Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1994 05 24 PC
2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California May 24, 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 94-011 Beginning Minute Motion 94-015 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... CONTINUED - PLOT PLAN 94-522 & VARIANCE 94- 025 Applicant .......... DoDco Construction Services Location ........... Northwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive Request ............ Approval to develop a two story retail/office building in the C-V-C Zone on a 0.37 acre site Action ............. Minute Motion 94- , Resolution 94- 2. Item ............... PRECISE PLAN 94-846 (THE CLASSICS AT TOPAZ) Applicant .......... Century/Crowell Communities (Century Homes) Location ........... Tract 23935 - south of Miles Avenue and west of Dune Palms Road Request ............ Compatibility review of new model homes for the Topaz project Action ............. Minute Motion 94- PC/AGENDA Item ............... PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISED) Applicant .......... Simon Plaza, Inc. (Philip Pead) Location ........... Southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street to the west of the existing Simon Motors Automotive Dealership Request ............ A one year extension of time Action ............. Minute Motion 94- PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address :he 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 - None CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1994. OTHER Commissioner report of City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- STUDY SESSION Tuesday, May 24, 1994 Study Session Room 4:00 P.M. 1. All agenda items 2. Update on Highway 111 Specific Plan 3. Zoning Ordinance update 4. Housing Element update PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California May 10, 1994 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. Commissioner Marrs led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Commissioners Marrs/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to excuse Commissioner Abels. Unanimously approved. C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. PLOT PLAN 94-522; a request of DoDco Construction Services for approval to develop a two story retail/office building in the C-V-C Zone on a 0.37 acre site. 1. Staff informed the Commission that a request had been received by the applicant to continue the matter to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission, Commissioners Ellson/Adolph moved to continue Plot Plan 947522 to May 24, 1994. Unanimously approved. B. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-041; a request of the City for consideration of an amendment to a portion of Chapter 9 (Zoning Ordinance) regarding maximum guest house sizes in residential zones. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted the modifications to Exhibit "A" as follows: PC5-10 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 1994 a. Height was changed to read: Consistent with primary residence b. Parking: Deletion of the las: sentence C. Maximum square footage: Delete everything after the first sentence. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked if Lot Coverage was deleted as well. Staff stated it was not. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. There being no questions from the public, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 4. Commissioners Marrs/Adolph moved to adopt Resolution 94-010 recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-041, pertaining to Maximum Guest House Size in Residential Zones. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Abels. ABSTAIN: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None V. BUSINESS SESSION: None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of April 26, 1994, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson/Adolph to adopt the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER - None VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 24, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:08 P.M., May 10, 1994. PC5-10 2 PH *1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: MAY 24, 1994 CASE NOS: PLOT PLAN 94-522 AND VARIANCE 94-025 (BOGAN VILLAS) - CONTINUED FROM MAY 10, 1994 APPLICANT: DODCO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (MR. DAN FEATHERINGILL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING (+6, 876 SQUARE FEET) ON 0.37 ACRES AND A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE BUILDING SETBACK ON DESERT CLUB DRIVE FROM 10 TO 0-FEET LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE ESTADO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-275. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. THE LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALONG WITH THE CASE AT THE HEARING. ZONING: C-V-C (COMMERCIAL VILLAGE CORE) PROPERTY OWNER: MR. JERRY BOGAN SURROUNDING ZONING/ LAND USE: NORTH: C-V-C/PARTIALLY VACANT WITH ROBI'S AND CHEZ MONIQUE'S SOUTH: C-V-C/VACANT EAST: C-V-C/JEANINE'S HAIR SALON WEST: C-V-C/ANCHOVIES PIZZA BACKGROUND: Site Characteristics The three parcels are vacant. The street improvements exist on Calle Estado with pavement only on Desert Club Drive. Both streets are public streets and a public 20-foot wide alley exists on the north side of the site. Overhead utilities exist along the north property line and are accessible to this project. STAFFRPT.035 The site is located in the Village Specific Plan area as approved by the City Council in February 1988. The Specific Plan area involves approximately 100 acres and is generally bordered by Eisenhower Drive on the west and Desert Club Drive on the east. The site consists of three parcels totaling 0.37 acres. The applicant has approximately 160-feet of frontage on Calle Estado and 100-feet on Desert Club Drive. Previously Built Projects In the last few years the City has approved two projects in this area. The first project was the Anchovie's Pizzeria which is west of the project site. This project was approved in 1992 and built last year. The other project involved the existing building to the east (across Desert Club Drive) which was converted from a residence into an office building in 1993. The building has been recently leased for Jeanine's Hair Design Salon. Architecture A "Santa Fe Pueblo" architecture is proposed for the two story building. The overall height of the building is +27'-6" . The building will be stuccoed white with natural wood trim ("Olympic" Semi -transparent Moorwood Stain). The south elevation will include a covered public sidewalk on Calle Estado. The arcade is ten feet wide and runs the entire length of the building. Structural wood columns will support the cantilevered second story building projection. The Calle Estado store -front will have french doors for each tenant space with multi-lite horizontal siding windows. The doors and window frames will be painted blue ( "Blue Jay" by Deca-Trend) . The architectural design of the building is in keeping with the "Desert Oasis" theme of the Village Plan. The building incorporates "Southwest" architecture, utilizing a flat roof with parapet, stucco walls, exposed wood beams and the pedestrian collonade. The design is similar in overall concept to the existing Jeanine's Salon to the east. On -site Parking/Access One single point of access will be provided on Desert Club Drive for the office/retail complex. The two-way driveway will serve 901 parking spaces. The drive aisle is 26-feet wide with the on -site parking spaces 9-feet by 18-feet. Twenty-eight (28) parking spaces are provided. Staff Comments: The project layout is consistent with the provisions of the Village Plan. The C-V-C Zone states: "The structure's front shall extend to the front property line, with ten feet of ground floor depth left open and reserved as a clear pedestrian walkway easement, covered with a second story, balcony, or shade structure; or, STAFFRPT.035 The structure's front shall be set back at least ten feet from the front property line for a pedestrian walkway easement, shaded by landscaping, or with a further setback of the ground floor at least ten additional feet to achieve either structurally - shaded space, or a landscaped area, or a fountain, or an art display area, or a patio or courtyard, or a combination." The primary purpose of this provision is to achieve variety and interesting pedestrian areas. The applicant's plan meets this requirement, but staff has the following comments: A. Front Elevation - Although no other existing buildings along Calle Estado are as close to the street as this application proposes, the Village Plan encourages this type of design to provide a covered walkway. Staff supports the design theme, but we would request some minor architectural changes as follows: (1) The building parapet design should not have square 900 corners. We recommend that the parapet edges be rounded to conform with a "Santa Fe" style design motif. The thickness of the parapet should also be a minimum of 18-inches; (2) The windows should be recessed into the building envelope a minimum depth of three inches; (3) A raised landscape planter should be used under some of the storefront windows on the first floor in order to accent the overall design theme because of the limited opportunities available for on -site landscaping along the pedestrian arcade; (4) Decorative ceramic tile should be used around the door frames of each tenant space to further accent the southwest characteristics of the building. B . Rear Elevation - The rear elevation is not as attractive as the other primary street elevations. We would request that the parapet design match the front elevation and that the lower tenant spaces include other architectural upgrades as required by the Village Plan. The Plan states that "because