENT
WITH THE EXISTING HOMES.
7. THE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPING SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM
STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING HOMES. THAT
IS, THE FRONT YARD SHOULD HAVE LANDSCAPING WHICH IS
SOMEWHAT MATURE, DECORATIVE, AND SUFFICIENTLY
IRRIGATED TO INSURE IT'S SURVIVAL.
8. GRADING FOR THE EXISTING LOTS SHOULD PLACE THE HOMES
AT CONSISTENT ELEVATIONS AND DRAINAGE PATTERNS TO
THE ALREADY COMPLETED PROPERTIES. FOR EXAMPLE, SOME
LOTS WILL REQUIRE CUT SO THAT THE HOUSE ELEVATIONT
DOES NOT END UP BEING T00 HIGH AS COMPARED TO THE
EXISTING BLOCK WALLS, SIDEWALKS, AND OTHER EXISTING
PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS. FINISH LOT ELEVATIONS SHOULD
BE SURVEYED AND SET BY STAFF TO INSURE PROPER
GRADING. AFTER SETTING THE DESIGN, THE LOTS SHOULD
BE STAKED ACCORDINGLY BY A PROFESSIONAL LAND
SURVEYOR. HOUSE BUILDING SHOULD COMMENCE ONLY AFTER
THE LOTS HAVE BEEN GRADED AND COMPACTED SUFFICIENTLY
TO MEET THE DESIGN. THIS CONDITION IS OFTEN NOT
MONITORED CLOSELY ENOUGH TO INSURE THAT CONSTRUCTION
PROCEEDS ACCORDING TO DESIGN. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THAT Iti THIS CASE, OR IN THE CASE OF ANY IN -
FILL DEVELOPMENT, THAT THIS CONDITION OF LOT GRADING
BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO.
9. A POOL PACKAGE SHOULD BE OFFERED AS AN OPTION TO
AGAIN ALLOW NEW HOME BUYERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STAY
CONSISTENT WITH MANY OF THE AREA HOMES.
THE ABOVE COMMENTS ASSUME THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSE PLANS
ARE SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING CENTURY HOMES, I.E.
STUCCO FINISH, TILE ROOF, ETC. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO A
FULL DESIGN REVIEW AS WE DID NOT RECEIVE PROPER NOTICE OF THE
DATES FOR COMMENT AND MEETING. WE RECEIVED LESS THAN A TWO
(2) WEEK NOTICE FOR EITHER OF OUR RIGHTS TO REVIEW AND
COMMENT. WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE MEETING DATE
BE POSTPONED AND AREA RESIDENTS RE -NOTICED TO ALLOW FOR THE
PROPER REVIEW.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT US AT YOUR
EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
JEROME KURTIK
78-580 VILLETA DR.
345-9121
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
NANCY KURTIK
C.C. LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION
GREG TROUSDALE, ASSOC. PLANNER