Loading...
1994 01 25 PC�a�� Q•c Wit,fto -- — - ; �tz PLA. VWI'NG COr2MXS',SX ON CFI ��5 OF T1c� A GENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California January 25, 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 94-002 Beginning Minute Motion 94-003 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS Item ............... PLOT PLAN 91-456 Applicant .......... The Koenig Companies Location ........... Northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico Request ............ Approval of time extension for commercial shopping center consisting of 85,650 square feet on 9.25 acres. Action ............. Minute Motion 94- 2. Item ............... SPECIFIC PLAN 87-009, AMENDMENT #3 Applicant .......... City of La quints Location ........... La Quinta Village Specific Plan area Request ............ Text amendment to allow implementation of interim circulation alternatives around the IN Park Action ............. Resolution 94- PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............... PRECISE PLAN 93-840 Applicant .......... Richard & Ida Richardson Location ........... 53-655 Avenida Villa Request ............ Establishment of a large family day care home. Action ............. Minute Motion 94- 2. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 23269 - LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS Applicant ........ ,, . Mr. Jimmy Crowell Century Crowell Communities Location ........... Sanita Drive and Estelo Court. Request ........... Final approval of site/landscaping plans for Lots 173, 175, 177, and 185 of Phase VII Action ............. Minute Motion 94- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1994. OTHER 1. Planning Commission badges update. 2. JM Peters sign update. 3. Conference update. ADJOURNMENT STUDY SESSION Tuesday, January 25, 1994 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items. PC/AGENDA PH *1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 25, 1994 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 91-456, EXTENSION OF TIME #2 APPLICANT: THE KOENIG COMPANIES (MR. JOHN KOENIG) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF TIME EXTENSION FOR COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF 85,650 SQ. FT. ON 9.25 ACRES. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN 1991. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED THAT WOULD INCREASE IMPACTS. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: This project was originally approved in April, 1991. The project approved at that time consisted of a 116,600 square foot shopping center on an 11.8 acre site. The approved project consisted of a supermarket, drug store, retail shops, and four pad buildings. Additionally, a General Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone allowing commercial usage of the site were also approved by the City Council in April, 1991. In November, 1992, an amendment decreasing the project to 85,650 square feet of floor space on 9.25 acres was approved. Most of the reduction in the shopping center size was due to the elimination of the drug store. Additionally, an 18,000 square foot detention basin which was located at the northwest corner of the site was deleted from the site. At the same time, approval of a time extension to November 24, 1993, was granted. The applicant applied for this second time extension prior to the November expiration. However, due to a number of reasons this request was not immediately scheduled. PCST.162 1 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST: The applicant has requested a one year time extension for his plot plan. The applicant has indicated that this request is needed in order to proceed with his final plans and close the land escrows needed to construct the project. The applicant has indicated that he is intending to proceed with some modifications to the south side of the Ralph's market in the near future. However, this will be done as a separate request. Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission staff report for November 24, 1992, which provides description of the revised approved project. ANALYSIS: The Engineering Department has recommended minor changes to the several of the Conditions of Approval. The changes bring the conditions up to current language and requirements. The modification to Condition #23 utilizes the current PM 10 requirements in lieu of the previous dust control requirements. The Planning Department staff is recommending minor changes to several conditions which refer to the Design Review Board which has been eliminated. Several design items will now be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Planning Department. CONCLUSION: The Planning Department feels that this request is acceptable. The applicant feels that he will be able to initiate construction by the middle of April, 1994. Staff would like to note to the applicant that a number of conditions due require studies and/or other items to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one year time extension to November 24, 1994, subject to the attached amended conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Excerpt from Planning Commission staff report dated November 24, 1992 4. Draft Conditions of Approval PCST.162 CAL LE N UP/CO ilp CASE Na GPA 91-035 PP 91--456 CZ 91-063 LOCATION MAP NTS ORTN SCALE: NTS 109 4 O III m I u aura, CMBUM tswaao E Para -:Ship Ir g m I I G% Nadel :. f'a��nersnipinc ; STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1992 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 91-456, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: THE KOENIG COMPANIES REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT FROM 116,600 SQUARE FEET TO 85,650 SQUARE FEET ON 9.25 ACRES REDUCED FROM 11.8 ACRES. LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: BACKGROUND: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLS TAMPICO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN 1991. NO CHANGES WHICH WOULD INCREASE IMPACTS ARE PROPOSED. THE REDUCTION IN THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT WILL REDUCE THE IMPACTS THAT MAY BE EXPECTED. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. This project was originally approved in April, 1991. The project approved at that time consisted of all 16,600 square foot shopping center on an 11.8 acre site. The approved project consisted of a supermarket, drug store, retail shops, and four pad buildings. In addition, to the plot plan application, a general plan amendment and change of zone allowing commercial usage were also approved by the City Council in April, 1991, to permit the project. REVISED SUBMITTAL: The amendment request proposes to delete 2.56 acres of the site from the project. This area is located adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. In conjunction with the reduction of the site area, the square footage of the project has been reduced by approximately 31,000 square feet of floor space. Most of this reduction comes from the elimination of the previously approved PCST.088 drug store site. The 18,000 square foot detention basin which was previously located at the northwest corner of the site has been deleted from the project. The project site still contains approximately 700 feet of frontage along Calle Tampico and Washington Street. The property is presently vacant and void of any significant vegetation. Power poles run along Calle Tampico and transverse the site from north to south. The property is made up of one parcel and a portion of the second parcel. The site is relatively flat. STATISTICAL DATA: Und Area: 9.25 acres Building Area: 85,645 square feet (future expansion included) Land/Building Ratio: 3.7/1 Parking Provided: 491 stalls Parking Required: 313 stalls (all retail) Parking Ratio: 5.73 per 1000 square feet of floor area SITE DESIGN: The market structure has been relocated from the northwest corner of the site to the west end of the site fairly close to Calle Tampico. Shop buildings have been provided to the south and attached to the market and to the northeast of the market in a detached building. Four pad structures are proposed. Three along Washington Street and one adjacent to Calle Tampico. These structures are fairly close to the previously approved locations. The four pad buildings vary in size from 4,500 square feet to a maximum of 5,600 square feet. Adjacent to the 4,500 square foot pad is a small area shown which could be utilized for outdoor eating. Parking is provided in the center of the site, adjacent to the streets, and around the backside of the market structure to the north. GIRCIJLATION(PA M: Access is still provided from two driveways on each street. The northerly driveway on Washington Street would be a shared drive with the property to the north when it develops. At the time of the original approval, a senior citizens type of housing project was being discussed for the northerly property. However, that project has been tabled and no further development has been proposed for that site. This access would be a full turn movement and would be PCST.088 2 signalized. The second access on Washington Street has been shown somewhat north of the original location. The revised location would be approximately 370 feet north of the Calle Tampico and Washington Street intersection. This access would be a right turn in/out only. On Calle Tampico, there would be a full turn movement driveway located near the center of the site. This driveway will align with the driveway into City Hall and will be signalized. The second access would be adjacent to the westerly property line and primarily provide access to the rear of the market and a small parking area behind the market and shop #1. This driveway will be a right turn in and out only. The majority of the parking within the center of the property has been designed to be angled and one way. The Applicant has provided adequate parking to meet our present parking requirements assuming the supermarket and other areas will be utilized for retail purposes. If some uses requiring additional parking are proposed, it appears that adequate parking will be available. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING: The Applicant has submitted a conceptual landscaping plan for this project. A new feature which has been incorporated is a "reflection pond" at the intersection of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. The Applicant has verbally indicated that some type of public art piece would be provided in the area of this reflection pond. The Applicant has provided a minimum 20 foot landscape setback adjacent to both streets as required. The setback adjacent to the buildings as shown on the plans further increases the setback adjacent to the street. Screen walls are shown adjacent to the parking lot areas to provide the required screening. Generally speaking, Date Palms are utilized to line the entries to the project. These are interspersed with canopy type trees. This theme would be continued around the perimeter of the site. The Applicant indicates that along the north side of the market and shop #2 and along the west side of the market, solid tree screens will be provided to screen the project from adjacent properties. It should be noted that these adjacent properties to the west and to the north beyond the original project site are zoned residentially. The 2.56 acres eliminated from the project site is zoned C-P. Within the main center portion of the parking lot, the Applicant indicates the use of 35-foot high Date Palms. Staff would note that our Parking Ordinance requires that 50% of the parking lot be shaded within 15 years of planting. As presently shown, Staff feels that this shading requirement would not be complied with. Further study and possibly some revision will be necessary to comply with this requirement. The landscaping plan indicates decorative paving will be utilized at each of the driveway entries to accent and delineate the driveway locations. PCST.088 3 As previously mentioned, the Applicant shows heavy plantings of trees along the north and west property lines for screening. The Municipal Code requires a six foot masonry wall between commercial and residential properties. Along the west side, adjacent to the market, a wall would be required. As previously mentioned, adjacent to the 2.56 acres which has been deleted from the project, the area is presently zoned commercial. However, it appears that the only practical future use of this commercially zoned property would be an expansion of this shopping center in the future. It is conceivable that this property could be rezoned for residential use. If it is rezoned, then Staff feels that the masonry wall needs to be provided adjacent to this area along the north along the perimeter of the revised commercial site. The wall should be provided at this time unless specific plans for expansion are provided. An alternative would be to provide a bond for this wall, with the wall to be installed if the property is rezoned to residential and not used for commercial purposes. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The architectural design is identical to that previously approved. The project will be Spanish in nature and utilize exterior cement plaster, tile accents, wood trellis, and a multi -color mission clay tile roof. A maximum 50-foot high Spanish tower structure is shown on the south facing side of shop #2. For the most part, the west and north elevations of the market and the north and west elevations of shop #2 are plain stucco walls. There is some scoring or pop -outs indicated. However, the Applicant's intention is to provide the heavy landscape screen at the property line to screen view of this area. The architecture of this shopping center is very similar to that of the Village at Indian Wells located at the corner of Cook Street and Highway 111. This shopping center was also built by the Applicant several years ago. No indication of the architecture of the pad buildings has been submitted at this time, It will be necessary for the Applicant to submit plot plan applications for those pad buildings when construction is proposed. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The Design Review Board reviewed this item at their meeting of November 4, 1992. There was discussion regarding Staffs recommended Conditions of Approval. The majority of the discussion pertained to additional architectural treatment on the west side of shop #1 and parking lot shading. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project subject to conditions recommended by Staff. They did amend three of the conditions. Those Conditions of Approval are noted in the draft resolution and deal with additional architectural treatment to the west of shop #1, the stucco finish, and parking lot tree shading. ANALYSIS: The overall concept of the revised plan is acceptable. There are a number of items Staff feels should be noted as follows: PCST.088 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 91-456 - EXTENSION #2 - KOENIG COMPANIES JANUARY 25, 1994 * Amended by Planning Commission 4-28-92 ** Amendment #1 + Amended by City Council 12-1-92 ++ Recommendation for Amendment, January 25, 1994 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91-456, Amendment #1, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. + +2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date (November 24, 11994); otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. **4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Alternative parking lot lighting plans utilizing light pole standards varying in height from 20 feet to 35 feet shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Light standard type and height with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and Off -Street Parking requirements. **5. Adequate trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that enclosure size is adequate. Should recycling be required, recycling bins with enclosure shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Director. **6. A six foot high decorative masonry wall shall be provided adjacent to the north and west property lines except within ten feet of street right-of-way line the where wall shall be reduced in height to 30 inches. Adjacent to the 2.56 acre "not a part" area, the applicant may bond to insure installation of the wall. The wall is to be installed if and when the CONAPRVL.116 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 "not a part" area is rezoned to a non-commercial zone. If used for expansion of the center, the wall shall be installed on the west and north boundary of the "not a part" area. Temporary fencing or screening may be required by the Planning and Development Director if the wall is bonded for. 7. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 8. As required by the General plan, the applicant shall provide a noise study by a qualified engineer to determine the impacts on the surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall suggest mitigation measures which the City can require. 9. The screen wall height adjacent to loading docks shall be determined by the required noise study. Should the noise problems from the use of the loading areas arise, the Planning Commission shall retain the right to limit the hours of loading and unloading. Surrounding property owners and residents which could be affected by noise shall be notified of the Planning Commission consideration of limitations on delivery hours. 10. The project shall comply with all existing Off -Street Parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas, shopping cart storage, and bicycle parking spaces. **11. Decorative screen walls provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen the parking lot surface and the majority of parked cars from view of the street. Determination, location, design, and of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans by the City. 12. Landscaping planters along the north and west property lines shall be provided at maximum width possible with all unusable areas adjacent to property lines provided in landscaping. 13. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance requirements. 14. A meandering six foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on Calle Tampico. On Washington Street the sidewalk shall be a meandering eight foot sidewalk with the sidewalk not touching the curb at any point except at the driveways and intersection of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. **15. Tower structures shall be a maximum 50 foot high from the finish grade. CONAPRVL.116 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 16. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits whichever occurs first, a parcel map or lot line adjustment shall be approved and recorded separate the subject property from properties to the north. 17. 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 Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants)/representative(s) shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the planning and development Department. CONAPRVL.116 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 **18. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o California Regional Water Quality Control board (NPDES Permit) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 19. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit. 20. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners Office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 21. Bus turnout and bus waiting shelters shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit when street improvements are installed. 22. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an 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 all 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 Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while; being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. CONAPRVL.116 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 ++D. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust (PM10) 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. **23. Construction shall comply with all local and State building Code requirements in effect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. 25. If shopping carts are stored outside, they shall be screened from view of the parking lot in a manner which is approved by the Planning and Development Director. 26. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. Construction of pad buildings shall be subject to approval of a non-public hearing plot plan and approval by the Planning Commission. 27. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 28. That all conditions of the Design Review board shall be complies with as follows: ++A. A detailed complete sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to completion of the construction of the shopping center. The sign program shall include any identification signs for the shopping center. B. The architecture, materials, and colors of the pad buildings shall be architecturally compatible, (i.e., identical architecture, materials, and colors) with the main shopping center buildings. C. Cement plaster texture used on the buildings shall be of a decorative nature. ++D. Additional architectural treatment including a tile roof shall be provided around the west side of Shop #1. Revisions shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL.116 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 E. Between the street curbs and meandering sidewalks, no lawn shall be used within 5-feet of the street curb. Irrigation systems between the curb and sidewalk or lawn shall be bubbler emitter type (no spaghetti tubing). F. The landscaping shall comply with the requirements as indicated in the Off -Street Parking Requirements. This includes the requirement of 50 % shading of the parking lot area. G. The Off -Street Parking requirements also require established shopping cart return areas. These will have to be provided on the site. ++H. A preliminary landscaping plan indicating specific tree, shrub, and ground cover (including sizes) shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to preparation of final landscaping plans. The landscaping is to be water efficient and utilize drip or emitter irrigation (no spaghetti tubing) as much as possible. Along the south or front side of Shop #2, planting areas shall be provided. I. Landscaping adjacent to the northern and western property lines shall be heavily planted to provide screening and buffering with the adjacent residentially zoned properties. J. Additional tree wells and canopy trees shall be provided in the following areas: 1. In the eight parking space area west of Shop #1. 2. In the two 14-space parking areas between pads "B" and "C". 3. In the 12-parking space area between pads "C" and "D". K. Planting, mounding, and walls shall be provided in such a manner to provide screening of the parking lot area from perimeter streets. L. A decorative driveway pattern and colors shall be approved with final working plans. CITY FIRE MARSHAL: 29. The water mains shall be capable of providing a fire flow of 5000 gpm and an actual fire flow available from any two adjacent hydrants of 2500 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi. CONAPRVL.116 6 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 30. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2'/2 "), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 31. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. The plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system shall meet the fir 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." **32. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to the start of construction. 33. Buildings shall be constructed so that the fire flow required for any individual building or unseparated area does not exceed 3500 gpm. 34. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection -fee to the Fire Department for review. The approved plans, with the Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspectors. 35. If the building is used for high piled/rack storage, the building construction and fire sprinkler system must meet NFPA 231C and Article 81 of the 1991 Uniform Fire Code. 36. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. 37. Install a manual pull smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform :Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. 38. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Planning and Engineering Departments office for submittal requirements. 39. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. CONAPRVL.116 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 40. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or signs. 41. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 42. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Model 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Know Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/opposition and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 43. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 44. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 45. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff at (619)863-8886. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: **46. 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 if any, and as required by the City Engineer, as follows: A. Washington Street: Major Arterial, 60-foot half width; the Washington Street Specific Plan applies; B. Calle Tampico: Primary Arterial, 50-foot half width; the Calle Tampico Specific Alignment applies. The applicant shall execute right-of-way conveyance documents and return them to the City within 30 days after they are furnished to the applicant by the City. 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. CONAPRVL.116 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 The applicant shall acquire an easement for the portion of the north Washington Street access drive encroaching to the north of the property subject to this plot plan. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the tract. 47. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Calle Tampico and Washington Street from the site except as specifically provided in these Conditions of Approval. ..+48. Access locations to the site and the character of the turning movements at those locations shall be as follows unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer: A. Washington Street (approximately 440 feet north of Calle Tampico centerline), the driveway shall be 30 feet wide with the turning movements limited to right turn -in and out only. B. Washington Street (750 feet north of Calle Tampico centerline), the driveway shall be 42 feet (16'-12'-14') wide with no restrictions placed on the turning movements. This drive will function as a shared -access with the property to the north. The applicant shall redesign the interior street intersection for safe movement of traffic from both properties as well as Washington Street. The design presented for approval of the City Engineer should have the previous approval of the property owner to the north. C. Calle Tampico (the driveway shall align with the Civic Center driveway), the driveway shall be 42 feet (16'-12'-14') wide with no restrictions placed on the turning movements. D. Calle Tampico (the west edge of the driveway shall be five feet east of the west site boundary), the driveway shall be 30 feet wide with turning movements limited to right turn -in and out only. 49. The applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to the following street right-of-way(s): A. Calle Tampico, 20 feet wide; B. Washington Street; 20 feet wide. 50. The applicant shall form a merchant's association and obligate the association with the fiscal and operational maintenance responsibility for the maintenance and continued upkeep of the landscape setback lot and parkway area adjacent to the roadway along the CONAPRVL.116 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 segments of Calle Tampico and Washington Street that are contiguous to the site boundary. As an alternative, the applicant may choose to maintain the above areas. **51. 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. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 52. The applicant shall construct, or enter into an agreement to construct the site grading, off -site public improvements, and on -site common area improvements before the issuance of a site grading permit. The applicant shall pay cash, in -lieu of and equivalent to the respective construction cost, for those improvements which involve fair -share responsibility that must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash in -lieu of construction may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by the applicant and City Engineer, provided security for said future payment is posted by the applicant. 53. The on -site grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. **54. The applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer or geotechnical engineer, or surveyor, as appropriate, or designate one who is on the applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during grading of the site and construction of the improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant and charged with the compliance responsibility shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: A. All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. CONAPRVL.116 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 B. The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. ..+55. The applicant shall design and construct a storm drainage system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the applicant elects to participate in a regional storm drainage system, the applicant shall pay a fair -share cost of the regional system as determined by the City. If the regional system is not yet available when this parcel develops, the applicant shall design and construct interim facilities capable of storing or carrying the flows determined through the study required in Condition #56 herein. If the applicant elects or is required to utilize permanent on -site facilities, those facilities shall comply with the following requirements. Storm water run-off produced in 24-hours by a 100 year storm, shall be retained on -site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless the applicant provides site specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 56. The applicant shall have a focused master drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer to determine what storm water disposal facilities are needed to protect the site from flooding by off -site storm water. If the drainage study recommends the construction of off -site storm water disposal facilities, the applicant shall participate in the cost of the facilities, on a fair share basis. The tributary area to be studied includes all tributary land south of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, east of Bear Creek Channel and west of Washington Street. 57. If the applicant utilizes a permanent on -site stormwater retention basin, the applicant shall install a trickling sand filter and leach field in the retention basin to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 160 gallons per day per 5000 s.f. of landscaping. 58. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plans. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. CONAPRVL.116 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 ..59. The applicant shall complete improvements to streets fronting the development site. This ++ may include work beyond the site boundaries to provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. The applicant shall construct a left turn pocket in the Calle Tampico median island to allow eastbound traffic to access the main entry drive to this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City's cost of improvements to the applicant's half of Washington Street and Calle Tampico fronting the site of this development. This requirement may be supplanted by other arrangements mutually acceptable to the applicant and the City. The following specific street width shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Washington Street (Calle Tampico to the northerly boundary of the site) - Install half -width Major Arterial, refer to La Quinta General Plan Figure VII-2. 2. Calle Tampico (Washington Street to the westerly boundary of the site) - Install half -width Primary Arterial (100 feet right-of-way option) refer to La Quinta General Plan Figure VII-2. 60. The applicant shall participate in the cost, noted as follows, of designing and installing traffic signals at the following locations: A. Washington Street at Calle Tampico, 25 % cost participation. B. Calle Tampico, approximately 550 feet west of Washington Street, 50 % cost participation. C. Washington Street, approximately 750 feet north of Calle Tampico, 100% initial cost participation subject to 50% reimbursement when adjacent property to the ;north develops. 61. The applicant shall construct meandering sidewalk in the parkway and landscaped setback lot along Calle Tampico (6 feet wide) and Washington Street (8 feet wide). CONAPRVL.116 12 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 **62. The applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk. 63. The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. ++64. 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. 65. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction texts for review by the City Engineer. 66. The site shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity, caused by a storm event greater than the 100 year 24 hour event, to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow for those occasions when a storm greater than the 100 year 24 hour event occurs. 67. The applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work in undertaken and accomplished by the City. 68. The applicant shall design and construct the parking lot in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code Off -Street Parking Ordinance. If the pad locations are proposed to be utilized by eating establishments, the Planning Commission during plot plan review, shall consider whether adequate off-street parking exists. If it is determined that additional parking is needed, the Planning Commission may require an unused pad to be converted to off-street parking. **69. Grading, drainage., street lighting, landscaping and irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. **70. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the quality assurance program. CONAPRVL.116 13 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-456 - Koenig Companies January 25, 1994 If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall adopt a construction quality -assurance program which meets the approval of the City Engineer. **71. The applicant shall employ or retain a California registered civil engineers, geotechnical + + engineers, or surveyor, 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. ..72. 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," or "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. PUBLIC UTILITIES (IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT): **73. The Imperial Irrigation District will need a ten (10) foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) ++ along the entire eastern and southern perimeters of this project, bordering Washington Street and Calle Tampico. The easement can be incorporated into areas designated for landscape or buffer zones. **74. Other easements will be required to provide electrical service to whatever type of facilities are constructed on the site. The width and location of the easements will be determined upon receipt of final plans for the project. **75. All existing overhead conductors will be replaced with underground conductors at the developer's expense. They will be located in concrete encased duct banks constructed at the developer's expense. The number and size of these duck banks will be determined by the location of the load centers of the development. **76. Transformers and distribution switches will be of the padmount variety and range in height above ground from 36 inches to 72 inches. Details of required clearances around these devices will be furnished at a later date. CONAPRVL.116 14 PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 25, 1994 CASE NUMBER: SPECIFIC PLAN #87-009, AMENDMENT 03 VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST: ADDITION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERIM CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES AROUND THE VILLAGE PARK APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: AS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA, STAFF PREPARED AN INITIAL STUDY (EA #93-272) IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PROPOSAL. NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WERE IDENTIFIED, AND IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THIS PROJECT. BACKGROUND: The Village Specific Plan (VSP) was adopted by the La Quinta City Council on February 2, 1988. The proposed Amendment #3 focuses on traffic circulation in the La Quinta Village Park vicinity. The original VSP recognized that circulation in this area was a significant concern, primarily from a traffic safety perspective. As a result, a conceptual urban design plan for the streets and properties bordering the park itself was proposed in the VSP (see Attachment 1) . The improvement of Eisenhower Drive at the west end of the park, as a result of the Cove Improvement Program, also creates a need to design and implement a safe intersection at Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Montezuma. Certain specific design aspects were adopted as part of the VSP which currently may not represent the most workable circulation approach in this area. Due to the fact that the VSP sets forth an ultimate design configuration, the VSP needs to be amended to allow interim improvements. Amending the VSP to permit interim circulation improvements provides the Council and community the opportunity to evaluate alternative circulation patterns for the park area. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: Initially, four interim alternatives were studied by City Council. These are briefly discussed in the project description section of EA 93-272 (see Attachment #2) . Technically, an amendment to the VSP is necessary to implement any alternative. ANALYSIS: On October 5, 1993, the City Council wanted to develop a one-way circulation system (Alternative A) for trial implementation in the park area. Due to the fact that this circulation system was not originally considered in the Specific Plan, an amendment to the VSP became necessary. STA"RPT.029 The primary impetus for amending the VSP is to allow flexibility in order to implement interim circulation alternatives and gather data on their feasibility. At this time, the main concern is the Eisenhower Drive/Avenida Montezuma intersection due to Phase 5 improvements beginning in the Spring of 1994. In light of this, the following additional potential measures have been identified which may at some time warrant future study: Closure of the easterly Montezuma Street section (between Bermudas and Navarro) to auto traffic (pedestrian/bike traffic only) . Cul-de-sac north and south intersection legs with Avenida Martinez along east side of Eisenhower Drive. Elimination of the Montezuma intersection with Eisenhower Drive. Although not considered in the initial alternative analysis, eliminating the park area traffic intersection with Eisenhower Drive is a potential physical option which this amendment could allow if the City chose to pursue it. Specific alternative designs are not identified in the VSP amendment; the intent of the amendment is to provide flexibility in the document to allow implementation of various alternative measures to determine the best circulation approach, given changing conditions over time. Adding more alternative diagrams would only serve to limit interim implementation to those specific options. The following agencies responded to the City's request for comment as of January 14, 1994 (comment deadline) . They are as follows: • Public Works / Engineering - no significant comment beyond minor changes to one section of text. Building and Safety - no comment • Fire Department. - no comment • Chamber of Commerce - see Attachment 3. Recommends Plan B-1; secondary recommendation is the Base Alternative. Also request addressing lack of illumination at Eisenhower/Montezuma intersection. • Waste Management - no comment Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks - see Attachment 4. Indicates that one- way circulation is desirable, with Base Alternative also acceptable. Several conditions are also recommended including compensation to the District for any park land used to implement Alternatives B1 or B2. Staff has subsequently received a call from Mr. Don Martin of CVRPD, indicating that the District Board now supports the Base Alternative over Alternative A (one-way) . Sheriff's Department - see Attachment 5. Recommend a 4-way stop at Eisenhower/Montezuma intersection, appropriate directional and speed limit signage, and proper bike lane placement for the one-way alternative. STAFFRPT.029 CVWD - Staff received a call from Mr. Joe Cook, indicating their concern that street alignment changes may affect their current facilities. Most of the comments given to date can or will be addressed as the selected proposal is implemented. This amendment provides the flexibility for considering and instituting interim circulation solutions around the park. The alternative designs are not included in the amendment and are for illustrative purposes only. The City Council, once the amendment is adopted, will make the decision for the interim design around the park. This amendment provides the Council with design flexibility so that any alternative selected can be studied on an interim basis. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution #94-_, confirming the Environmental Determination of the Planning and Development Director, and recommending to the City Council adoption of Amendment #3 to Specific Plan #87-009. Attachments: 1. VSP concept circulation 2. Environmental Assessment #93-272 3. Chamber of Commerce letter dated January 6, 1994 4. Coachella Valley Recreation & Parks letter dated January 4, 1994 5. Sheriff's Department letter dated January 11, 1994 STAFFRPT.029 ATTACHMENT #2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93-272 LA QUINTA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (VSP) SP 87-009 AMENDMENT #3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND: The Village Specific Plan (VSP) was adopted by the La Quinta City Council on February 2, 1988. The proposed Amendment #3 focuses on traffic circulation in the La Quinta Village Park vicinity. The original VSP recognized that circulation in this area was a significant concern, primarily from a traffic safety perspective. As a result, a conceptual urban design plan for the streets and properties bordering the park itself was proposed in the VSP (see Attachment #1) . Certain specific design aspects were adopted as part of the VSP which currently may not represent the most workable circulation approach in this area. Several potential alternative approaches have been considered by City Council which would require interim actions to implement and assess their viability. Due to the fact that the VSP sets forth an ultimate design configuration, the VSP needs to be amended so as to allow interim improvements which will aid in determining the most efficient circulation alternative for the park area. AMENDMENT PROPOSAL: The following summarizes the alternatives considered by Council for the initial attempt to address circulation problems as identified by the VSP in the park area. Base Alternative - This alternative proposes to reconfigure the intersection into a four -legged intersection by curving the south leg of Avenida Montezuma north until it intersects the north leg of Avenida Montezuma at an approximate 90-degree angle . This alternative would require no additional right of way to implement (refer to Attachment #2) . Alternative A - This alternative proposes to reconfigure the intersection into a four - legged intersection by implementing a one-way traffic around the park in a counter- clockwise pattern. This alternative would require a cross -over connection at each end of the park to allow motorists the opportunity to circulate around the park to reach a destination on the opposite side of the park. This alternative would require no additional right of way to implement (refer to Attachment #3) . Alternative B1 - This alternative is an enhanced version of the Base Alternative. It proposes to reconfigure the intersection into a four -legged intersection by curving the south leg of Avenida Montezuma north until it intersects the north leg of Avenida Montezuma at an approximate 75-degree angle. However, this alternative provides a greater separation between Eisenhower Drive and the location where the two legs of Avenida Montezuma intersect. This alternative would require right of way from the Park District (refer to Attachment #4) . ENVAWN.001 Alternative B2 - This alternative is the "flip pattern" of Alternative B1. It proposes to reconfigure the intersection into a four -legged intersection by curving the north leg of Avenida Montezuma south until it intersects the south leg of Avenida Montezuma at an approximate 75-degree angle. This alternative provides a slightly greater separation between Eisenhower Drive and the location where the two legs of Avenida Montezuma intersect than Alternative B1. This alternative would require right of way from the Park District (refer to Attachment *5). On October 5, 1993, the City Council chose Alternative A as the option for trial implementation in the park area. Due to the fact that this changes circulation to a one-way traffic pattern, an amendment to the VSP became even more crucial in order to allow such an alternative to be implemented; one-way circulation at the park was not considered in the VSP. As previously discussed, this is the initial attempt at acquiring information to determine the best ultimate circulation approach for the Village park area. The primary impetus for amending the VSP is to allow flexibility in order to implement interim circulation alternatives and gather data on their feasibility. At this time, the main concern is the Eisenhower Drive/Avenida Montezuma intersection due to Phase 5 improvements beginning in the Spring of 1994. In light of this, several additional potential measures have been identified in the proposed VSP amendment for future study, which may include: Closure of the easterly Montezuma Street section (between Bermudas and Navarro) to auto traffic (pedestrian/bike traffic only) . Cul-de-sac north and south intersection legs with Avenida Martinez along east side of Eisenhower Drive. Elimination of the Montezuma intersection with Eisenhower Drive. These alternatives are not identified specifically in the VSP; the intent of the amendment is to provide flexibility in the document to allow implementation of various measures which could provide feedback to determine the best circulation approach, given changing conditions over time. Therefore, this amendment will not present any significant changes to any other aspects of the VSP; those will be considered during the revision of the overall VSP document during 1994. ENVAWN.00i - V; ee� W VGIN3AV t fC6 40 C6 �14EZ 19 as IV 6.0 \-- -- -----VaIN3AV - VaIN3A VGIN3At a aALLVPM 'iv rive I i ----VGIN3AV - - —-Va1N3At — Va1NI I --VatN3! a .Y.3AL.VN�C3.L'IV Nx Va1N3AV — V(IIN3A' -—VOIN3A% �d e 4 .19. 3ALLVNV3YIV -VGIN3AV - WINN -- V0IN3A .18. 3A11VN7d3llV LIST OF VSP AMENDMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Page 1 Problems - add to second bullet: "... poorly designed intersections, particularly around the Village Park area between Bermudas and Eisenhower.". Page 3 Area Four - add as third sentence; "Several different alternatives still need to be evaluated by City Staff on an on- going, interim basis in order to determine the most acceptable ultimate circulation pattern . " . 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE VILLAGE AREA Page 27 Insert as third paragraph to Section 3.8.2 at this page; "There is no single specific recommendation intended to be presented in this plan, only conceptual treatments for park area circulation. Ultimately, the City will have to decide which circulation alternative is best for the park area. That future decision will be based upon alternatives to be implemented on an interim (trial) basis. Over time, changes in the area will occur which will affect how alternatives are developed, perceived and implemented. In order to maintain a high degree of flexibility, options need to be maintained so as to allow information to be gathered that will help determine the most feasible and efficient circulation treatment for the Park area.". Page 29 Table 3-4: Add the following mitigation measures for Location #1; "c. Implement alternative circulation scenarios on an interim study basis as warranted.". Page 43 Add to fourth bullet, as last sentence, under Opportunities and Strengths: "However, a flexible process which allows for implementation of temporary modifications to circulation aspects needs to be employed to provide feedback on the feasibility of different circulation treatments . " . 4.0 THE SPECIFIC PLAN Page 55 Add new paragraph between first and second paragraph under Section 4.6.2: "Although this section sets forth a suggested overall circulation approach for the Village, it should not preclude interim solutions aimed at achieving a workable circulation pattern. The VSP should be used as a guide towards achieving goals and objectives consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and those set forth for the Village.". VSPAMEND.001 Page 56 First paragraph: Change "Country Club" to "Desert Club". Page 61 Add to first paragraph (partial) : "This plan recognizes that, due to several constraints and unknown factors, various additional alternative strategies may need, to be addressed on an interim basis in order to asses their feasibility and effectiveness. The ultimate recommendations given in this plan may, over time, become less than desirable or infeasible. Over time, new or revised alternatives will be studied, possibly requiring interim trial implementation to gain insight as to the best circulation approach in the park area . " . Page 77 Add between first and second sentences at Section 4.7.2: "Right-of-way needs for interim and ultimate circulation around the park need to be considered. Various circulation alternatives will need to be evaluated based upon changing conditions which cannot entirely be predicted or anticipated.". Page 95 Add to second paragraph from 4.10.3.1: "Interim and ultimate circulation decisions in the park area will have a significant effect on proper intersection design treatments. 11. Add. to fourth bullet under Section 4.10.3.2; "Also, alternative circulation layouts should be looked at over time to ensure that the ultimate circulation design around the park considers changing conditions, which may warrant a review of the overall circulation plan for the area. Other interim treatments may be deemed necessary due to changes in policy direction, design standards, and goals for the Village area.". V3PAMEND.001 I. Background Environmental Assessment No. 93"'Z�2 Case No. S— ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent Ctr-7 C7;e- 44 Qvi�t� 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 710'" K9tg- Z+ 6+ I ZZS3 4-t 9- 7-?