parking will be offered off alleys, and because north/south pedestrian walkways along street or mid -block will cross alleys, alleys shall be considered potential pedestrian walkways. Displays, display windows, entryways, signage, lighting, landscaping, and architectural detailing shall be provided on the alley side of structures along alleys." French doors should also be used on the north side of the building in -lieu of the solid core doors. Additionally, other compatible architectural features should be added to improve this elevation. C . Landscaping - Limited space is available for on -site landscaping after considering the building footprint and required customer parking. The perimeter landscaping proposed is the minimum allowed by the Off -Street Parking Code. In our initial conversations with the applicant, we commented that if a one-way design was used it would increase the landscaping opportunities on the perimeter of the site. However, this concept reduces the number of on -site parking spaces, as two points of access would be needed STAFFRPT.035 versus one. The applicant stated he did not want to have any off -site parking spaces because of the cost of $4, 000+ per space to bond for these future City provided spaces. Street trees are required along Desert Club Drive. The trees should be a minimum size of 24"-box or larger. The trees shall be planted in 3'0" wide by 3110' long tree wells per the design standards of the Village Specific Plan. The tree wells shall be incorporated into the pedestrian sidewalk plan. D. Desert Club Setback - The C-V-C Code requires a minimum setback along Desert Club Drive of 10-feet similar in design to the Calle Estado elevation. The applicant is aware of this problem and he has submitted a variance application to deviate from the City's code standards. The variance request is discussed later in this report. E. On -site loading area - No formal loading bay is proposed on the site plan to accommodate service delivery vehicles. Staff is led to believe that the two- way drive aisle will be used or delivery personnel might off-load merchandise from either public street. The off-street parking code requires the applicant to provide one (12' x 4511) loading bay or space exclusive of aisle way drives. This plan does not meet this requirement. The Planning Commission may require more or less loading and unloading areas pursuant to Chapter 9.160.050 (E) (b) . In past cases, the Planning Commission has allowed loading spaces in the on -site maneuvering areas if the projects were small and the requirement would adversely affect the proposal (e.g., Anchovie's Pizzeria, etc.). Staff supports the applicant's design based on past practices. Sign Program The applicant has submitted a sign program for the two story building as requested by staff. The applicant has decided not to allow individual tenant signs but to proceed with a single sign identifying the entire center. The sign measures seven feet high by five and a half feet (+38.5 square feet) and it will be painted on the building on Calle Estado. The sign is located on the south-easterly side of the building (on the second story elevation) and it has exposure to Calle Estado and limited exposure to Desert Club Drive. The color scheme matches the proposed building colors (i.e., sand brown, blue, and antique white) . The Village Plan requires the following elements in the design and placement of a building sign: - Every sign shall have good scale and proportion in its design and in this visual relationship to buildings and surroundings. - Every sign shall be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site to which it principally relates. - The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which it principally relates. - Signs on glazed tile with indirect lighting are to be encouraged. STAFFRPT.035 Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited. The number of graphic elements on a sign shall be held to a minimum and shall be composed in proportion to the area of the sign face. Accessory signs shall be given the same careful consideration of approval as that given for main signs. Each sign shall be compatible with signs on adjoining premises and shall not compete for attention. Identification signs of a prototype design and corporate logos shall conform to the criteria for all other signs. The low -profile design of the building supports the applicant's design solution because of the buildings architectural features. Staff does not believe this sign should be made of glazed tile based on its size and location on the building. If in the future the applicant wants individual tenant signs, staff would recommend that the applicant present a sign program similar to the Von's Center on Highway 111, west of Washington Street. The existing Sign Code discourages signs placed on two story elements of commercial buildings because normal projects can apply for a freestanding identification sign along each street frontage and for each tenant space. This site does not lend itself to a freestanding sign because there is no space to accommodate a free standing sign. Additionally, upstairs tenants are required to identify their business on a directory sign instead of attached individual signs. A sign adjustment is required by the Planning Commission in order to approve the proposed sign because it is located on the second story portion of the building. Chapter 9.212.030F (Adjustments) permits the Planning Commission to consider alternative sign locations to compensate for inadequate sign visibility, or to facilitate good design balance. Two standards apply in this case; they are: 3c - Additional, alternative on -site locations may be granted in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure; or 4 - Alternative Type of Sign. To facilitate compatibility with the architecture of structure (s) on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. The applicant's sign is positioned on one of the only areas of opportunity for a sign facing Calle Estado if individual tenant signs are not utilized, because the tenant windows and doors on each level of the building do not provide adequate areas to place a permanent sign. The two provisions of the adjustment section of Sign Code apply in this case. Staff supports the sign design and graphics as proposed by the applicant except it would be better to delete the outer sand brown border from the "Bogan Villas" portion of the sign graphics since its style is not in keeping with the Southwest STAFFRPT.035 building design, and upper and lower case letters should be used in lieu of the upper case letters proposed by the sign contractor. Secondary Pedestrian Access The Village Plan discussed a "pedestrian network" for the +100 acre area with major access being provided on each east/west public street. The plan also discussed a possible north/ south pedestrian link along each block between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas. A ten -foot wide pedestrian system (mid -block) was envisioned to facilitate access from Avenue 52 to Calle Tampico (Chapter 9.90.71E6b) . The pedestrian link is supposed to be independent or separate from the on -site parking program. Calle Estado between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas presently does not have north/south pedestrian accessway as originally envisioned. The only access route for this area is through the private driveway lot for the office building west of the La Quinta Meat Market. Therefore, staff has talked with the applicant about providing a minimum four foot wide passageway through the mid -section of the first floor level of the building to provide access from Calle Estado to the private parking lot in the rear adjacent to the public alley. Mr. Featheringill, the applicant, has requested that the City not require a four -foot corridor because it will delete useable lease space from his future building. Staff believes the corridor is necessary because in addition to providing access, it will also create additional store -front exposure to the two tenant spaces which abut the pedestrian corridor. The other option available to the applicant is the possibility to expand the upstairs area to account for the loss in square footage to the lower floor. Variance Application The applicant has submitted a variance application in the hope that the Planning Commission will approve a zero -foot setback for the two story building on Desert Club Drive. The present standard requires a 10-foot setback for the first floor portion of the building on each street frontage. The Calle Estado design is consistent with the C-V-C provisions. Section 65906 of the State"s Planning and Zoning Law states: Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinances shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated. Staff has examined the applicant's plans to determine if the variance request should be approved. Staff cannot justify a variance for the applicant based on most of the criteria stated above. Recently there has been discussion with the City Council concerning how to encourage downtown development such as relaxing the existing development standards or modifying the standards to spur development. As the Planning Commission is aware, the City is currently under contract to update the Zoning Code. The update will consider revisions to all sections of the Chapter 9 of STAFFRPT.035 the Municipal Code. Staff has a number of recommended changes for the proposed update; however, the hearings for the new document will not occur until later this year. In the last few years, the City Council has approved two downtown projects which had variations in the C-V standards. Generally, lots which are +100-feet in depth are difficult to build on based on the City's development standards. Staff has concluded that the setback on Desert Club Drive is not as critical an issue as Calle Estado because on Estado the curb line is the property line whereas on Desert Club the property line will be +12-feet back from the curb line. The parkway landscaping will buffer the proposed building facade, and the building only encroaches approximately 20 percent of the length of the lot on Desert Club Drive. Staff considers this a minor deviation from the C-V-C code provisions. CONCLUSION: That the proposed plan is generally consistent with the design standards of the C-V- C Zone district and the adopted Specific plan for the downtown area. Staff is supportive of the conceptual plan, as conditioned. RECOMMENDATION: (1) The Planning Commission approve Plot Plan 94-522 by Minute Motion, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions. (2) Move to approve Planning Commission Resolution 94-_ granting Variance 94- 025 to allow a zero foot setback on Desert Club Drive, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Land use map 3. Environmental Assessment 4. Specific Plan Excerpt (Planning Commission only) 5. Draft Conditions and Findings 6. Large maps (Planning Commission only) sTAFFRPT.035 ATTACHMENT 1 J /vw • ' S %: 6S. R. 7E. t '•� � %RA OPO. OS! tb CgL+CE ^•� F. �ESTADO " � 1Or• /73 O O q J if� 19 ® s w I J o O K z0 O ' Q • ! ® ® ® © ® /o ! c 0B s � M..1 W..r m �i S\ r•.r �I I w.•a .�.� ,� Wr• .,Z w _ N•� '' Q .p � � i ;i "• .w w / si •�+M 2 �i 3 /WI 3 Q f 6 3 C " e- n r e,p RN.tp I MB /9175 Desert Club Tract Unit No / FEB :967 CASTE Na P'ot Plan 54-52? DoDco Construction Services Location Map g �, ATTACHMENT 2 • y 1� �c Q�OQ�Y Existing eLi 1 Oj;)IJ es rarx, o Salon Home Home Home CoripW C �__�CALLE `__� �__jESTA00�__.� I "' 4��E•i►",.• FORruNA PreNi ous c I c Ci y Hg11 i Vacant Home ' Home Vacar Corppl e t Home Home Home Vacant Home _ J CALL£ .• ___�� •� _4 V 1 � wn � Q Dolly Cunard'$' Vacant Home Restaurant ; �<•--�s---Existing Overhead Utilities Property in Question CASE No. LAND USE MAP PLOT PLAN 94-522/DoDco Home Home Home Vaca ,u o CAD/I •:� w p• iacant Vacant ? Vacant ` Home Vacant `'0 NORTH SCALE: nts CITY OF IA QUINA ATTACHMENT 3 of ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: f... 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Req•.Yring Checklist: c: S. Name of Pr;osal, if applicable: I I. ENVIRONMENTAL :.--AM (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attat_e-1 sheets.) 1. Earth. Wi:: the proposal result in: Yes a�be No a. U-stab:e earth conditions or in changes in geologi: substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. C:ange in topography or ground surface relief features? d. T2 a destruction, covering or modification of any ur.:-sue geologic or physical features? e. Any ir.:reases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. C:anges in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion a-ich nay modify the channel of a river or strean or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet -r lake? g. Expostie of people or property to geologic ha:arZs such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of a=bient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. A:tera:ion of air movement, moisture or tempe-ature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ 3. Water. Wi:l the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Ganges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alter: ion of surface water quality, in- c:uditg but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of grcund waters? _ — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding cr tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result is a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora an! aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any un:.;3e, rare or endangered species of plazas? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier tc the normal replenishment of existing s_e:ies? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agric;:::aral crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result ia: a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shel:fish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? _ r b. Reduction of the numbers of any m:qje, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of ar.:ra:s into an area, or result in a barrier to t`.e migration or mcvement of animals? _ �- d. Deterioration to existing fish or .rildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result it a substantial alteration of the present or planned :ands use of an area? t 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use o_l any natural resources? w b. Substantial depletion of any rene4e le natural resource? 10. Risk of 2eset. Does the proposal invcice a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited ta, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) iz #—'he event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter a::e location, Etri ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) Yes Maybe No C. Substantial '.zmact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations tc present patterns of circulation or movement cf people and/or goods? _ e. Alterations .µ waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ f f. Increase in traffic :hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists :r pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result :_ a need for new or altered govern- mental services = any of the following areas: a. Fire protect: =? b. Police prott__:on? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance =f public facilities, including roads? f. Other goeer..nemtal services? 15. Energy Will the _roposal result in: a. Use of subst.a`:ial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Substantial ;"=cease in demand upon existing sources of e~=rgy, or require the development of new scurces zf energy? 16. Utilities. Will _ e proposal result in a need Tor new systems, :r substantial alteraticns to the following ut::_ties: a. Power or nat- a: gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or sept:: tanks? e. Storm water L-ainage? f. Solid waste ar_ disposal? ' 17. Human Health. W::: the proposal result in: a. Creation of health hazard or potential health hazarc _excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of fz- le to potential health hazards? _ 18. Aesthetics. tiil: --,e proposal result in the obstruction of a:_ scenic vista or view open to the public, or w::: the proposal result in the creation of an aes _netically offensive site open to public view? " 19. Recreation. kill ---e proposal result in an impact upon the quality :r quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Hiss=:ical. Will the proposal result in an alteration --:f a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? _ 21. Mandatory Finding zf Significance. a. Does the projez-- have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat zf a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal comity, reduce the number or restrict the range =f a rare or endangered plant or animal or elim=s-'te important examples o:F the major periods of Za:ifornia history or preh-story? (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achiere short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, =_ vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -tees impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are vidually limited, but cumulatively considerab:e" (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 cr- human beings, either directly or indirectly:' III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Or the basis of this initial evaluation; _ I find the proposed project COULD NOT *!_a-.e a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGAT:.= DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed projt:t could have a significant effect on the environment, _-ere will not be a significant effect in this case betas a the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet *-zve been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARAT:OA i.:LL BE PREPARED. — I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRO.10IEN?t;. -FACT REPORT is required. Date: — Signature CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NO. PP94-522/VAR 94-025 (EA94-275) DoDco/Rogan DESCRIPTION: Request to develop a +6,876 square foot office/retail complex at the northwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive on three lots designated Commercial Village -Core (CVC). The property is vacant at this time, but some of the off -site improvements have been installed along the boundaries of the project. The developer is proposing a two story structure; however, a variance will be required because the building setback on Desert Club Drive is less than 10' for the first floor portion of the building, as required by the CVC zoning standards. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS --------------------------------------- EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The site is located in the downtown area of the City in the Village. The City's General Plan describes this area Indio Sandy Loam, which consists of well -drained and moderately permeable soils formed in alluvium. Elevations range from 230 feet below sea level to 230 feet above sea level. This site is approximately 40 feet above sea level. This type of soil is good for agriculture but this property has not pursued this type of development in the past. Recent soils excavation in the area reveal that the soils range from medium dense at the ground surface to very stiff below the surface. This type of soil has a low potential for expansion and for corrosion to concrete, but may be subject to some erosion and/or caving. The properties surrounding the site are developed with active commercial businesses. The site is vacant and graded to a finished grade level with the top of the existing 8-inch high street curbing improvements. There are no faults known to traverse the site, and the site is not located within a State of California "Alquist-Priolo" Special Studies Zone for fault rupture hazards. The City's Seismic Hazard Map indicates that this area is in a level 3 intensity area (Level 12 being the most severe). Earth shaking in a level 3 are slight but can be felt by most people indoors. The site is also located in a Seismic Zone 4, as designated by the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, buildings at the site could be subject to strong ground motions generated by earthquake activity at some time during its design life. The San Andreas fault is the only major active fault in the La Quinta area. This fault is believed to be capable of generating an earthquake of up to 8.3 in the next 100 years. The fault line is located in the Indio Hills, north of Interstate 10 approximately seven miles north of the site. Even though the fault is considered active, groundshaking has not impacted the La Quinta area in a significant way. The entire region (Coachella Valley) experiences periodic seismic activity, therefore, it is possible that the future building might be impacted by a severe, regional earthquake. The new building(S) shall be designed with this problem in mind pursuant to the Uniform Building Code provisions. The potential for liquefaction generally occurs during strong ground shaking within loose, cohesionless sediments where the ground water is usually less than about 30 feet. Because of the depth to ground water expected at the site (over 100 feet), liquefaction is considered unlikely at this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so as to not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. Since the grading quantities have not been submitted, it is assumed that most of the earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and limited importation will occur. If fill dirt is needed to raise the height of the building pad to conform to City standards, all dirt must be clean and free of debris. 2). The site has been rough graded but staff were unable to determine when the work was completed. However, additional site preparation work will be warranted in order to prepare the site for construction in the future. 3). All new buildings shall be built to current standards as required by the Uniform Building Code in effect at the time the plans are submitted to the Building Department for plan check. 4). Compacted soil for the future building pad should be a minimum of +90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557) is achieved to a depth of at least 36 inches below the existing or final grade, whichever is lower. This might be achieved by overexcavating the site soils to a depth of 24 to 30 inches, then scarifying and recompacting an additional 6 to 12 inches below the excavation bottom. The zone of compacted soil should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the building/footing lines. 5). If clay or heavy silt is encountered during grading, these soils should be exported from the site, or alternatively, could be thoroughly blended with the more granular soils on the site under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. 6). Fill should generally be placed and compacted in uniform, near horizontal lifts not exceeding 8-inches thick prior to compaction. Field density testing of the soils should be performed as the lifts are placed and compacted (UBC, Chapter 70). 7). All on -site construction shall be inspected by the geotechnical engineer who, in the future, performs the on -site report necessary to develop the site with urban improvements. The findings of the future report shall be incorporated into the grading and construction plans. 2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. With the construction of the proposed project there may be a reduction in the overall mobile emission releases since the proposed business uses would provide a convenient service to local residents of this area. Compliance with the local and regional air quality regulations regarding PM10 and blowsand control will mitigate any potential for wind erosion of soils that may will occur from minor earth moving activities. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust. The applicant shall submit a fugitive dust plan to the Planning Department pursuant to Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code. 2). Areas graded but not immediately under construction shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction there may be a change in the absorption rate, drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run-off. The project proponent will provide an on - site retention basin for collection of storm water and nuisance water run-off or the developer can choose to contribute to the City's Storm Water collection fund. The fund will be used to build a 5 acre detention facility for this area which will store rain water on a temporary basis during flooding periods. The future facility is to be located north of Calle Tampico to the northeast of Plaza Tampico. The site is in a AO zone as shown on the Federal Flood Insurance Maps. This area is subject to periodic flooding and, therefore, mitigation measures will need to be taken to ensure flooding does not occur at this property once it is developed. A grading plan is warranted because building pad heights will need to be one foot above the flood plain to prevent building damage. Ground water in the area of the site is considered to be contained within Thermal Subarea in the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Ground Water Basin (CDWR, 1964). The Indio Subbasin encompasses about 400 sq. mi.; this comprises the majority of the floor of the Coachella Valley. The Indio Subbasin is bordered on the southwest by the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains, and is separated from the Mission Creek and Desert Hot Springs Subbasins to the north by the Banning and San Andreas Faults and the Indio Hills (Source: Rubicon Geotechnical Report, 1992). Information from CVWD indicate that the regional ground water level is at a depth of 100 feet or more below the surface of the site. However, ground water levels in the area may be expected to vary through time in response to seasonal and/or long-term hydrologic influences. Grading of the site would not be expected to be impacted by ground water, but deep excavations may encounter soils becoming increasingly moist. There are no marine or fresh water bodies on or adjacent to the proposed project. There are no anticipated impacts to the flow of ground water. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable City and Coachella Valley Water District requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall complete a hydrology study and grading plan, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, which identifies the increased water run-off quantities which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against a development request. Based on this study the project engineer shall design the necessary on -site drainage basins which will maintain storm water run-off the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the earth on the project site or in -lieu of on -site improvements the developer shall contribute money toward the development of a regional detention basin in this immediate area. 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant plant life. As noted previously, the site has been graded and no vegetation exists at this time. When the County of Riverside developed the street circulation system in this area they may have eliminated the native vegetation on this property during construction of the existing off -site infrastructure or the natural vegitation was removed by the past property owner. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: The subject site is not located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species). Therefore, this applicant does not have to contribute toward money to the Nature Conservancy. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the commercial center, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to the site for goods and services, and it is assumed that no noise will be generated by the primary users of the site because the office/retail uses are inside the building envelope. No outside storage is proposed. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: The building and parking lot as well as landscaping will be provided with lighting as part of the project. However, at this time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff. It is assumed that during the plan check process of this case, the applicant will be required to gain approval of the material from the Planning and Building Departments prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto developed properties. 2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking lot, and shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity. The study will also identify the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting fixtures, and other pertinent information necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off-street Parking Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. The light poles in the parking lot shall not exceed 18 feet in overall height. The light poles shall be decorate in nature, and meet the intent of the Village Plan. 3. Recessed canopy lighting on the underside of the pedestrian arcade is encouraged to assist pedestrian safety and/or security. 8. LAND USE: The City's existing General Plan shows the subject property as Village Commercial. Therefore, the intended land use plan (office/retail) is compatible with the General Plan and with the Commercial Village -Core Zone standards. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional housing for employees of the development. However, due to the size of the center, any demand would be insignificant because the City presently has an overabundance of land either vacant at this time but slated for residential development or developed at this time with housing units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at this time, but multiple family housing projects will be forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future. MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION: With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the immediate area. It is anticipated that this small project will generate 15 trips per day per 1,000 sq. ft. to the site or roughly 105 trips. The streets which abut the site are designed to accommodate between 12,000 and 20,000 vehicle trips per day. Presently, the streets surrounding this area relieve this area of any major traffic impacts. Those streets are Calle Tampico (+8,000 vt/d), Avenida Bermudas (+4,500 vt/d), 52nd Avenue (+7,000 vt/d), and Washington Street (+11,000 vt/d). In terms of traffic history, this site is not subject to previous traffic accidents because of the low frequency of drivers in the area, and Calle Estado has a posted stop sign which restricts access onto Desert Club Drive until it is safe to proceed. There will be no significant alteration to present patterns of circulation as a result of the proposed project. Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas are serviced by the Sunline Transit bus system and there are no impacts anticipated to their system by the approval of this project since the site is removed from the system by approximate 450 feet. Parking needs will be met within the development. No significant effect on parking facilities will occur either on of off -site based on the project design. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s) will be required. However, other methods of improvement will be permitted if they are allowed by the City Engineer (e.g. Assessment District Program, Capital Improvement Program, etc.). 2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to accommodate the proposed use of the property or the developer shall contribute to the City's Downtown Off -site Parking Trust Account. This fund was established to help developers pay an in -lieu fee for parking spaces they could not design into their project. The applicant has stated that he will meet the City's on -site parking provisions on the site, and no off -site parking spaces will be necessary for his development request. 3). Sidewalks shall be provided on both street frontages. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and should only have minor impacts on existing personnel or services. All affected public agencies were mailed copies of the proposal during the City's review period, but no negative comments were received. Copies of the transmittals are attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6, 000.00 per acre. This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Department and Riverside County Sheriff's Department. 15. ENERGY: The city is served by the IID for electric power service and by the So. Cal. Gas Co. for natural gas service. The proposed project will increase the demand for existing sources of energy as follows: office/retail - 2. to 2.9 cu.ft./mo./sq.ft. = 20,300 cu./mo office/retail - 17 to 15.3 kWh/sq.ft./yr. = 119,000 kWh/yr. In past transmittals, both agencies have stated that their facilities can accommodate the growth of the City. Therefore, since staff did not receive a letter from either provider prior to the preparation of this document, it is assumed that the project will not impact the off -site facilities. MITIGATION MEASURES: The developer shall acquire permits from each public agency to connect their respective existing facilities. The facilities will be extended from the existing facilities to the new project as needed. New systems or substantial alterations will not be required. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. The facilities are accessible to the site. No negative or adverse comments have been received from any public agency as of the writing of this report. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. As previously mentioned, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms and/or will contain nuisance water from both irrigation and paved surfaces (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.) or the developer shall contribute his fair share to the ultimate development of an off -site 5 acre detention basin for usage by this property and/or his abutting neighbors. 17. HUMAN HEALTH: The development is not anticipated to result in the creation of any health hazards because the facility will be limited to retail and other office related uses. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 18. AESTHETICS: The project is architecturally compatible with the other surrounding projects. It is also in scale with the adjacent Anchovie's Pizzeria, and it meets the policies of the Village Specific Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall meet the requirements of the Village Specific Plan. 19. RECREATION: The retail use will not generate a need for recreation. Therefore, no impacts will be generated by the development of -the site with commercial services. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: The site has been development with urban services (off -site improvements) and has been graded in anticipation of a future commercial building or buildings. Therefore, no known archeological or historical impacts are anticipated by the development of the site with new on -site improvements. MITIGATION MEASURES: On -site grading shall be stopped if during the construction work historic artifacts are found. This can include human remains or other materials deemed important for further research (i.e., pottery, etc.). City staff shall be notified immediately if any finds are made and all work shall be stopped during the review period. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings,. All identified impacts can easily be mitigated to a level of insignificance by particular mitigation measures. References: MEA, City of La Quinta (1992) Rubicon Geotechnical Report (1992) - Anchovies California Dept. of Water Resources Attachments: Public Agency Letters Prepared by: Greg Trousdell ATTACHMENT 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 94-522 (BOGAN VILLAS) MAY 24, 1994 DODCO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FINDINGS: 1. The proposed project has been determined that it will not impose a significant impact on the environment provided the proposed mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed Conditions of Approval. A mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 2. The project is consistent with the provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the Village Specific Plan. 3. The project will not have an adverse environmental impact on the surrounding properties based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. 4. The project is a logical progression of development for this commercially zoned area. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan. 6. A sign on the second story elevation should be permitted because it identifies the entire center and it is architecturally compatible with the center. GENERAL: 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 94-522, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date (May 24, 1995), 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 on the property. CONAPRVL.122 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and Off -Street Parking requirements. 5. A masonry trash enclosure shall be built and shall include opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 7. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas, and bicycle parking spaces. 8. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 9. The project shall comply with the Art in Public Places Ordinance. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department (grading permit, improvement permit) o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Desert: Sands Unified School District o Coachella Valley Water District o Imperial Irrigation District o Riverside County Health Department The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of 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. CONAPRVL.122 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 11. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 12. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 13. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirement in effect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 15. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials per City Ordinance. 16. That all conditions of the Planning and Development Department shall be complied with as follows: A. Incandescent uplighting should be used for the parking lot landscaping. The fixtures shall meet the provisions of the City's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. The lighting should include glare control features which will help direct the light downward. B. The final sign program and landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development Department. C. The parking lot trees shall be of an evergreen nature and designed to provide shade for both customers and employees (e.g., Fruit Fig (Ficus Carica), Bottlebrush Tree (Callistemon Viminalis), California Pepper (Schinum Molle), Bottle Tree (Brachychiton Populneus), and African Sumac (Rhus Lancea). All parking lot trees shall be provided with root guards and include deep well watering systems to ensure tree growth. D. Shrub and groundcover areas shall be irrigated by drip irrigation methods where possible and all nuisance water shall be retained on -site within the landscape areas or by other approved methods (e.g., drywell). The amount of shrubs shall be increased so that the minimum spacing width is 3'0" on center. Groundcover foliage shall be installed. CONAPRVL.122 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 E. The exposed wood beams shall be heavy timber rough sawn lumber. The beams shall not be stuccoed. F. The architecture materials and colors of the building shall be architecturally compatible (i.e., identical architecture, colors, and/or materials) with the Village Specific Plan Design Goals. Cement plaster texture used on building shall be of a decorative nature and approved by the Planning and Development department prior to issuance of a building permit. G. Two handicap parking spaces are required. One van accessible space is required. H. The rear elevation facing the alley shall be upgraded to include other architectural elements (e.g., stucco with architectural plant-ons) as required by the C-V-C Zoning standards (e.g., displays, display windows, entryways, signage, lighting, landscaping, and architecture detailing shall be provided on the alley side of structures along alleys). The final plan shall be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Developmen_ No exposed downspouts shall be permitted unless they are an integral part of the architectural elements of the building. J. The roof parapet shall be a minimum of 18 inches in width and include rounded or sloped transitions from each parapet level to the next. K. The windows along Calle Estado shall be recessed three inches into the building to create added pedestrian interest along the public sidewalk arcade. L. The window and door frames for the project shall be wood or metal. If metal, the frames shall be painted to match the exterior trim color. M. The proposed trash enclosure shall be enlarged to support the City's future efforts to recycle office waste. N. Decorative tile shall be installed around the perimeter of each door frame to accentuate the appearance of each first floor tenant entry. O. A four foot wide pedestrian passageway shall be incorporated into the first floor building footprint to allow access from Calle Estado to the on -site parking lot. The accessway should be centrally located. CONAPRVL.122 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 P. All parking lot light standards shall be decorative pursuant to the Village Plan design theme, but in no instance exceed 18-feet in overall height. Plans for lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Q. A second story building sign identifying the project will be permitted provided the sign does not exceed +39 square feet and the sign is compatible with the architectural characteristics of the project (e.g., southwest). If the sign is painted on the building, a painted border around the sign name should not be used unless another southwest design motif is chosen. R. A raised landscape planter shall be built along the pedestrian arcade adjacent to the building. The planters shall be a minimum height of 18-inches and a minimum width of 24-inches. S. A three foot high screen wall shall be built along Desert Club Drive to screen the on -site parking area from view. CITY FIRE MARSHAL: 17. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1750 gpm for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 18. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 21/2") on a looped system, 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. 19. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 20. 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. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and 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. 21. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Light Hazard Occupancy. 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 buildings. CONAPRVL.122 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 22. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at the job site for all inspections. 23. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 71. 24. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 25. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from the Riverside County Fire Department for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by the Riverside County Fire Department for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 26. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 27. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 28. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and the front of the proposed building. 29. Delivery vehicles shall be parked in the on -site parking lot at the rear of the building at all times, when such parking is available. The alley shall never be blocked by delivery vehicles. 30. The applicant shall construct on- and off -site grading, utilities, alley, sidewalk, landscaping, and site improvements prior to issuance of Certificate(s) of Occupancy for any building within the development. 31. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others. CONAPRVL.122 6 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 Deferred improvements for this development include: Desert Club Drive - half street improvements from the centerline of the alley to the centerline of Calle Estado DEDICATIONS 32. The applicant shall dedicate public street rig,it-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Dedications required of this tract include: • Sufficient right-of-way along Desert Club Drive to yield a half -street total of 30 feet plus corner cutbacks at Calle Estado and at the alley. The corner cutbacks shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 805 unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. • Pedestrian and maintenance easements over the 10-foot-wide sidewalk along Calle Estado. 33. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Calle Estado, Desert Club Drive and the alley except for access points detailed hereinafter. 34. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. GRADING 35. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 36. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. CONAPRVL.122 7 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 37. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 38. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists the actual building pad elevation(s) and states the difference between the actual elevation and the elevation shown on the approved grading plan. DRAINAGE 39. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out off of the development to the adjacent streets in a manner approved by the City Engineer. The development shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations receiving flow prior to the proposed improvements. 40. Nuisance water (including irrigation and wash -down water) from this development shall be retained on site. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. A trickling sand filter and leachfield, or an alternate system approved by the City Engineer, shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field, if used, shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. UTILITIES 41. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.122 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 42. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map for this development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below. 43. The following improvements shall be constructed to conform with the requirements of the City Engineer: • Ten -foot wide sidewalk on Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive. The sidewalk shall be constructed with a decorative light -salt finish and colored to match the existing sidewalk to the west. • Full -width paving improvements to the alley. The alley shall be designed to accommodate a future change in the elevation of Desert Club Drive without excessive removal and replacement of alley improvements. • Full parking lot improvements. 44. Improvement plans for all hard -surface and drainage improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media and shall include striping, directional arrows, stop signs, sidewalks, no -parking areas, and parking spaces as appropriate. Parking lot and alley surfacing may be A.C. or P.C.C. If the alley is constructed in A.C. , a P.C.C. centerline ribbon drain shall be utilized to carry drainage to Desert Club Drive. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic 'oading, including construction traffic. The minimum pavement section shall be equivalent to 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b. 45. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street, alley, or sidewalk transitions extending beyond the boundaries of this development. CONAPRVL.122 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 46. Building pillars within the sidewalk along Calle Estado shall be constructed with finished footings extending a minimum of 12" below the top elevation of the adjacent curb. The portion of the footings embedded below the sidewalk surface shall maintain the same cross-section and surface finish as the portion above the sidewalk surface for a minimum of 6" below the surface and shall be wrapped or treated with a bond -breaking agent to facilitate removal of the sidewalk without damage to the footings. 47. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: • Desert Club Drive - full -turn, 26-feet-wide drive centered approximately 85 feet south of the centerline of Calle Estado. LANDSCAPING 48. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and shall be signed by these officials prior to construction. 49. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 50. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 51. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within landscape areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. QUALITY ASSURANCE 52. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the quality -assurance program. If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.122 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 53. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans, specifications and applicable codes. 54. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. MAINTENANCE 55. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and related improvements. FEES AND DEPOSITS 56. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. MISCELLANEOUS. 57. Plans for grading, drainage, streets, pedestrian/bike facilities, gates, common parking areas, parks, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, and perimeter walls are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. SPECIAL: 58. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by Staff prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall include landscaping, irrigation, signing, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, utility plans and materials. 59. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 60. The provisions of the City's Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met during plan check. CONAPRVL.122 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-522 May 24, 1994 61. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust (PM 10) Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the 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 this permit. 62. The Environmental fees of the State Fish and Came Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposal by the City Council. 63. The upper stairs tenant spaces shall be limited to office uses unless otherwise determined by the Building and Safety Director. 64. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts during grading of the site. The developer shall employ appropriate mitigation measures during proj ect development should archaeological remains be uncovered. 65. Approval of this plot plan is subject to approval of Variance 94-025. CONAPRVL.122 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING LOCATION SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DESERT CLUB DRIVE FROM 10 TO 0 FEET CASE NO. VAR 94-025 - BOGAN VILLAS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of May, 1994, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of the Donoco Construction Services for a Variance to Section 9.90.071 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), to permit the first floor of the building on the property line and/or any other items deemed necessary by the Planning Commission, more particularly described as: SOUTH 1/2, NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E. S.B.B.M. (APN: 769-101-010, 011, 012) WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the commercial project. Mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the overall impact of the project on the surrounding area. WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the granting of said Variance: 1. The strict application of the Village Specific Plan and C-V-C design standards deprive the Applicant of providing an innovative design solution for his new office/retail building. 2. The new structure setback on Desert Club Drive will not impact the immediate area because the right-of-way width on Desert Club is larger than Calle Estado thereby providing an opportunity for a tree lined parkway with enlarged pedestrian sidewalk between the proposed building and the new street curb. 3. There are no physical constraints which prohibit development of the site. 4. The proposal project conditions will insure that no long-term environmental impacts affect the community or abutting properties. 5. The Conditions of Approval will assure that the project is designed in an orderly fashion. RESOPC.132 1 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 the Environmental Assessment which indicated that approval of the Variance would not constitute a significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby grant said Variance 94-025 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit "A"). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of May, 1994, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.132 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94- EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED VARIANCE 94-025 - BOGAN VILLAS MAY 24, 1994 CONDITIONS: 1. The approval shall remain active as long as Plot flan 94-522 is in effect. 2. Approval of the Variance is subject to approval of Plot Plan 94-522. 3. No building setback will be required on Desert Club Drive for the new building addition. CONAPRVL.125 PH *2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: MAY 24, 1994 CASE: PRECISE PLAN 94-846 (THE CLASSICS AT TOPAZ) REQUEST: COMPATIBILITY REVIEW OF NEW MODEL HOMES FOR THE TOPAZ PROJECT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALM ROAD (TRACT 23935) APPLICANT: CENTURY/CROWELL COMMUNITIES (CENTURY HOMES) REPRESENTATIVE: DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, PROJECT MANAGER BACKGROUND: Historical Highlights In 1989, thth f Miilproved les Avenueact and3west of which Dune Palms Roads lots on a +50 acre site located souI1991 and 1992 the tentative map was extended for additional one year periods . In 1990, the Planning Commission approved three single family model homes for the original developer, GWR Development, to begin construction of the tract pursuant to Condition 31 of the final Conditions. The condition states: "If a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders, prior to the issuance of building permits. The applicant/builder shall submit complete detached architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission shall review and approve elevations as an agenda business item". A fourth model was approved by the Planning Commission on September 10, 1991. The following table details the approved plans for Tract 23935: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Sq. Footage 1,830 2,081* 2,173 1,406 # Stories 1 2 1 1 # Different 3 3 3 Elevations 3 # Bedrooms 3 4 3 2 # Bathrooms 2 212 22 2 # Car Garages 2 3 3 2 Detached Cottage - - - W / Option (1,687) Note: *Enlarged to 2,405 square feet and 2,581 square feet by the developer. The background materials from these past approvals are attached. STAFFRPT.036 Submittal On April 29, 1994, new plans were submitted to the Planning Department for review and final consideration by the Planning Director. The following table details the proposed plans: Plan Numbers 2X 3 3X 4X 4ALT 5 5X 5LX # Sq. Feet 1,428 1,444 1,654 1,845 1,903 1,759 2,047 2,455 # Stories 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 # Different 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 Elevations # Bedrooms 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 # Bathrooms 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 # Car Garages 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 Hobby Room Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes Added Total 11 0 15 3 3 1 4 3 Note: A Plan 4 (1,685 square foot) home is proposed on Lot 9 on Desert Fox. The plans are attached (Attachment 8) . Four floor plans are available (Plans 2 through 5) configured with two bedrooms, three bedrooms or four bedrooms. The plans range in size from 1,428 square feet to 2,455 square feet. Plans 4X, 4ALT and 5L are two story plans. The homes have two or three bathrooms depending on which plan is used. Compatibility Ordinance In March 1994, the City's Compatibility Ordinance went into effect. The ordinance pertains to subdivisions which are partially built -out and a new developer is involved with finishing the tract improvements and/or phases. Century Crowell Communities has purchased the remaining portions of the Topaz project. At the present time, there are +44 single family homes built in Phases I and II; therefore, +146 lots remain to be developed by the applicant. The Compatibility Ordinance states: The Planning and Development Department shall make the determination of whether a design deviation is major or minor using the following criteria: STAFFRPT.034 A . A minor design deviation can be approved by the Planning and Development Department without a public hearing using the precise plan process (Section 9.42.110) . Minor design deviation means a modification of an approved architectural unit within a subdivision that involves items such as, but not limited to, less than five percent (5%) change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; columns, dormer vents, window size changes, plant -on locations, color, and stucco texture changes. The Planning and Director may he minor design deviation to the Planning Development _Commission for a non -hearing compatibility review. B . A major design deviation is subject to the review and approval process of Chapter 9.25 Compatibility Review Process. A major design deviation means, a five percent (5%) or more change in square footage of existing constructed or approved units; any exterior architectural modification not defined as a minor design deviation. In this case, the Planning Director has requested that the Planning Commission examine the plans to determine if the plans are architecturally compatible with the existing Topaz units. A copy of the ordinance is attached (Attachment 3) . The size of the units are within the 5% limit for a minor deviation, however, staff believes the architecture characteristics are a major deviation from the existing Topaz units . Therefore, a public hearing has been scheduled. The City's current R-1 Zoning provisions mandate that the applicant provide a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet and meet the Compatibility Ordinance requirements. The sizing issue is based on the smallest plan (1,406 square feet) to the largest (2,581 square feet) of the original Topaz units. The Planning Commission must evaluate the compatibility issue in terms of: a. Architectural material such as roof and exterior material, window treatment and garage door style b . Colors c . Roof lines d . Fencing e. Landscaping f . Two story vs. one story The Planning Commission when approving compatibility units may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within the phase or subdivision. Existing Topaz Unit Mix Staff has examined the building permit information on the existing homes within Phases I and II and our summation of the housing mix is as follows: Square Footage Percentage of Total* +1,687 12% +1,830 23% +2,150 360 +2,500 29% Note: *Rounded +60% of the units have 3 car garages +30% of the units are 2 story STAFFRPT.034 Approximately +13 Homes within Phases I and II are two story, with some units having three car garages. All homes have stucco exteriors with various reveals or architectural pop -outs. The roofing material for the homes consists of a slight barrel concrete tile in various shades of brown. The color is not varied on each house like other tract homes in the City. The perimeter walls are stucco and each home has a wrought iron pedestrian gate facing the public street. Public Notice Public notices were mailed require Desera Sun newspaperby Section 5on50 of May 18,11994ce 242. The case was also advertised in the Staff Comments: The applicant has provided a number of single family home plans for the expansion of the Topaz project. The plans range in size from 1,428 square feet to over 2,400 square feet depending on whether the hobby room is included in the final square footage. The project can be considered a "minor deviation" because the plans do not exceed the 5 o square footage size level. However, from an architectural standpoint, staff believes the plans would be a major deviation from the existing Topaz units for the following reasons . (1) Street View Elevation - The existing Topaz units have an enlarged entry court leading into the home. The covered entry is flanked by stucco columns and leads to single or double decorative front doors. Each entryway has a gable roof design which allows a geometric stucco pattern to be installed above the entry to accent the formal entrance into the home. The Century -Crowell proposal is not as appealing as the original plans. Staff would recommend that the applicant include these features on his proposed plans (Conditions 24 and 29). (2) Roof Eaves - The existing Topaz homes have a boxed framed eave which accents the horizontal banding of the original architectural theme. The applicants plans do not have this design feature. The eave design is more indicative of a traditional design with slight eave overhangs. Although the design is different from the initial unit plans, staff supports the deviation because the eave overhang will provide minor shading and create a shadow pattern on the building which will highlight each unit design ( Condition 26) . (3) Housing Mix - As noted in an earlier section, the existing Topaz housing mixture is geared toward units greater in size than +1, 800 square feet with each plan type being +30 a of the total units built. Staff supports limiting the number of units which can be built in the future phases of the tract in order to be consistent with Phases I and II. We would request that the Planning Commission either consider creating a buffer around the initial phases or limit by a percentage the type of unit which could be built in the new phases or phase. The primary reason for this request is in the applicant's plans for the first +41 homes, approximately two-thirds are Plans 2 or 3 (±1,654 square feet or less) . Staff believes this is not acceptable (Conditions 22 and 23) . STAFFRPT.034 (4) Architectural eas existing requirements of the Design Review each side of the home pursuant to Board and Planning Commission. The applicants plans are architecturally appealing from the street, but are lacking in their appeal on the other three sides. Staff would request that the Planning Commission require upgrades to the other elevations as required in the initial Topaz approvals ( Condition 21) . (5) Trellis Shading - The initial Topaz homes were required to have trellis shade structures on the rear building elevations which have exposure to the west and south. Staff requests here the rear of the home patios on each home w faces a south or west property line (Condition 20) . (6) Landscaping, Fencing, Roofing, etc. - The existing homes are nicely designed with front yard landscaping and perimeter stucco walls on all homes. The applicant states taommends Condit ons will match these architectural 18 toltensure ies in tthat development. Sff rec architectural compatibility is maintained. (7) Exterior Windows - The original homes have a variety of different size windows on each building elevation. The design of the front windows usually includes a rectangular low-level window with decorative windows above which accents the architectural style of the building (i.e., triangular or half - circle) . The applicants new plans rely on rectangular windows for most light and ventilation needs. The larger homes do have decorative windows, but only on the f ront elevation of each home (e . g . , Plans 4 and 5) . Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission examine this issue and determine how best to correct this problem. Item 4a of Section 9.25.030 states a "...proposed single family dwelling unit must be compatible in terms of architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style." Therefore, staff believes the Planning Commission can require windows which are similar in character to the existing homes. (8) Building Articulation - The Century -Crowell plans do not include as many exterior building projections as the original Topaz units . We are primarily concerned with the rear elevation of each home. Plan 3 is the only unit which has a variable exterior building surface. The proposed homes are rectangular in nature. Staff would request that the Planning Commission consider placing a restriction on the developer so that the proposed homes have building projections averaging ±4-feet over 50 percent of the length of the house (Condition 28) . Letter of opposition Attached are letters of opposition from some of the existing Topaz homeowners. Existing homeowners believe the new homes planned by Century -Crowell Communities are a major deviation in overall design from their units. The Planning Commission should review the letters from the existing residents plus the staff comments noted above when examining this application. STAFFRPT.034 Letter from Developer Mr. Cunningham has prepared a rebuttal letter for the Planning Commission which outlines the project's background and other pertinent information on their new project. Appeal Hearing Pursuant to Ordinance 242, either the applicant or an aggrieved party can appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council for final consideration. The appeal must be filed within filing feeiscalendar days s after the date of the Planning h Commission's decision. g CONCLUSION: Staff supports the applicant's request to build heir rproduction units ni nin t issue as tract provided the proposed Condition of Appoyal are met resolved. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 94--____, approve Precise Plan 94-846 subject to the attached Findings and Conditions. Attachments 1. Location map 2 . Previous Planning Commission Reports Excet 3. Ordinance 242 ( Compatibility) - p 4. Previous Planning Commission Minutes 5. Draft Conditions 6. Letters from the Topaz Homeowners 7. Letter from Developer 8. Large Architectural Prints (Planning Commission only) STAFFRPT.034 ATTACHMENT I r.do t mucus s �W� e c .� �� l �� l C: ... ........ Jr • VO Miles Avenue CD � i City of Indio >� W cc 1..._ '1117: -*.Future High Sch. CASE Nkx Precise Plan 94-846 Century Crowell Communities Topaz NORTH SCALE: nts Z Q It, i ILL CC ATTACHMENT 2 ui, 78-105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 FAX (619) 564-5617 September 12, 1991 Mr. Dennis Cunningham GWR Development 429 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 320 Santa Monica, CA 90401 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23935 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR UNIT #4 Dear Mr. Cunningham: The La Quinta Planning Commission on September 10, 1991, approved the architectural elevations submitted for Unit #4 in Tentative Tract 23935 with the following conditions: 1. A trellis is to be attached to the unit where the rear of the unit faces west. 2. All units shall have architectural detailing on all sides. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR G An(.a+'ru's Glenda M. Lainis Associate Planner GML:ccs MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 LTRGL.246/CS IfthEv STAFF REPORT FILE COPY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 APPLICANT: GWR DEVELOPMENT (TOPAZ) ARCHITECT: WISHARD ARCHITECTS PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23935 - REVIEW OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL UNIT LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) BACKGROUND• 1. Tentative Tract 23935 comprises 196 lots on a 50 acre site located in the northern area of La Quinta. 2. Plans 1, 2 & 3 plus color board (desert colors) were approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 1990. The applicant has now proposed an additional plan, smaller than the three approved plans. 3. On September 4, 1991 the Design Review Board reviewed plans for Unit #4 and recommended approval by the Planning Commission of this unit. PROPOSAL• The following table shows details of all plans: New Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 # Sq. Footage 1830 2081 2173 1406 # