The URL can be used to link to this page

1994 01 11 PC��,�f Icy �a 2u�in�a PI��7!1TIVI C01►.M7SSI0N A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California January 11, 1994 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 94-001 Beginning Minute Motion 94-001 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27899 (FORMERLY TT 23519) Applicant .......... Santa Rosa Developers Location ........... Southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street Request ............ Approval of a subdivision of approximately 30 acres into I I I single family residential lots with a public street system. Action ............. Resolution 94- 2. Item ............... CONTINUED - 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 February 22, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City Manning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............... SIGN APPROVAL 93-235 Applicant .......... Palm Royale Country Club/Dave Evans Location ........... Southeast comer of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street. Request ............ Approval of a freestanding golf course and restaurant sign. Action ............. Minute Motion 94- 2. Item ............... CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004 Applicant .......... Carl's Jr. Restaur, Mr. Wade A. Goding, Project Manager Location ........... 78-672 Highway 111 (One Eleven La Quinta Center) Request ............ Approval to allow the existing corporate sign for the newly built Carl's Jr. restaurant to remain instead of repainting the channel letter returns matte black pursuant to the adopted sign pprogram for the One Eleven La Quinta shopping center. Action ............. M(inute Motion 94- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 28, 1993. OTHER 1. Discussion of the City Council's proposed action regarding the Design Review Board. ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- STUDY SESSION Monday, January 10, 1994 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items. PC/AGENDA PH # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 APPLICANT / OWNER: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPERS ENGINEER: ESGATE ENGINEERING PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27899 (FORMERLY TT 23519) LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND ADAM STREET (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2 TO 4 AC/DU) EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL FOR TRACT 23519 ON NOVEMBER 15, 1988. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FROM THE ORIGINAL PROJECT, THUS ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THIS REQUEST. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES INTO 111 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. NET DENSITY: 4.04 UNITS PER ACRE (NET ACREAGE = 27.5 ACRES) LOT SIZES: MINIMUM LOT SIZE = APPROXIMATELY 7,200 SQUARE FEET (7,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED BY CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: PREVIOUSLY AN AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER (SANTA ROSA DEVELOPERS) TO ACCEPT STORMWATER. AGREEMENT WILL BE RENEWED. ON -SITE CIRCULATION: THE ROAD SYSTEM ALLOWS FOR FOUR ACCESS LINKS TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT EAST OF THIS PROJECT. INTERNAL CIRCULATION CONSISTS OF CUL-DE-SAC STREETS SERVED BY A COLLECTOR STREET. STAFFRPT.026 OFF -SITE CIRCULATION: MILES AVENUE WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL AT 110 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH AN 18 FOOT WIDE RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN. CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP: SANTA ROSA DEVELOPERS BACKGROUND: This proposed tract was previously approved as Tentative Tract 23519 (Attachment No. 2), in 1988, with a Minor Change approved in 1990 (Attachment No. 3) . That tract approval has expired prior to recordation. The applicant has applied to have the same tract design approved without any changes other than a new tract number being issued (Attachment No. 4) . The original map created 107 lots. The Minor Change that was approved in 1990, increased the number of lots to 111. Other changes that were approved include: 1. A future link road to the property to the northeast of the tract; 2. Removal of an emergency access along Miles Avenue; 3. Elimination of the cul-de-sacs at the end of Desert Stream Drive ("H' street) and Ashley Place ("I" Street) and provision of links to the adjacent property (TT 25363); 4. Elimination of an existing retention basin and utilization of the large retention basin proposed in the adjoining tract (TT 25363), for stormwater collection; 5. The creation of a remainder portion on the northeast side of the tract that will be included in the adjoining tract in the future; Tract 23519 went through the final map process and was approved by City Council on March 19, 1991. However, the property owner did not record the map. Street names were approved by staff, the Fire Department, and Sheriff's Department during the final map check for this tract. ANALYSIS: The renumbered tentative tract map is still compatible with the development policies and goals of the La Quinta General Plan. The zoning of the property has not changed and the land division is consistent with the R-1 zoning requirements. The environmental assessment that was prepared and certified for the original tract map is still valid, and no further study is warranted for this proposed tract (Attachment No. 5) . The Engineering Department has revised several conditions of approval due to changes in language in their conditions. The requirements for street improvements and other infrastructure are basically the same as approved in the Minor Change. STAFFRPT.026 FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of Tentative Tract 27899 can be made and found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 94-_, recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis, and approval of Tentative Tract 27899, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Originally approved Tentative Tract 23519 3. Approved amended Tentative Tract Map 23519 4. Proposed Tentative Tract 27899 - (reduction) 5. Environmental Assessment 88-098 6. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 7. Recommended Conditions of Approval for TT 27899 8. Large Exhibit - TT 27899 (Commissioners and Staff Only) STAFFRPT.026 ATTACHMENT No. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA QUINTA 0 MLES AVENUE cAsE Nm TT 27899 or, '•��/////i Wall, w;rEq/ON�/i�iyi�i/ni, SANTA ROSA DEVELOPERS ORTH SCALE: NTS I .1 �yy W Nh OOu at A f p�f qv` vim, fi. g .� fOdC 2�u_ QWi Suet i Wf Nn � Q2 �` fy W � i►0 , J W �=CL ��`OSE � 3U W� as tfiG -41 i� > p +� O � C LL }�- C ) O e3 CD f!p O �: 21 a ° mit mQ •i o � O � aWf 2fo vi �OQ 4i any J + N ♦viQ h f ;ta O_\2y'- ;�W N �2f W 4 ---- zz:zza:::aaa:9ss:.::sss7sa__sas$aS3 Sa$SSR$R!R$R99p$Y7l7RR�j$$�e�S$$�RR�R 119:::2S7:SSR:l:i:t:l29:::272:72l.c:t S$$gRAR!!S4$$S7R$lR7�A44$$74.�Rl79R: _•••••••• _______:_:t.7CiCECISRalSili: D� A TTA ;HMENT NO. 2 f wt �W C 11 9e AtM � r y uo pw f j � fj W a. eapp' �U lD 8 O 7- Z �u m> m a ATTA.u"HMENT Mn 3 c I • 4 ari � Q � y a as .447at a� ; � ►G A30 AMMAN 7 9NINNV1d � V1NInt) dl A0 A110 1~ 0661 w i (33AI3338 x v 4 3 M ttteea7:uf9uugotrrae{q�titaita Tot, ttla9falflflttggataitt9t7799lGlttatts A_........•-..,,,,,.tzraRnattattaataa AMENDED MAP i � �� 1 ; :� jig '• i ww 3 -�rr N all goo i ! -ra • J 1 TOC'4,0--C TOT n i ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Q �O\ {i papV J V k Y `; tp pN R M i �i `• 4 \. YA 1.I•i� � C y uJ V AO 4 g • —t it i oa 83 S 79 al • � �o n W g''�`o W yJ� VJ 1• � ya.� Wye. Cy" W nr�, Q ti JfL YY V Wtn vi' n\ ZN g iN V pj qil 1 b1S /I► I \n�. :Wi, �.0 Q yQ W 2 1.0 �p NJ N ♦• W •OC iI iACLI ~ ;y W� �WY' VN VG W\ Z. �cR \ SW .. �quuQ Wl J �i V m jell � NaY� �ppv0 W �tWt2t : a`i t �.N F :Q V v Z LA = =tw C ` Wi ti N : O i,t • ............. ............t8tflt!! ea�etfiaaaat:atfsa:ata:afa�galaa5lEea s'1?' lli±i3ixF?41iltil�liaRiYl�t5�!litttf; _—) issiaai!i!tetaleatisagealei�t:��4�!!&6 ur.::assafafafaaaaafffafaasaafffcaaa Slitllaa!!11�1�1�J,lB,!tl��lijiLrilEyi!1 •• si• _is= s3= _ alaitlle---------- -i[dt ......latetaa ---•-•--•f:a:s:a:fsf:aasaaafta:saaaa4 =1 CITY OF 1A QUTAPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND AUTACHMENT NO 1. Name of Proponent: �� r< 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1 6Z43 G.Z;?jrm {o v CA v�z� 3. Date of Checklist: 1 8 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or x overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface X relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, IX inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- x slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of 14 . 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 44 Yes Ma be No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation X systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation X or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? x b. Police protection? X c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? r Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? k Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? �( c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? ?( Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? x Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological historical or building? or site. structure, object ____ Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION Date: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. /tit, L-e-'u,'Lt`S Signature Y 0 Vt eta-- T,.�_ `Tcvn CA-- ---- -� ' c.->iI.-A/--.e--- S��e u��t's�r1-I -X- �t _cam -_ Au •� e -- - - - - -- - - I ffmpje-c--t7 c,�.s Ala Ol. A h IL Le -- ---- -- -- 'cx:- ..e, - - -- ---- d��`^-' . of . - ------ --- -- - --------- ---- --- ---- - -- - �►�� rlor d��A Uf ��e �'^ �-�-c�. ao►�e V V Cat C L.:% r-v� Nems __ovo� AA UP46- -V4:vL Nr,,�o cDcoL ��■ fir. -------- -----�1_Ms__��25�_s�il �••l�cx��ce a w1 I wmvlw_ �► T tom- r - _ii . 1. % n /f4--� • 1 ift e- l.n i / --s 44L• i -"�--' -v�- --- -------''��-------�-�y------'--------'---'----- - ----'------ -------- -------' m wl FA mli"hllov AT 4' i; �-_. I e t',--\ _ s n�vn '1-1� ov� . T<--D �e c� - ca m I 'tt (0,A-A- NA-GtACCM 0 n-A GLGGe/1_0 f J�- cA- W1tMVM 6 <`n 1-e�eec%►1¢D^, s�za. c` /-\ _ (-4:::A- Ago i - _ � mot.. ��► _ _ d�.� =r_ �-- � �.. � �-, ------ — --- G - -- - _ L11�_��r" ue� T i FM I < i � � -`� �� I c� it � _ I_ : �,�-• �✓. p — - - I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 27899 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON A 30+ ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 27899 - SANTA ROSA DEVELOPERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La quinta, California, did, on the 11th day of January, 1994, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Santa Rosa Developers to approve Tentative Tract 27899, generally located at the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Adams Street, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER AND THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; AND THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director previously conducted an initial study in 1988, and previously assessed that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for tentative tract 27899, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract 27899. RESOPC.001 1. That Tentative tract No. 27899 conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quintal General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation :requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall slope going from the western to the eastern side of the property. The proposed circulation design and single-family lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative tract Map 27899 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 27899 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 27899, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 27899, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; RESOPC.001 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 the conclusion that a new Environmental Assessment is not needed and Environmental Assessment 88-098 approved with the former Tentative Tract 23519 is adequate. 3. That it does :hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 27899 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this llth day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.001 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMEN. TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract 27899 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 two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by the approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - 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, 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. 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.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 Ji'ANUARY 11, 1994 6. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Planning and development Department for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for testing archaeological sites; 2) allow sharing of information with the City; 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant cultural deposits are present; and 4) require the curation of all recovered cultural material with the City through a Deed of Gift agreement. 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 recommendations resulting from the testing activities. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor (s) , cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant (s) /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 area 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. 7. 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 final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 8. Applicant shall enter into agreement with the City prior to recording the final map to maintain the perimeter parkway lots along Miles Avenue and Adams Street until the City Engineer accepts them for maintenance by the City. In no event will the City accept the parkway lots for maintenance until the lots within the subject tract are included on the tax assessment roll and producing tax revenue to the City Lighting and Landscaping District. S. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit or any land disturbing activities, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 10. 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 of obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 11. 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. 12. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others. Deferred improvements for this tract include: A. Traffic signal at Miles and Adams - the applicant is responsible for 20% of the cost to design and construct. The applicant's responsibility for deferred improvements may be satisfied through participation in a City major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 DEDICATIONS 13. 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. Miles Avenue - half of 110-foot right of way B . Adams Street - half of 80-foot 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. 14. The applicant shall dedicate common -area setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Miles Avenue - 20 feet B . Adams Street - 10 feet 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. 15. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting the streets: A. Miles Avenue B . Adams Street Access to these streets shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency access locations. 16. 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. 17. 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. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 18. The requirements of the City's off-street parking ordinance shall be met concerning all supplemental accessory facilities. 19. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code by paying parkland fees in -lieu of parkland as determined in accordance with said Section. GRAVING 20. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.10, 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. 21. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 22. 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. 23. 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 plain 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. 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. DRATNAGE 24. 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 CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 historic drainage relief route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. 25. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on site or in alternate facilities on adjacent property. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. If alternate off -site retention facilities are proposed, the applicant shall execute a written agreement with the owners of said adjacent property and shall provide evidence of the agreement to the City Engineer prior to the City's approval of drainage plans for this development. 26. 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 The sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. 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. 27. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. 28. The applicant shall install dry wells at selected locations as approved by the City Engineer to remove nuisance water from street gutters. Dry wells shall be located in a manner to intercept nuisance water at tributary flowline distances not to exceed 1,320 feet. Surface drainage systems shall not require crossgutters on local collector streets. UTILITIES 29. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 30. 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 for utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 31. 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. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Miles Avenue (Primary Arterial) - applicant is responsible for half' of 86-foot improvement with 18-foot raised landscape median plus a six-foot sidewalk. 2) Adams Street (Secondary Arterial) - applicant is responsible for half' of 64-foot improvement plus a six-foot sidewalk. Adams Street shall be designed to the ultimate grade desired by the City for the area between Miles Avenue and Westward Ho Drive. The full required improvement shall be constructed along the frontage of this development. B . ON -SITE STREETS 1) Cul-de-sacs -- 36-foot curb -to -curb improvement within a 50-foot right of way. The applicant shall dedicate five -foot -wide public utility easements outside the right of way on both sides. 2) All :remaining streets - 40-foot curb -to -curb improvement within a 60-foot right of way. The applicant shall dedicate five -foot -wide public utility easements outside the right of way on both sides of all interior streets. Initially, one publicly -maintained road shall be provided connecting this development to Adams Street, Miles Avenue, or Dune Palms Road. Prior to issuance of the 31st Occupancy Permit for the development, a second such publicly -maintained road shall be provided. 36. The termination point of the streets shown as Diane Drive, Victoria Drive, Desert Stream Drive, and Ashley Place on Exhibit "A" (Tentative Tract Map) , shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. If the road network for the adjoining tracts have been constructed and completed, then the above streets shall be constructed to connect with these subdivisions, in accordance with the approved street improvement plans and the requirements of the City Engineer. LANDSCAPING 37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the following streets: A . Miles Avenue B . Adams Street CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 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. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department and interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and, c. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blowsand. 39. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. c. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 40. 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 and Development Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 41. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 42. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location and passenger waiting shelter along the following street (s) : A. The precise location and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 43. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 44. 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. 45. 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. MAINTENANCE 46. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and related improvements. 47. 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. FEES AND DEPOSITS 48. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. FIRE 46. Schedule "Ali fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6' x 4" x 22" x 22") 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. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for 2 hours duration at 20 psi. 50. 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. 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." 51. 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. 52. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to -the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. TRACT DESIGN 53. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be required along Miles Avenue; a minimum 10-foot setback along Adams street. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or cuvilinear wall design is used. b . Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 8, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 54. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 55. All dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-ways of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. No two story dwelling units shall be permitted on lots abutting Tracts 26188 and 25363, located to the east of Tract 27899. 56. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities b . Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage C. On -site advertising/construction signs 57. The applicant shall submit complete detailed or architectural elevations for all units, for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item prior to building permit issuance. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the CC & R's (if any) . The latter shall be submitted to the Planning and Development: Department for review. 58. Prior to the 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 and mitigation measures of TT 27899 and Environmental Assessment 88-098, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 88-098 and TT 27899 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessments 88-098 and TT 27899. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 59. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District as stated in their letter dated December 21, 1993, attached to these conditions. Any necessary parcels for district facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. MISCELLANEOUS 60. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.012 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMEND TENTATIVE TRACT 27899 JANUARY 11, 1994 61. Prior to issuance of the first 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. CONAPRVL.012 W ATeR ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ��STRIG� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX low • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHYM DELAY December 21, 1993 REDWINEAND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS THEODORE J FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quints, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 DEC 29 iSy� t 1 Subject: Tentative Tract 27899, Portion of the Southwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area lies on the sandy area in the northern portion of La Quinta and is 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. 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. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission -2- December 21, 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, "4—.0, 'Ov_�� d"7 Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:lmf/e3/TT27899 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACHELLA VAllEV WATER DISTRICT STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 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 This matter was originally scheduled for the December 14, 1993, Commission meeting. The applicant requested a continuance to January 11, 1994. Prior to this meeting a request for a continuance was received. The applicant has requested an extension to February 22, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: Continue the public hearing to February 22, 1994. PCST.160 1 fling Developffert, TE-L 11,1c. .714-361-3374 J -- n 5,94 7 : 52 h,o . C0 I P . C' -1 Mr Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of %a QuInta La Quiny'a SENT BY FACSIMILE Sth January, lt,494 Dear Jerry, On the ]AV, Janu�ryj Simon Plaza 15 On the Planning Commission age -Ida and unfortunately due to so-,.ne unforeseen circumstanceso I wD11 be out of town for a significant part of Jaivary. I am therefore requesting that we move tine Sim:)n Plaza ple-nninp., commission meeting to mid February, I apologize for any incon -,;,c, ni once and thank you for your assiptarice in this atter. 'j r Yo . sincerely, Philip M. Pead President P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HWY., 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 a PH.; 619177.3-2345 * FAX: 6191563-4567 BI # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 CASE: SIGN APPROVAL 93-235 APPLICANT / OWNER: PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB/DAVE EVANS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FREESTANDING GOLF COURSE AND RESTAURANT SIGN LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND WASHINGTON STREET GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR - 12 TO 16 DU/AC) EXISTING ZONING: R-3-2, 800, R-3-20, 000, AND R-5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THIS REQUEST IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15311 (A) WHICH EXEMPTS ON -PREMISE SIGNS BACKGROUND: Palm Royale Country Club has applied to the City for review and approval of a permanent freestanding monument sign to be placed near the southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street (Attachment No. 1) . In the past, the club has relied on temporary banners, flags, and illegal signs to advertise their golf and restaurant facilities to the public. The applicant now desires to have an approved permanent sign. REQUEST: The applicant originally submitted a request for a 12-foot high v-shaped sign. Staff requested that the sign be lower as 8-feet is the maximum allowed by the sign Ordinance. Subsequently, a revised exhibit was submitted (Attachment No. 2 ) which features a total height of 6-feet. The sign is a freestanding monument sign with a v-shape and two sign faces. The base is a 2-foot high painted v-shaped concrete base with a teal accent strip around the top. The base is 8-feet by 3-feet for each arm of the "v" . Staff is recommending that each "arm" be reduced to 6-feet in length. The sign will have reversed vinyl lettering ranging from 2-inches high to 9-inches high as depicted in Attachment No. 3. A lucite or plexiglass inlay will be used for the sign display area. The backdrop is pressure -treated wood. STAFFRPT.025 The colors proposed for the sign are burgundy, teal, and misty beige. These colors are similar to the colors used on the project entry sign located approximately 1600- feet east of the intersection, on Fred Waring Drive. Color samples have been provided. Lighting for the sign is to be ground mounted, 160 watt incandescent spots. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the revised exhibits which more closely meet the sign ordinance requirements for such a sign. However, under Section 9.212.030F(3) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows the Planning Commission to approve an alternative location upon making certain findings, a sign adjustment will also need to be approved as the ordinance permits such signs at project entrances only. This sign is not at the Palm Royale entrance which is located on Fred Waring Drive, approximately 1600-feet east of the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street. The sign is located on privately -owned property within the country club, out of the public right-of- way. The Sign Regulations (9.212) allows the approval of a sign adjustment providing the Planning Commission can make one or more findings as stated in the ordinance. staff recommends that the following findings can be made to permit approval of a sign adjustment for this application: 9.212.030F(1a): "To allow a sign compatible with other conforming signs in the vicinity;" 9.212.030F(3) : "On -site. To transfer area from one wall to another wall or to a freestanding sign upon the finding that such alternative location is necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by an unfavorable orientation of the front wall to the street or parking lot or an exceptional setback;" Staff agrees that signage is needed for the restaurant and golf course and that the proposed sign and its location may be suitable, provided the arm width is reduced to 6-feet and the recommended conditions are met. Staff is concerned with the space behind the sign and suggests that some sort of low shrubs be planted to fill in this area. In addition, the sign should be consistent with the existing entry sign in materials as well as colors. The existing sign has a wooden background and the lettering consists of both block style and script style. Staff recommends that the proposed sign have same lettering style as the existing sign, but that the potential maintenance issue with either a wood background or a lucite background is about the same. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATIONS: On December 15, 1993, staff presented this request to the Design Review Board for their consideration. The Board inquired about the lucite insert panel and its durability in the desert environment. The applicant responded that the sign maker guaranteed that it would not yellow or become brittle with age. Glare and reflectiveness from the ground -mounted spot lights that would illuminate the sign was also a concern. Staff responded that the applicant would be required to submit a lighting plan as called for in Condition No. 5. The lucite panel will have a matte finish that will reduce any glare. ST"FRPT.025 2 The Board did not recommend any changes in the design of the sign. A unanimous recommendation of approval was issued by the Board. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute motion 94- recommend approve Sign Application 93-235 with a sign adjustment, subject to attached findings and conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Exhibit A - Revised 3. Exhibit B STAFFRPT.0253 z 0 itu } I� F 731y Y �TCiN PRKrpRiES — ---- - -- © C===== - - ---� LAMP Po5T FWD WAJU M G M VE, s v Attachment Nc 1 oc Z 3 Attachment h 4 . .A, ^Q' fi1,.. _1 i'.. ��!'„u^k'!gt�?,.k� ,�` �..�'r ;�� 'z`0•^h, �^i�,t�'°ki�� Wit � •r�1" S'`f i� '� e wml..j 1W A FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPROVAL 93-235 PALM ROYALE COUNTRY CLUB JANUARY 11, 1994 FINDINGS: A. This project is exempt under Section 15311(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act due to it being an on -premise sign. B . The adjustment for location is justified as permitted in Section 9.212.030F(la and 3) of the Zoning Ordinance. CONDITIONS: 1. Signage shall be limited to the one freestanding sign depicted on Exhibit "A - Revised". Any additional signage shall be submitted for approval of the Planning and Development Department pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9.212, Sign Regulations. 2. The applicant shall plant low- growing shrubs (5 gallon) in the open "v" space behind the sign. 3. The lettering style of the sign shall match that on the existing project entrance sign. 4. The length of the sign shall be reduced from 8-feet to 6-feet for each of the arms of the "v" . 5. The applicant shall submit a landscaping, irrigation and lighting plan that addresses any modifications or additions to the existing irrigation system, new lighting for the sign, and required landscaping for the sign as called for in Condition No. 2. 6. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building & Safety Department prior to installation of the sign. CONAPRVL. 010 3 s N N� d a I.^ ISM R BI #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 11, 1994 CASE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-004; CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT REPRESENTATIVE: WADE A. GODING, PROJECT MANAGER REQUEST: TO ALLOW THE EXISTING CORPORATE SIGNS FOR THE NEWLY BUILT CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT TO REMAIN INSTEAD OF REPAINTING THE CHANNEL LETTER RETURNS MATTE BLACK PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: 78-672 HIGHWAY 111 (ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved the request to construct a fast food restaurant on Pad I-1 of the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center on January 12, 1993. The Planning Commission approved the location, size and number of signs for the restaurant during the review of the project. A sign adjustment was granted for the menu -board sign abutting the drive-thru lane. In November, 1993, Coast Sign, Incorporated of Anaheim acquired permission to install the project signs for Carl's Jr. The signs were installed after the permits were issued . On December 3, 1993, staff reviewed the on -site signs during their request for final occupancy of the building. A correction notice was written identifying that the channel letter returns of each of the building signs are not painted matte black pursuant to the adopted sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. On January 5, 1994, staff received a letter from Mr. Goding, representing Carl's Jr., requesting that the returns of the existing sign letters be left white because they are a corporate or nationally recognized business. Master Sign Program 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: STAFFRPT.027 - 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% of sign area (maximum) Note: National or regional tenants with more than five outlets will be allowed to use their standard sign if approved by 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. ANALYSIS: As previously noted, national or regional tenants are allowed to utilize their standard sign design if it is approved by the Planning Commission. Payless Shoes, Clothestime, Baskin -Robbins, McDonalds, AM/PM Mini -Mart and Norwest Financial were also granted minor exceptions to the adopted sign program because they were national chain organizations. In reviewing the existing signs, staff feels that the signs are acceptable as installed. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 94-, approve the request by Carl's Jr. to leave their existing building signs on the _ building without repainting the sign letter returns. Attachments 1. Letter from Carl's Jr. 2. Photos STAFFRPT.027 1k. of ;axilsix OR OVER 60 VEARE CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT Carl Kmxhtr Fntaprbm lnc. 1200 North Harbor Boulevard P.O. Box 4349 Arnhehn. CaNfornia 92b034349 C714) 774-579 January 5, 1994 Mr. Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Carl's Jr. Restaurant #7085 78-672 Highway #111 La Quinta, California CUP #92-004 Dear Greg: W-Enn JAN 5 1994 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT In your memo, to Kirk Kirkland, of Final Inspection, dated 12-03-93, you asked that the channel letter returns of the building signs be painted a "matte black". This request would force CKE's vendor, Coast Sign, to alter our Corporate Identity which will not be allowed by CKE's Corporate Council. I ask that Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. be allowed the same consideration and understanding that was given to the AM/PM Mini -Market and the Baskin Robins Ice Cream Store in being allowed to maintain its identity and competitive marketing value. Enclosed are some pictures of other Carl's Jr. Restaurants that indicate the same lettering style that was installed at this restaurant. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at (714) 491-4325. Thank you for your assistance and understanding. Carl Wade A Project 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 28, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. 911I1119u� 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, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Mary Wagner, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. Continued - Zoning, 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. Staff informed the Commission that amendments to the ordinance had been made and were distributed. In addition written comments had been received and were distributed. 2. Mr. Ed Kibbey, representing Building Industry Association (BIA), requested that the Planning Commission continue this matter again and set up a committee to review the document and make recommendations. 3. Mr. Allen Levin, representing BIA, went through the document and commented on Page 1 Items #5, Page 2 Items #6 and #7, Page 3 Item #1, Page 4 Item 2d, Page 5 Items #4 and #6, Page 6 Item #8, and in addition there were no provisions for appeal to the standards. PC12-28 1 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 4. Mr. Russel Robertson, resident, asked that if a committee is formed that the residents would like to be included on that committee, and asked if there was any way to have more input from the residents regarding projects to be approved by the City. 5. Mr. Michael Marix, builder in the Valley, requested that a committee be formed to evaluate and give input into the ordinance. 6. Mr. Joseph Irwin, La Quinta resident, asked that the Commission not delay this any longer. In addition the ordinance should require no less than a 10% deviation in house sizes. 7. Mr. Neil Ludlam, La Quinta resident, spoke in favor of the ordinance and in particular the minimum house size. 8. Mr. Robert Tyler, La Quinta resident, spoke in favor of the ordinance but questioned some aspects of it. Objected to the fee schedule. 9. Ms. Christine Clarke, representing STAMKO Development, felt the ordinance should be divided into two dealing with two separate issues. Expressed her concern that the City should be diversified in regards to the house size and provide housing for all aspects of the financial spectrum. If the minimum square footage is 1400 then allow a deviation for diversity. 10. Mr. Jay Foster, La Quinta resident, expressed his concern that their investment in their home might be downgraded. 11. Mr. Curb McCalless, 78-575 Villeta, asked that the area be maintained with the high quality of homes that are built in this area now. 12. Mr. Bob Dupay, 44-960 Tortolla, objected to lowering the minimum house size as it will reduce home values. 13. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to explain the availability of staff reports to the public prior to the meetings. Staff explained that all copies are available to the public on the Friday prior to the meeting. 14. Ms. Sally Young, real estate broker, stated her concern for the ordinance and asked that the Commission separate the two issues. She felt the minimum square footage for the City should be dealt with separately. Her concern was that a minimum of 1400 square footage puts the house price range out of the market for what can be sold. PC12-28 2 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 15. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the discussion to the Commission. 16. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the major concern was the amount of affordable housing that was available in La Quinta. After checking with a local realtor he was told there were 80 homes in La Quinta averaging between $10,000 and $100,000. Therefore there was affordable housing in La Quinta. But, in the existing tracts where new homes are to be built, or next to an existing tract, it should be: "New housing being added to an existing tract development shall not be less than 10 percent of the square footage of the minimum size house within that development and that the proposed minimum square foot houses shall number in direct proportion to the existing minimum house size; houses percentage wise. There shall be no limit to the larger houses. Due to particular lot configurations, unknown at the time, a developer may petition through the planning process for a conditional variance to the minimum house standards in order to make a particular lot livable." 17. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt the 10 percent below the smallest house was needed but there was no need to have the 10 percent above the largest. Discussion followed and a consensus was made that no limit should be placed on the largest size house allowed to be built. 18. Commissioner Abels stated his agreement that 10 percent deviation from the smallest unit should be allowed. 19. Staff asked for clarification on the direct proportion to the houses built. Commissioner Adolph explained and discussion followed. 20. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern about limiting the number of units a developer can build of a specific unit type. Commissioner Ellson agreed that a broader interpretation would be better and agrees with the 10 percent deviation from the smallest unit and that no house would be smaller than allowed in the R-1 zone. It was determined that the market conditions would determine the mix and this would allow some flexibility for the developer and home buyer. 21. Commissioner Ellson asked that the wording for #8 in the section regarding Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process be revised to read, "no unit may be less than 10 percent smaller than the existing smallest unit". Discussion followed as to possible wording. Following discussion it was determined to change the wording to: "The PC12-28 3 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 smallest single family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision may deviate in size so that the proposed units are no more than 10 % smaller in size than the smallest previously built unit in the subdivision. " 22. Chairwoman Barrows asked what opportunity the developer would have to increase the percentage. Staff stated there was no process to deviate from the required percentage. Discussion followed as to whether an appeal process should be provided. 23. Chairwoman Barrows asked the Commissioners how they wanted to address a new development abutting or adjacent to an existing development. 24. Commissioner Adolph suggested the following wording: "The minimum square foot house within the new development shall not be less than the minimum square foot house in the adjacent development. The minimum square foot house shall not exceed 20 percent of the total tract development. Should the new development abutt two or more existing developments, then the average of the minimum square foot houses in each tract shall be used as a benchmark to establish within 10 percent, the minimum square foot house that can be built. The minimum square foot house would be no less than 1300 square feet in any case." 25. Chairwoman Barrows asked for clarification of what abutting developments was. Commissioner Adolph explained. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt this was taking it a step too far. Discussion followed regarding controlling the size of units of new developments. 26. Chairwoman Barrows suggested the Commission take each issue under Compatibility one at a time. The following determinations were as follows: Item: The Precise Plan process shall be used for all single family dwelling units proposed for construction unless the compatibility review process was required. Item 2: No changes. Minor and Major Design Deviation: PC12-28 4 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 An introduction sentence was added to this section to read, "The Planning and Development Department shall make the determination of whether a design deviation is major or minor using the following criteria:" Items #1 and #2: No change Compatibility Review Process Item #2c: A detailed site plan delineating all siting aspects of the development (i.e., setbacks, topography, fencing locations, locations provided for ground e mechanical and heating/air conditioning systems, parking, accessways, adjacent streets, utilities, and drainage. Item #2d: A conceptual site quantities, species, location an( final landscaping of the project. be stamped "approved" by Commissioner's office prior to inspection. .andscaping plan, showing a listing of plant sizes to be incorporated into the The final approved landscape plan must the Riverside County Agricultural final Item #2e: When new units are proposed adjacent to existing unit(s) show, with enough in detail, the architectural relationship of the existing and proposed unit(s). This may be done with photos, new elevations, etc. Items #3, #4, #5, #6: No change. Completeness of Application: No change. Development Standards for Compatibility Review Process: Item: No change Item: A two story house cannot be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of 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. Items 3: No change. PC12-28 5 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 :. - Item: A proposed single family dwelling unit must eeft sifni be compatible in terms of: 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. Item: At least one specimen (ibex) tree shall be provided in the front or street side yard in addition as part of the landscape requirements of the zone. Item 7: No change. ..MINIS I 2i" I Changed to read: The smallest single family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision may deviate in size so that the proposed units are no more than 10 % smaller in size than the smallest previously built unit in the subdivision. Item #9: No change. PC12-28 6 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 Review by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission Review. No change. Public Hearing Process. Discussion regarding enlarging the area to be notified, but due to the cost it was left at 300 feet. Appeal Process: No change. Fees: No change. Single Family Dwelling Unit Development Standards: Item: Minimum gross livable area shall be 4,400 1.300 square feet, excluding the garage, as measured from the exterior walls of the dwelling. Item 2: Bedroom dimensions: a minimum of ten feet eleaf width depdifflensions bedroom size of 100 square feet, as measured from the interior walls of the room. Items #3, #4: No change. Item 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 walled which provides direct access to a keyed entry into the dwelling. Item: Mechanical and related equipment: when ground -mounted, heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be gFeend fnetraled and screened from all sides. When equipment weH9 is located on pitched roofs and or eft--ert flat roofs wells and/or screening must be provided on all sides fnest be ser-eened. The screening must be an integral part of the architectural design of the house. Item #8, #9 # 10 # 11, # 12, and # 13: No change. PC12-28 7 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 Item 14: Delete until the R-1 Zoning update. Item #15: Delete until the R-1 Zoning update. Eaves! reof eaves must 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. Item: The precise plan process (Section 9.42.110) shall be used for single family dwelling units proposed for construction on a lot within the City unless the compatibility review process is required. �Fe spe > x,vherre- the unit. SR , 1982; and Item #2: No change. 27. Commissioner Ellson thanked everyone who assisted in compiling this document to help the City come to a compromise between the builders, residents, and the City standards. 28. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson/Abels to amend Title 9, Planning and Zoning of the La Quinta Municipal Code regarding minimum house size and compatibility with residential subdivisions by adoption of Resolution 93- 046, as amended, and recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-039 to the City Council. Commissioner Adolph expressed his objection to some of the recommendations in the amendment. PC12-28 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Adolph. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A motion was made by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to request the City Council form a committee as recommended by the Building Industry Association to review the R-1 Zoning Ordinance update as prepared by the consultants. Unanimously approved. Chairwoman Barrows excused the Commission for a five minute break. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Sian Application 93-215, Amendment #1; a request of Laguna de la Paz to amend and relocate the previously approved permanent monument sign for the existing residential development. 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 Adolph asked what landscaping was on the site at present. Staff explained that it consisted of lawn, trees, and palms. 3. Commissioner Abels asked what the lighting of the sign would be. Staff explained that they did not submit a lighting program for the proposed sign. Discussion followed regarding possible landscape lighting. Following the discussion, it was recommended that Condition #2 be changed to read, "approved by the Planning Director". 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 93-056 approving Sign Application 93-215, Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Unanimously approved. B. Approval of Architectural Plans; a request of Mr. Jimmy R. Crowell, Century - Crowell Communities for approval of architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta Highlands Tract 23269 - La Quinta Del Rey. PC12-28 9 Planning commission Minutes December 28, 1993 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 Ellson asked if in light of the discussion on the Compatibility Ordinance, whether the two story house on Lot 238 would bean issue. Staff explained that the precedent had been established in the tract and homeowners and buyers were aware that two story units were planned for these lots. 3. Mr,. Jimmy Crowell, applicant addressed the Commission regarding his request. 4. Ms. Allyson DeVinney, resident of La Quinta Vistas, stated her objection to the project due to the lack of parking in the cul-de-sac. She felt the garage conversions would create a problem for the need for additional parking on the street and there was none available in the cul-de-sacs. She stated that the square footage of the proposed homes should be the same as the existing houses and three car garages should be included with the plans. 5. Mr. Robert Tyler, resident of La Quinta Vistas, thanked Mr. Crowell for being responsive to the residents concerns as well as the Planning Department staff. He stated his concern that the garage conversion was being done to increase the square footage of the homes that was necessary to meet the City requirements, but the floor plan they were using are smeller than the surrounding homes. He did not feel these homes met the proposed compatibility standards being proposed by the City. 6. Mr. Crowell, applicant addressed some of the issues raised by the residents. He stated he would be willing to put in the concrete necessary to accommodate a three car garage to allow additional on -site parking. He further stated he would be willing to use wrought iron for any fence gates. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked the applicant to clarify Plan 5L as to whether or not a bathroom would be provided in the loft area. Mr. Crowell stated there was no provision for a bathroom on his loft plans. 8. Commissioner Ellson questioned the parking space generated by the size of the houses proposed. Discussion followed regarding the house plans and the possible parking problem on the existing cul-de-sac and possible solutions. Pc12-28 10 Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 9. Following the discussion, the Commissioners requested that the developer provide detailed site plans for Lots #173, #175, #177, #185 for the Planning Commission's review. 10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-057 approving the architectural plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta Highlands Tract 23269 - La Quinta Del Rey, subject to conditions and that the developer submit a detailed concept site/landscape plan for Lots #173, #175, #177, and #185. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of December 14, 1993, Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER - None VIII. ADJouRNMEN'r A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Adolph to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 11, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:41 P.M., December 28, 1993. PC12-28 11 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 January 11, 1994 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows and Commissioner Abels lead the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. Tentative Tract 27899 (Formerly TT 23519); a request of Santa Rosa Developers for approval of a subdivision of approximately 30 acres into 111 single family residential lots with a public street system. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. She further informed the Commission that an additional condition (Condition #62) had been added. 2. Commissioner Adolph asked staff if the removal of the emergency access on Miles was any problem for the Fire Department and were the cul-de- sacs wide enough. Staff stated that the access was planned for the original tract and not for this one and the Fire Department has stated no objection. Further the way the tract is laid out there is access to Miles. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 3. Commissioner Adolph asked about the retention basin. Staff explained the location and drainage for the basin and stated that since the tracts were sold, this tract has been conditioned to provide the same written agreement to be provided by these property owners to accept the water or provide on -site water retention. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked where the existing roads in Topaz were. Staff reviewed the streets on the map with the Commissioners. Discussion followed regarding the tracts that are built out and the streets that interconnect. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Brian Esgate, engineer for the project addressed the Commission regarding the project. 6. Commissioner Ellson asked how the water flows to the retention basin. Mr. Esgate explained the drainage route for the water. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked what the "remainder" portions were on the tract. Mr. Esgate stated that little remainder portions had been added into the other tracts. As the tracts develop, lot line adjustments would be done to make the necessary changes. As one developer owned all the land, there would be no problem. Discussion followed regarding the construction of the streets. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked if Adams Street drained onto Victoria Drive and would the retention basin hold all that water. Mr. Esgate stated it would and that all the drainage work had been approved by City with the previous tract and it would be designed according to those specifications. 9. Mr. Esgate stated he had an objection with Condition #55. He stated it would be a hardship to build just one model and requested that he be granted 25 % of the dwelling units be two story along Miles Avenue and that houses along the adjacent tracts be allowed to have two stories. 10. Commissioner Adolph stated he concern that the developer provide enough parking for the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Esgate stated it would be easier to have a two story house with a three car garage than with a one story and he would make sure this was taken into consideration. 11. There being on further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. PC1-11 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 12. Commissioner Ellson stated her objection to having any two story units along Miles Avenue. Staff stated that the condition was stated this way as the Acacia tract had been conditioned the same and it set the precedent. Commissioner Ellson stated she had no problem with the two story units being permitted abutting the adjacent tracts. Following the discussion, it was determined to delete the last sentence of Condition #55. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Abels to adopt Resolution 94-001 recommending approval of Tentative Tract 27899 as amended and with the addition of Condition #62. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. Continued - Plot Plan 93-495; a request of Simon Plaza for approval to amend Condition #36 regarding dedication of the Washington Street right-of-way. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the applicant had requested a continuance to February 22, 1994. 2. There being no questions, Commissioners Marrs/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to continue Plot Plan 93-495 to February 22, 1994. Unanimously approved. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None IV. BUSINESS SESSION A. Sign Application 93-235; a request of Palm Royale Country Club/Mr. Dave Evans for approval of a freestanding golf course and restaurant sign. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry 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 for clarification on the size of the letters. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the letters were too small. 3. Ms. Millington, representing the applicant, explained the size of the letters and stated that it was the same dimensional size as the original logo for PC1-ll 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 the entire project. She further stated that she was told by her sign contractor that the size is able to be seen from 50 feet and they felt this was ample distance to advertise. Discussion followed regarding the size of the letters. 4. Commissioner Abels asked if the entry sign was the same size. Ms. Millington stated it was close. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked why the sign was to be 00 feet east of Washington Street on Fred Waring. Commissioner Ellson felt this was to far and the letters were too small to be read. Ms. Millington stated that it was designed to be read at the 50 foot distance. 6. Commissioners expressed their concern for the size of the sign and the letters and felt the sign should be a more attractive sign. They approved of the location and hoped the sign would make more of a design statement than just be a square stuck on the corner. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked why the sign was reduced. Ms. Millington stated that the cost had required them to reduce the size. 8. Commissioner Adolph stated he had a problem with the number of signs at the corner. He stated his concern that the corner could not handle four signs. Discussion followed regarding the existing signs. Commissioners Adolph and Abels asked if the existing signs (BIA City signs) could be moved to the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street. Staff stated they would contact the BIA and see if the signs could be moved. 9. Ms. Millington stated that their sign would be 27 feet back from the street and would blend with the existing environment and additional landscaping would be planted to soften the sign. 10. Commissioner Adolph asked what the overall height of the sign was. Ms. Millington stated it was six feet tall, two feet of the six feet is the base, and the sign panel was 4' X 6' . 11. Commissioner Ellson asked if Ms. Millington was the owner of the restaurant or the owner of the project. Ms. Millington stated she was representing Mr. Dave Evans, owner of the restaurant and this piece of land. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 12. Commissioners discussed with Ms. Millington the sign materials and the landscaping to be placed around the sign. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Mans/Abets to adopt Minute Motion 94-001 approving Sign Approval 93-235, subject to conditions. Approved with Commissioner Adolph voting no. B. Conditional Use Permit 92-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant, Mr. Wade Goding, for approval to allow the existing corporate sign for the newly built Carl's Jr. Restaurant to remain instead of repainting the channel letter returns matte black pursuant to the adopted sign program for the One Eleven La Quinta Center. 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, the Commissioners stated their approval of the sign as installed. 3. Commissioners Ellson/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 94-002 approving Conditional Use Permit 92-004 as requested. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked what had been done regarding the landscaping as they were conditioned. Staff stated they would check into the matter. Following the question the motion was approved unanimously. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there were any additional corrections to the Minutes of December 28, 1994, than Page 9 as had been corrected and submitted to them. There being no additional corrections, Commissioners Marrs/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER A. Discussion of the City Council's proposed action regarding the Design Review Board; Chairwoman Barrows asked Commissioner Ellson if she wished to explain her request. Commissioner Ellson stated that she had spoken with each of the Council members and understood their reasoning behind the elimination of the Board, but she felt they served a vital and useful function in the approval PC1-ll 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 process and she would like to see the Board remain. She asked if the Commissioners wished to make any request of the Council for reconsideration. 1. Commissioner Abels stated he felt it was the Council's prerogative to appoint or dismiss any member or board as they saw fit and he stood on neutral ground and with the expansion of the Planning Commission this would serve the purpose. 2. Commissioner Marrs stated his agreement with Commissioner Ellson in that there was a lot of talent on the Board and it should not go to waste, but he did not see how the Board had been effective and this elimination of one more level of bureaucracy. 3. Commissioner Adolph stated he had no objection to the proposed changes and even though the meetings would probably be extended, he did enjoy getting more into the design aspect of the projects. 4. Chairwoman Barrows stated that she also felt concern regarding the decision to eliminate the Board and felt they did serve a useful function within the process. She could understand the Council's reasoning and understood it was the Council's prerogative to do so. 5. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what other cities in the Valley had a Design Review Board. Staff stated Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert had a similar board. B. Study Session meeting day and time; Commissioner Abees requested that the Commission change the Study Session from Monday to Tuesday in order to allow the City Attorney to meet with the Commission during the Study Session. 1. Commissioner Ellson asked if this would present a problem with staff or the applicant to prepare additional information or clarification in time for the meeting. Staff stated they would check the ordinance creating the Commission and the Rules and Procedures under which the Commission operates and see what steps would need to be taken to make this change. Staff would report back to the Commission at their next meeting if formal action is required. In regards to providing the information requested during a Study Session, this could be a problem, but the Commission could always be continued if they felt it was important. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked where the attendance of the City Attorney came from and was she requested to attend the Study Sessions as well. City Attorney Honeywell stated the direction came from the City Council and no they had not requested her attendance at the Study Session as they were on Monday. PC1-ll 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1994 3. Following discussion, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to instruct staff to prepare the necessary documents if necessary to change the Study Session meeting day from Monday to Tuesday. Unanimously approved. C. Discussion of Planning Commission Badges; Commissioner Abels asked the Commissioners for their opinion of creating a badge for the Commissioners to wear identifying them as Planning Commissioners of the City of La Quints to be worn when attending functions for the City. 1. Following discussion regarding cost and design, it was determined that Commissioner Adolph would prepare a design for the Commission's consideration. D. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the ordinance requirements were for fence heights. Staff stated from the property line to the first ten feet is four feet, the next ten feet is five feet, and the next distance could be six feet. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern that several houses off of Park Avenue on Calle Tampico that have block walls that come practically to the sidewalk that are six feet tall. Staff stated they could have been constructed before the ordinance went into effect. E. Commissioner Adolph asked staff what was happening regarding the JM Peters signs. Staff stated they were in the process of having them removed. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Ables/Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on January 25, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:15 P.M., January 11, 1994. PC1-11