-? - -;�-i ZS 3. Date Checklist Prepared l/ - Z 9 - 93 4 A enc Requiring Checklist Clry a�e 4►'cwida7x g y - 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes X in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or _ — over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification X of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach X 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, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic x hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? FORM.009/CS YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage %C patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any %C alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, X either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of iC water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? FORM.009/CS -2- YES MAYBE NO 4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of biological resources? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, x rare or endangered species of plants or animals? c. Introduction of new species of plants X into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment or migration or movement of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 6. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a X substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 8. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any X natural resources? 9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of x hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 10. Population. Will the proposal alter the X location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? vnpm nno/rC -1- YES MAYBE NO y 11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities X or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing X transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of _ circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor k vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? X c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? x f. Other governmental services? 14. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amount of fuel k or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? FORM.009/CS -4- YES MAYBE NO y 15. 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? x c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? -- f. Solid waste and disposal? --�- 16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or X potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 17. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in X 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? X 18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 19. Cultural Resources X a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse x physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? FORM.009/CS -5- YES MAYBE NO 20. Mandatory Findings of Significance. X a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short• -term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will Endure well in the future). x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually 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? FORM.009/CS -6- III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) A-77Ac~ IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE X 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. 11- 09- 99 Date \�igC.t.i1Gf /�lES6/T� Signature of Preparer FORM.009/CS -7- Section III: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION La Quinta Village Specific Plan SP #87-009, Amendment #3 1. Earth a. -g. All responses checked as "No" . The Village area is relatively flat with little natural relief. The soils in the area are well drained, with no identified geologic features or substructures of significance. Approval of the proposed circulation amendment: will have no quantifiable impact on any aspect of earth - related characteristics. Source: EA, La Quinta VSP adopted February 2, 1988. No mitigation proposed. 2. Air a. -c. All responses checked as "No" . The amendment does not propose land use changes which may affect previous air quality determinations. No significant quantifiable emissions are anticipated, nor is any measurable effect on ambient air quality possible due to adoption or implementation. No mitigation proposed. 3. Water a. -i. All responses checked as "No" . No significant watercourses traverse the Village area. This amendment will not result in any impacts which would be measurably different than those identified in the EA prepared and adopted as part of the VSP. No mitigation proposed. 4. Biological Resources a. -e . All responses checked as "No" . The proposed amendment will have no foreseeable impact on any biological aspect of the environment. No mitigation proposed. DISENVWN 5. Noise a. Some incremental increase in noise exposure could occur due to work involved with installing the interim traffic improvements; this is not viewed as significant due to the limited road construction work required to implement the proposed alternative. b . Implementation of any alternative would not involve exposure to severe noise levels. Proposed mitigation: Adherence to adopted hours regulating construction activity will be required. 6. Light and Glare Implementation of any of the study alternatives will not create new or enhanced sources of light or glare, as no lighting is proposed. No mitigation proposed. 7. Land Use No changes to land use are proposed, and implementation of the proposed alternative will not affect the current or future planned commercial designations in the area. 0 No mitigation proposed. Natural Resources a. Adoption and implementation of the amendment will not alter the rate of use of natural resources as identified in the original VSP. No significant increase was identified in the original EA for the VSP. No mitigation proposed. 6. Risk of Upset a. No upset risk can be identified due to implementation of activities associated with this amendment, as they will not involve volatile materials or processes. No mitigation proposed. 10. _Population No changes to population characteristics will occur due to this amendment. No mitigation proposed. DISENVWN 11. Housing Implementation of any alternative associated with the amendment is not envisioned to affect housing supply, demand or other related characteristics. No mitigation proposed. 12. Transportation/C;irculation a. -c. Implementation of the amendment will not create any significant measurable increase in area traffic, as no traffic generating activities or land uses are contemplated by this amendment. Therefore, no measurable effects on parking facilities currently in place are anticipated. d. Although implementation of any alternative will impact existing circulation., the changes to the pattern of circulation around the park are proposed to increase traffic safety and, to an extent, the efficiency of traffic flow. e.,f. There is no applicable traffic in the area under item 12.e. It is not envisioned that any increase in hazards to any vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the area will occur to exceed that associated with the current condition. No mitigation proposed. 13. Public Services a. -f . All responses checked as "No". Public services are discussed briefly in the original VSP Environmental Assessment. The proposed alternative configurations associated with this amendment would not affect the current levels of service provided in the area. No mitigation proposed. 14. Energy No substantial increase in use of energy supplies or in energy demand is anticipated to occur due to implementation of this amendment. No mitigation proposed. 15. Utilities Utilities are briefly discussed in the original VSP Environmental Assessment. Implementation of the proposed amendment should have virtually no impact on existing utilities in the area. No mitigation proposed. DISENVWN 16. Human Health The proposed amendment will not create any health hazard. No mitigation proposed. 17. Aesthetics The proposal will not affect any view into or from the area, and will not create an aesthetically offensive condition in the area. No mitigation proposed. 18. Recreation There does not appear to be any evidence that the proposed alternatives could affect the recreation opportunities at the Village Park. A park user survey is being developed to provide feedback to staff regarding the proposed amendment and its potential impact to park users. 19. Proposed mitigation: All comments received from the park user survey shall be considered and, where feasible and appropriate, will be incorporated into the amendment process. Cultural Resources a.-d. All responses checked as "No". There is no identified potential for the proposal to affect any aspect relative to cultural resources. No archaeologic or historic sites are identified in the immediate area, and the proposal will not affect the physical structure of any building in the area. Source: La Quinta General Plan MEA; adopted September 15, 1992. No mitigation proposed. 20. Mandatory Findings of Significance a. -d . All responses checked as "No" . There is no reasonable evidence, beyond that identified in this environmental assessment, to indicate that the proposal will degrade or otherwise adversely impact any aspect of environmental quality, sacrifice long-term environmental goals, produce cumulative adverse impacts, or cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. DZSENW/N SECTION IV: DETERMINATION Due to the findings of significance made in Item 20, Section III of this Environmental Assessment, it is determined that the proposed amendment to the La Quinta Village Specific Plan (VSP), Case No. 87-009 #3, could not have any significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared. Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner Date DISENVWN I GEM OF THE DESERT CHAPM§Pff FMOMMERCE CITY OF LA LJAN 10 1994 ADDENDUM ,,�,,,_ to previous correspondence submit d b CITY OF E(ATIV.1E � l,�C� D� p,�,ATk! cINT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE (1 ��r,u:--��•-a TO: HONORABLE MAYOR JOHN PENA AND LA QUINT& CITY COUNCIL M: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE PLANNING AND REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE Attending: Mark Moran(chair), Dan Featheringill, Rupert Yessayian, Susan Francis, Tom Lewis, Shelley y Morris, Al Newkirk and Michelle Dallas RE: Specific: Plan #87--009, Amendment #3 The Planning and Review Subcommittee met January 5, 1994 to address the Specific Plan #87-009, Amendment '#3. Their consensus was to respond with the following addendum: The Planning and Review Subcommittee reviewed the previously submitted correspondence, dated November 15, 1993. After evaluation, the subcommittee wishes to strongly reconfirm the recommendation for plan B-1 to be implemented with regard to the traffic pattern around the Community Park. This would be contingent on the cooperation from the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation Dept. If B--1 becomes non -viable, our secondary recommendation would be the Base Alternative Plan. In addition, we would recommend, as a primary issue to be addressed, the lack of illumination at the intersection of Montezuma and Eisenhower. We feel strongly that illumination is of paramount importance in safeguarding the safety of residents and guests alike, visiting the park area. ATTACHMENT *3 POST OFFICE BOX 255.51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS 9 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 9 (619) 564-3199 COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 45-M'1 CLINTON STREET • INDIO. CALIFORNIA 92201 • (619) 347-3484 January 4, 1993 Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Nesbit: JAN 5 i994 00 �Ci Tf -, irk QUiNTA PtANNINI -11 A;i Et'T Please find enclosed the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District's comments to Specific Plan 87-009, Amendment No. 3. If you have any questions or comments regarding these conditions, please do not hesitate to call. I plan on attending the hearing at your upcoming Council meeting regarding this matter. Should you need to talk to me prior to that, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, vex e*-zk Don Martin, District Manager rM �U_9^ Enclosure cc: C.V.R.P.D. Board of Directors Bob ]Hunt, City Manager ATTACHMENT * COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT COMMENTS TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-009, AMENDMENT NO. 3 SUBMITTED TO WALLACE NESBIT, ASSOCIATE PLANNER January 4, 1993 The Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District has and reviewed the materials supplied by the City of La Quinta relevant to Specific Plan No. 87-009, Amendment No. 3, and has the following comments: Physical Impacts The Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District has reviewed all attachments and alternatives and finds Attachment No. 3, Alternative A, to be the most desirable, and have the least amount of'impact on the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District property known as La Quinta Village Community Park. Alternative No. 2, Base Alternative, also would have very little impact on the improvements, operation and activities offered in the Park. We strongly feel that any other attachments and alternatives would have a dire impact on the facility and recreation programs offered in that Park, and would dramatically and negatively affect the operations of this facility, and would most certainly change the findings of your Environmental Assessment Form No. 93-272, Item 18. 2. Recommended Conditions (a) That the District be compensated at market value for any property lost during the implementation of a new circulation pattern around the facility. (b) That the outfield fence in areas in the baseball field that come within 15 feet of the thoroughfare being increased to a 10 to 12 foot fence height to alleviate any liability of fly balls. (c) That any improvements removed or destroyed during the reconfiguration be replaced or reimbursed to the organization at their replacement cost. (d) That curb, gutter and sewer be provided to the Park for use by the general public. (e) That the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District be involved in the Park use survey mentioned in your Environmental Assessment. (� That the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District be given ample time to review any selected configuration to fully evaluate the current and future impacts on the Park. 3. Closing Comments The Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District wishes to support the improvement of the La Quinta Village area, and sees the Park as a key ingredient to the success of the overall plan. We wish to cooperate with the City of La Quinta to develop a plan which is mutually beneficial to both entities. It is the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District's desire to improve the Park in ways that will enhance the aesthetic, functional and recreation values of the Village ilage Specific Plan and City of La Quinta in general. Our organization is committed to promoting the quality of life in all of the communities we serve, and hope that through continued dialogue we can resolve our minor concerns efficiently and effectively. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these continents and conditions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Contact Person: Don Martin, District Manager Comments made by Don Martin, District Manager Signed: Prot January 4, 1993 (619) 347-3484 Agency/Division: Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY COLS BYRD, SHERIFF City of La Quinta Planning & Development Division 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 Attention: Wallace Nesbit Associate Planner Dear Mr. Nesbit: She -riff 82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342 8 g1.LP3, January 11, 1994 it�r � rt I FFFddd JAN 1 4 19yy "- RE: SP #87-009 Amendment #3 The Sheriffs Department has the following comments on the proposed circulation plan around the village park. The design appears workable with the following changes suggested. The intersection of Eisenhower and Montezuma should be a four-way stop. Along with the appropriate directional signs, three (3) speed limit signs (25 MPH) should be placed on each side of the park. The bicycle lane may interfere with vehicles parked next to the park and in front of the businesses on the north side of the park. The bicycle lane should be situated next to the park. If parking is allowed behind the Parkside Plaza, trees and backing vehicles can constitute a hazard to east -west traffic. Attention should be given to that potential problem. The Sheriffs Department appreciates the opportunity to review these plans in advance. Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Captain Indio Station Commander ATTACHMENT #5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA (SP 87-009, #3), MAKING MINOR TEXT ADDITIONS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN 87-009 VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA, AMENDMENT #3 WHEREAS, Specific Plan 87-009 was adopted by the La Quinta City Council on the 2nd day of February, 1988, pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et. seq.; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25th day of January, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Village at La Quinta (Specific Plan 87-009, Amendment #3), adding text to allow for interim circulation alternative implementation measures around the Village Park, within the overall Village Specific Plan (VSP) area, more particularly delineated on Exhibit "A", attached hereto; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, will continue to provide necessary guidelines to help ensure the orderly and compatible development of private lands and public improvements; and, WHEREAS, said specific plan amendment request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) through Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study and has determined that the project could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that mitigation measures incorporated into the project proposal will mitigate those minor project impacts to levels of insignificance; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, after consideration of any and all testimony and arguments from all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation contained herein for said specific plan amendment: 1. The proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The specific plan amendment is compatible with existing and anticipated area development. RESOPC.127 Resolution 94- 3. That approval of Amendment #3 to Specific Plan 87-009 will not have any significant impact on the environment, in that impacts from any interim improvements will be less than those assessed under the original specific plan approval process. 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 of Environmental Assessment 93-272, indicating that the proposed specific plan amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts; 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described specific plan amendment request for the reasons set forth in this resolution, and as set forth in the attached Exhibit "B" (text amendments). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 25th day of January, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.127 25 1 L4�r L 2 3 64 63 62 0e' mo MM MON o© Fogs go gnm NTEZU 52x,--- EXHIBIT "A" SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-009 AMENDMENT #3 EXISTING VSP SOUNDAR �-� 300' RADIUS LIMIT �©®�mmHMO ®mmm�► � �fll�G� U11ffR � �r`fr:IGi�i�ifffflf�ff�f f f © ®© ®© �E� ®Et ©©© PR© ®© Go vam ins f EW �o 0 0 . © fCflif. �sfs - fClff. �rFs • f f. �sFs • fClil �sn ©o [an®� ��. �. ��. --- ©" REFS ®© ®© ® ®© &UM � � tam ti.v KRs, f4.fa MAfA f�m Usta EMS *2 UB f�&A EN fA � - "92 o ME w �o w �� � f.s m� ®in ®� ®m ®. ®Fa MFM �t- pa infer RVINN FMfiv if �Ff1 fK7ifaf fo E�� tnas ���iF� _ E!© ®A MM ®ifs FZ1 PUZZ ©© FaFE Fa if fy ® mm ■ alm ca ©" ®© aau feu tau ®o us" *mm U R" rf fsFZ raf_a an " f l - &al NORM am . uu BARB feu - fro � . �f� car. sus. sr�s. - WIN WON ■ MM MFn ; min mm m . mm ilftifs pares iCfil� f#liF� fCff!■ fk7i� iClif. ik7iF# ICf !• fFl iLfN\ ik7iF�. , f SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-00! AMENDMENT *3 EXHIBIT "B" LIST OF VSP AMENDMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Page 1 Problems - add to second bullet: "... poorly designed intersections, particularly around the Village Park area between Bermudas and Eisenhower.". Page 3 Area Four - add as third sentence; "Several different alternatives still need to be evaluated by City Staff on an on- going, interim basis in order to determine the most acceptable ultimate circulation pattern.". 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE VILLAGE AREA Page 27 Insert as third paragraph to Section 3.8.2 at this page; "There is no single specific recommendation intended to be presented in this plan, only conceptual treatments for park area circulation. Ultimately, the City will have to decide which circulation alternative is best for the park area. That future decision will be based upon alternatives to be implemented on an interim (trial) basis. Over time, changes in the area will occur which will affect how alternatives are developed, perceived and implemented. In order to maintain a high degree of flexibility, options need to be maintained so as to allow information to be gathered that will help determine the most feasible and efficient circulation treatment for the Park area.". Page 29 Table 3-4: Add the following mitigation measures for Location #1; "c,. Implement alternative circulation scenarios on an interim study basis as warranted.". Page 43 Add to fourth bullet, as last sentence, under Opportunities and Strengths: "However, a flexible process which allows for implementation of temporary modifications to circulation aspects needs to be employed to provide feedback on the feasibility of different circulation treatments . " . 4.0 THE SPECIFIC PLAN Page 55 Add new paragraph between first and second paragraph under Section 4.6.2: "Although this section sets forth a suggested overall circulation approach for the Village, it should not preclude interim solutions aimed at achieving a workable circulation pattern. The VSP should be used as a guide towards achieving goals and objectives consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and those set forth for the Village.". VSPAMEND.001 Page 56 First paragraph: Change "Country Club" to "Desert Club". Page 61 Add to first paragraph (partial) : "This plan recognizes that, due to several constraints and unknown factors, various additional alternative strategies may need to be addressed on an interim basis in order to asses their feasibility and effectiveness. The ultimate recommendations given in this plan may, over time, become less than desirable or infeasible. Over time, new or revised alternatives will be studied, possibly requiring interim trial implementation to gain insight as to the best circulation approach in the park area.". Page 77 Add between first and second sentences at Section 4.7.2: "Right-of-way needs for interim and ultimate circulation around the park need to be considered. Various circulation alternatives will need to be evaluated based upon changing conditions which cannot entirely be predicted or anticipated.". Page 95 Add to second paragraph from 4.10.3.1: "Interim and ultimate circulation decisions in the park area will have a significant effect on proper intersection design treatments .". Add to fourth bullet under Section 4.10.3.2; "Also, alternative circulation layouts should be looked at over time to ensure that the ultimate circulation design around the park considers changing conditions, which may warrant a review of the overall circulation plan for the area. Other interim treatments may be deemed necessary due to changes in policy direction, design standards, and goals for the Village area.". VSPAMSND.001 BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 25, 1994 CASE NO.: PRECISE PLAN 93-840 APPLICANT: RIC;HARD & IDA LIVINGSTON REQUEST: ESTABLISHMENT OF A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME (DAY CARE SERVICES FOR 7-12 CHILDREN) IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 53-655 AVENIDA VILLA (IN THE COVE AREA). ZONING: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: PURSUANT TO SECTION 1597.46 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (HEALTH AND SAFETY) LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT SINCE THEY ARE A NON DISCRETIONARY ACTION. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the State Health and Safety Code, the City cannot prohibit large family day care homes on lots zoned for single family dwellings. Although it is the State Department of Social Services responsibility to regulate the operation of a large family day care homes, the City does have some limited authority in prescribing reasonable conditions regarding traffic control, parking, noise, and spacing/concentration of large family day care homes. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS: Section 9.42.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code lists large family day care homes as an allowable use subject to obtaining precise plan approval. PROTECT PROPOSAL,: The applicants wish to operate a large family day care home from their residence. A large family day care home allows a person to provide child care for seven to twelve children, provided a second aide is employed. The applicant has verbally indicated that the intent is to normally have a maximum of six children (small family day care home). However, there may be times when they would have more than six and that is why they are requesting a large family day care home. PCST.163 1 The applicant has stated that the hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. A program schedule for a normal day has been submitted and is attached. Outside play time will be limited to 9:30 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and 3:30 - 4:00 P.M. within the backyard area. Ms. Livingston will be the primary operator of the day care home and has indicated that Mr. Livingston will serve as the aide when necessary. Both Mr. & Mrs. Livingston have completed college courses in early child care education. Additionally, Mrs. Livingston has indicated that she has 25 years experience working with young children including preschool through first grade. The applicant indicates that she will provide child care for La Quinta children of ages 11/2 through six years. The applicant has not yet: obtained a State operators license, but will after obtaining a precise plan. The Riverside County Department of Public Social Services, the regulating agency, is required to monitor the facility to assure compliance with State regulations. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: As required by State law,, the property owners within 100 feet of the property were notified of this request. Normally, this request would be approved by the Planning and Development Director. However, any of the property owners notified may request a hearing prior to approval. Mr. Hans Kraker, the property owner at 53-700 Avenida Villa, across the street from the subject property, requested a hearing. Mr. Kraker submitted a letter indicating concerns regarding increased traffic, threats to the safety of children in the neighborhood, restriction of limiting his children and neighboring children's play to their respective backyards, and lack of street parking. Additionally, he feels that this use will change the residential neighborhood to a commercial area. The letter is also signed by two others persons who reside on Avenida Villa. The letter from Mr. Kraker is attached for your review. ANALYSIS: 1. The issuance of this precise plan permit by State law is a nondiscretionary action with the City allowed to prescribe reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements regarding traffic, parking, noise control, and spacing/concentration of day care homes. 2. Normally, the Planning and Development Director would have the responsibility of reviewing this permit. However, due to the request by a nearby property owner, review by the Planning Commission is needed. 3. The State Legislature has found and declared that: A. It has the responsibility to ensure the health and safety of children in family homes that provide day care. B. That there are insufficient numbers of regulated family day care homes. PCST.163 2 C. That there will be a growing need for child day care facilities due to the increase in working parents. D. Many parents prefer child day care located within their neighborhoods in family homes. E. There should be a variety of child care settings including regulated family day care homes as suitable alternatives for parents. F. That the program to operated by the State should be cost effective, streamlined, and simple to administer in order to ensure adequate care for children placed in family day care homes, while not placing undue burden on the providers. G. That the State should maintain an efficient program of regulated family day care homes that ensures the provision of adequate protection, supervision, and guidance to children in their homes. 4. No other licensed large family day care facilities exist within the Cove area. 5. To minimize outdoor noise impacts generated from the facility, the operation of the child care home should be limited to mid -day hours. 6. To minimize to the extent feasible, traffic and parking impacts from the proposed activity, the following should be considered: A. The driveway area should remain clear of residential/applicant vehicle parking and be reserved strictly for drop off/pick up during child care operation. All residential vehicles, provided there are two or less should be parked within the garage during the child care operation. B. All on -street parking and loading of all user vehicles should be restricted to the area in front of the subject property whenever possible, if the driveway is not used. The; operator generally has control of this. FINDINGS: 1. The project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. The issuance of Precise Plan 93-840, a permit to operate a large family day care home, is a nondiscretionary action. 3. A large family day care home will operate in accordance with Chapter 3.6 (Family Day Care Homes) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California. PCST.163 3 4. The City of La Quinta has authority to prescribe reasonable standards, restriction, and requirements regarding project traffic, parking, noise control, and spacing/concentration of day care homes. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above analysis and findings, the Planning Commission shall approve Precise Plan 93-840, by Minute Motion 94- , subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from applicant (including daily program schedule) 3. Letter from adjacent property owner dated January 4, 1994 4. Conceptual floor plan of the residence PCST.163 Subject -Application for Large Family Day Care Home (Precise Plan 9]-840) Dear Mr Sawa, Thank you for your letter of Jan 5th, advising us of the hearing on January 25th, we will attend the meeting. Thank you also for sharing the concerns of Mr. Krager. 1) Regarding the issue of traffic. We would expect most of the children in our care will come from our general area, so the traffic should not increase much. Also the parents will arrive and pick up at different times so traffic will be kept at a minimum. It is not uncommon to have more than one child from the same family, this could also cut down the number of cars. 2) Regarding the noise level. - e children will never be playing in the street or in front of the house. If you check our activity schedule, you will notice that the outside play time will be in the back yard and it is for short periods of time. Because of the distance between our house and Mr. Krager, he probably won't even hear them~ 3) Commercial Zoning. We have no intention of turning our residential area into a commercial zone. The State of California recommends in home Day Care Centers. They do not consider us to be Commercial. It is still a private residence and there will not be any signs on the property advertising our Day Care. There are many Day Care homes in the cove not licensed. We want to be above board with the neighbors and have all the safety inspections required by the state. So we hope our licence will be granted. We have a good neighborhood. The neighbors are friendly and we will do everything possible to keep it that way. Thank you for considering our Encl: Activity Schedule ^ applil-ation. Richar d and IdaZlivi-ngston ITY OF LA dUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE LIVINGSTON'S IN HOME DAY CARE HOURS Or OPERATION: Monday thru Friday 7:00 A.M. -- 5: 30 P. M. Pra-gram Schedule 7:00 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. Arrival and inside free play 9: 00 9:30 A.M. -- A.M. 9: 30 v 10:00 A.M. A.M. Snack Outside Play (Hack Yard) 10:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. Learning Activities 11:00 A.M. - 11:30 A.M. Music and Story Time 11:30 A.M. -- 12:30 P.M. Lunch and Quiet Time 12:30 P.M. - 3:00 P.M. Nap Time 3:00 P.M. - 3:30 P.M. Snack Time 3:30 P.M. •- 4:00 5:30 P.M. P.M. Outside Play Quiet Activities, Circle Time 4:00 P.M. •- and Dismissal Breakfast if requested. QUALIFICATIONS: We (The Livingston's) are parents of three adopted children ages 19, 26 and 27. Both of us have 15 college units in Early Childhood Education. I (Ida) have 25 years experience working with young children, including Preschool thru First grade. PHILOSOPHY: The Livingston's Day Care is designed to help meet the growth needs of the LaQuinta community.children ages 1.5 thru 6 years, by providing them with quality Day Care in an *nvironment planned and equipped especially for them under the guidance of us (Richard and Ida Livingston). PURPOSE: To provide (in a loving home Invironment) a quality , safe place for children of working parents in our community. COALS: Help prepare preschool children for a positive experience in kindergarten. January 4, 1994 La Quinta City Council P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Jerry Herman, Planning and Development Director Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Gentlepersons: We the undersigned are writing to express our protests and concerns regarding the December 23, 1993 letter. The Livingston's, Ida and Richard have submitted Precise Plan 93- 840 requesting consideration of a large family daycare home at 53-655 Avenida Villa with hours of operation from 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 Monday through Friday. Our concerns are 1) Increased traffic in an already heavily travelled residential location. To the best of our knowledge this is NOT a commercially zoned area and as homeowners we want to keep this a RESIDENTIAL non commercial area. 2) Increased traffic will threaten the safety to the children who currently live and play in the neighborhood. When balls go into the streets frequently children do not look where they are going or to check for traffic this will increase the risk of accidents, particularly when people are in a hurry getting to the day care center or when hurrying home at night. As parents and close neighbors we do not wish to risk injury or possibly death to our littlest citizens by persons who only have an interest in picking up or dropping off their children. 3) Children who are learning to ride bikes and other small toys will be restricted to their backyards if they happen to have one, because it will no longer be safe to allow them to play in the front yard due to increased traffic and risk of child abduction. 4) Increased traffic of parents coming to drop off and pick up children will deprive homeowners and guest of available street parking and will potentially cause driveways to be blocked by.non residents. Please DO NOT change our neighborhood from a residential area. That is why the majority of us chose to buy and live in this area. If we wanted an area of high traffic and risk to our children we would have chosen to live in a "down town " area, not the quieter area of LaQuinta higher up in the cove. We suggest the Livingston's locate their "for profit" business in a commercially zoned area near the community park. A hearing should be held. Yours truly, 7c66e. lJ.c� S�-1z+S rsve. VL1L19 LA j 3'7 a U .Q ll U� l 6M OF CALVMM - MEALTM AND WELFARE AGENCY OEPARTkVffOF8OCM' SERWAl CCOAXM CAFE UCEMM I FACILITY SKETCH (Floor Plan) Applicants are required ID provide a sketch of the fkxw plan of the home or facilfty and outside yard. The Floor Sketch must label rooms such as the kitchen. bath, living room. etc. Circle the names of the rooms that will be used by dientaftildren. Door and window exits from the rooms must be shown In case of an emergency (see Emergency Disaster Plan). Show room sizes (e.g. 8.5 x 14 ... . ....... ... ... .. ..... .. ..... ... ...... J i ... ....... 4- AL .......... ... ........ ........ ...... 4 ... ... ............ . .. .. .............. ..... ....... .. ... .... ... t .......... L ............ .. ... .... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... F'f . -i--:-.. ...�.. ..ice a.. .—a.._ 1 ....... .......... .. .. ............ . ........ ... ... ..4 .... ... .... ... . ... ........ ....... 4 4.. A L -d— ... ....... ...... . .. .. .... ............ ........ ... ... ... ... . . ..... ..... .. A.... .... ... 0 Z I PM-LUI,4, VOL- IQ J // L le- 5-1 2e 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN 93-840 JANUARY 25, 1994 1. Operation of the child day care home shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. 2. Outside play shall be limited to the backyard area and not occur prior to 9:30 A.M. or after 4:00 P.M. 3. The driveway area shall remain clear of residence/applicant vehicle parking and be reserved for clientele pick up/drop off during child care operations. All residence vehicles, to the extent feasible, shall be parked within the garage during the child care operation. 4. The applicant shall obtain the proper County license pursuant to State law requirements prior to operation of the facility. PCST.163 BI #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 25, 1994 REQUEST: FINAL APPROVAL OF SITE/LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR LOTS 173, 175, 177 & 185 OF PHASE VII OF THE LA QUINTA HIGHLANDS TRACT 23269 - LA QUINTA DEL REY APPLICANT: MR. JIMMY CROWELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT - CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES (A.K.A CENTURY HOMES) LOT DESCRIPTION: CUSTOM LOTS (LOTS 173, 175, 177, & 185) LOCATION: SANITA DRIVE AND ESTELO COURT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: JON KAWADA & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ZONING: R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) BACKGROUND: On December 28, 1993, the Planning Commission approved the conceptual architecture plans for Phase VII of the La Quinta Highlands tract. The approval was for 29 single family homes in the custom lot and the Betty Williams areas (Attachment 1) . The plans included one and two story homes. The minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachment 2) . At the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the on -site parking problems which might occur on the existing cul-de-sac lots because the lots are "pie" shaped and three car garages will not be offered. The Planning Commission took public testimony from the existing neighbors at the meeting. The existing home owners were concerned that the new homes would impact their area because of the limited amount of area available for on street parking. The Planning Commission requested that the developer submit exact site/landscape plans for the cul-de-sac lots (#173, #175, #177, & #185) for final approval prior to any on -site work (Condition #15; Attachment 3) . Submittal On January 19, 1994, ,plans were submitted to the Planning Department for review and final consideration by the Planning Commission. The front yards for each lot vary from 20-feet to 29-feet. The developer proposes two garage parking spaces and three open parking spaces outside of the garage structure. Two of the open spaces are on the driveway in front of the garage with the third space proposed in front of the fourth bedroom/den (i.e., bonus room). PCST.002 The driveways are concrete and small planters have been incorporated into the landscape plan. The driveway approaches for each new home are approximately sixteen feet wide. Landscape The final conditions of approval for this project require that the developer landscape the front yards of each home with trees and shrubs. The plan shall include one 24" box tree in addition to the other R-1 requirements. The developer's plans are attached. He has proposed various plant material for each of the four lots and has included 5-gallon shrubs, 15-gallon trees, and 24"-box trees. Lawn is proposed for each front yard. Staff Comments We would offer the following suggestions or comments on the attached plans: (1) The sod for each front yard should be either hybrid Bermuda or premium Perennial Rye depending upon when it is installed. We would not recommend that the developer use a fescue grass for this area because this type of grass does not hold up well in our and climate. (2) Ten 5-gallon shrubs should be installed for each single family home. The plants should be drought tolerant and either watered with emitters or bubblers. Staff can provide a plant list for the developer if he desires. (3) All trees should be staked to prevent damage from the wind. Two stakes should be used for all 24"-box trees. (4) The concrete driveways should include expansion joints similar to the concept drawing exhibits. (5) The driveway approach for each home should be a minimum width of 20-feet to provide easy access to and from the proposed home. (6) The homes should be placed a minimum distance of 23 feet from the front property line to increase the length of the parking spaces in front of the bonus room from 17 feet to 20 feet. (7) Final irrigation and landscape plans for the project shall be approved by the Department of Planning and Development. (8) All trees shall be appropriate for our micro -climate (i.e., Zone 13) . We would recommend that the applicant not use either the Bradford Pear or Carrotwood trees for this project since they are not suitable for this area. Minor Change The developer's sales program is currently under way for this phase, and he has had a request from one prospective customer to change an approved 5L plan (loft) to a 5 plan. The 5L is a two story plan and the 5 plan is a one story plan. Staff told the developer that this type of change would be acceptable, however, we would place his PCST.00z request before the Planning Commission for discussion since the housing size issue has been such a controversial subject for the past few months. Our feeling is that if the developer would like to change a one story plan to a two story plan we would require formal review by the Planning Commission; but if a two story plan is changed to a one story plan this type of change can be done at staff level without further review. We would appreciate any comments the Commission has on this topic for future reference. CONCLUSION: The plans are consistent with the Planning Commission's request of December 28, 1993, to ensure that each lot provides adequate areas for on -site parking and landscaping opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 94- _,approve the site plan/landscape plans of Century -Crowell Communities for Lots 173, 175, 177 and 185 (Phase VII) as submitted, subject to the original Conditions of Approval imposed on December 28, 1993, and conditions recommended by staff. Attachments: 1. Phase VII map 2. Planning Commission minutes 3. Original Conditions (Phase VII) 4. Large plans (Planning Commission only) PCST.002 3 ui CA: C 4.0 2 Cie 3 Q W a ta. ante S?4SLA W k O A 4! O 7 w LO x d � O 41 W 0 C ,r �O rA O• i+ d q J 0 i 0 ON N fr1 ti N r-t N N +O•+ AO,d 0 i+ G0 CD 00,0 0O v 1 N it HtiNN 0 C> Li a M'wtotan cli S 04 $4 .r .4 QS QH� .-� 04 R� Planning Commission Minutes December 28, 1993 ROLL CALL: AYS': Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, Abels, airwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioner , Adolph. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. A motion Gas made by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by C'ommioner Marrs to request the City Council form a committee as reco ended by the Building Industry Association to review the R-1 ring Ordinance update as prepared by the consultants. Unanimously 4nrnvt-A Chairwoman ows excused the Commission for a five minutebreak. IV. LIC COMMENT: - None r a I BUSINESS SESSION A. Sign Application 93-215. Arne idment #1; a request of Laguna de la Paz to amend and relocate the previously approved permanent monument sign for the existing residential develovmeof PC12-28 1. AssociatPlanner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in thes`f report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and De ,Alopment Department.„` 2 Commissioner Adolph asked what landscaping"was on the site at present. ,;;01� Staff explained that it consisted of lawn,,Ctfees, and palms. 3. Commissioner Abels asked what,$ a lighting of the sign would be. Staff explained that they did not Aomit a lighting program for the proposed sign. Discussion foll ed regarding possible landscape lighting. Following the discu n, it was recommended that Condition #2 be changed to read, " proved by the Planning Director". `K 4. It was njg4d and seconded by Commissioners s/Adolph to adopt Minu otion 93-056 approving Sign Appl' on 93-215, Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Unanimously approved. 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. V] 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 be an 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 smaller 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 Ellson/Abels moved and se Unanimously approved. VII. OCHER - None VIII. Minutes of December 14, 1 3 a motion to approve the N submitted. A motion was made d seconded by Commissioners Mar\P.M. djourn this regular meeting of the Planning ommission to a regular meetingg Commission on January 11, 1994, at 7:00 . at the La Quinta City Hall ers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Corr ission was adjourned at 11tuber 28, 1993. PC12-28 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL CENTURY DOMES (PRASE VII) DECEMBER 28, 1993 * Modified by staff on December 21, 1993 ** Added by Planning Commission on December 28, 1993 1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence. 2. The landscaping for each lot shall include one 24"-box tree and one 15-gallon tree on interior lots and one (24"-box) tree and four (15 gallon) trees on corner lots, minimum five gallon shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. :Landscaping shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as adopted by the Planning Commission. 3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met. The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission. 4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 5. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e. g. setbacks, fencing, etc.) . 6. The concrete roof tile in Phase VII shall be similar in color and style to the abutting homes. 7. The minimum roof eave shall be 18-inches . 8. Sectional metal roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garages. 9. The minimum dwelling unit size within Phase VII (custom lot area) shall be 1,818 square feet excluding the two car garage. 10. The developer shall meet the minimum Title 24 State requirements for energy efficiency during plan check (e.g. 10.0 SEER or larger for the condensing unit) . 11. All requirements of Tract Map 23269 shall be met during plan check. 12. * The applicant shall provide perimeter masonry block walls for all new homes in the custom lot area if one does not exist at this time. A new block wall is not required in those areas where an existing wood fence has been installed for an existing home. The masonry block walls shall be built prior to final occupancy clearance of each dwelling unit. CMURVL. 007 Conditions of Approval Can" Homes (Phase VII) 13.* No two story homes shall be built next door to any existing one story home. The rear yard of a two story home can abut a side or rear yard of a single story home. 14. The requirements of Ordinance 240 shall be met. 15 . ** The developer shall submit to the Planning Commission for approval a concept landscape plan and on -site parking program for lots 173, 175, 177 and 185. The developer should strive to have three on -site tandem parking spaces behind the proposed two -car garage. CONAPRn. oo7 MM 1 7 , . - , . u , y , 1 .,I . .,M WAMD BAR, GA Cc 1 11 p \ - ' t I J J 1 To i.i 1 t. �', ��� � �1' ��_ � i i ,. �lei .�-aii�i �%i fill {•:. � �Ir'�;. I�i��i<i, '� `. ,'. i � "'\'MP7 WTI nF [AR . A4 A D FHF ISMUNG AWN! 'FPP'! Ali, i3IJ . ' - 01 , ��...t� � VEP. , W M Awn 'VD . _,, X i' M„`,, f M AI 4`K: Mi 11. n A, • Y� , � !� it_ �„�1�11 ,,, lip,_. .i/\�. �_� .�...� �`3 �,�.;�I �..`5)1.�._ �l �:,''v'I..�ii . 1 TO A 5A,. T 4 i_ Li{ Lyh.__. i i. Q;aw;. iW 1 AW 110 5 LA Q , i GA 11U ... i I SIA . . Mph ph IA%k BEEN ,.UMM MU , NJ_, . ., i I.L vi ;"A! 7 ;icei . ' i } UALAKA 161 i' BMW Till C IT) ., p, �D ... ,... .,. At , ., ,_ ,. _ .,.F k. AKi. WnCiSI G TAI h _ VRI _ i h , 1C;, VOR 11 P 'F i .,1`12t N ' U ;"; ANDCH . LDRIN FOR M I . . I On h "Nq NOT W F 1 01 1 5" T: I r 7 i n Oil v :: T; 1 (Ap "at H! no a c x. Q NIBBly; CA� WbilAD cuWT?n; ya"!� II[� 1: K k V 5 R 0 MONA WA, R k; HAIW, PWK&r�, 'Alp 1 N; KV45 13 10WAUD ; AMA A!Ai :KAI :—%A L; 1 4 1 i VIA Ill "11. PhANNINU ZCY ikSi510 7� G;ly ILI A 0b 0, 0 00 A 4n :WFvF! D HLAA yo At �Lk,i A' KXGFKmF`%! IJWW� iL" u I i ;I I- "'; 1 ki 141 !.A' TK 'A X31n _ n jAW 1 %K W 1 NL RAS YnL' AW TO EL AAKA51 OP COANVAITY &JACWTU, 15K C 11 qWTA 41akl "W W i hi ! k Tip ui cr A WIF!'" ��v AWNIA -10 K ThE PrAFT 1 K M4 1, 1"Wok WrIVIN A05TY111 c! 1 Z- WEAT ylj . D" TFINVI it ON 5 'D 77 :/K" OT L& &INTA TO WY W CG'71 (K 7! Ry WT 1 Q w 01T fq 1A 1YY jTp, 1 7 K! ! j. j W I py� T%j jTjACI jA - FFG I A k j Fxy; ul 1 � , i W n 1 � [� NQj-K0-ZWW LW- ilk, jK74j, APP -UT APPRVIZIATED. ',11, 1W TnAV F! Wk Fit NA KA & ;Q 1 \D-47i 1p; AW 0 % : A W . !AN. WPEWRE RFALIT TW ; 1 ' i '[[�T KI �111v;4 Wsbpio !up 1WO 1NWW&;Avi t.,0%WWATION W ;Ail ' 1 i 4A A Q CA, P. &P 'IATn W =RTESV K A REWONAL 1 HOT W V :7a TQ vwiTuk, !W O'LL ; "i- , YL-1 .A QL!NTA CllY So"Wh LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION ,A QUKT! C11Y PLANNI%0 WAPTYU�-,,' IBBEY BIA DESERT CHAPTER O1/14/1994 P.1 Facsimile Cover Sheet ED KIBBEY BIA DESERT COUNCIL 619-360-2476 O1/14/1994 ,er of Pages: 1 age: :00 PM TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A .ING ON AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD SET NEW MINIMUM SQUARE FOOT ALE FAMILY HOUSING SIZE IN THE CITY AND SET A MAXIMUM DEVIATION OF ,DOUT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS.. THE PLANNING COMMISSION �MMENDED TO THE COUNCIL THAT A TEN PERCENT MAXIMUM DEVIATION A 1300 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM HOUSE BE THE RULE. BIA HAS BEEN GAINING WITH THE CITY TRYING FOR A 1200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM AND PERCENT DEVIATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES LIVING IN LA QUINTA 'OU ARE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THESE :S COULD ATTEND THE HEARING AND SPEAK, SIMPLY BACKING THE BIA TION OF "FAIRNESS TO THE BUILDER AND THE FUTURE HOMEBUYER" IS UNREPRESENTED IN THIS RULE MAKING. THIS IS A VERY EMOTIONAL I TO SOME LA QUINTA RESIDENTS AND THEY ARE EXPECTED TO PACK THE 'CIL CHAMBERS WITH PERSONS REPRESENTING THEIR WAY OF 'KING, WHICH IS 1500 MINIMUM SQUARE FEET AND NO DEVIATION. IT ,D BE NICE IF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY COULD BALANCE THE VISUAL :CT ON THE COUNCIL BY DOING SOME OF OUR OWN PACKING. THANKS YOUR HELP. ED KIBBEY Facsimile Cover Siteet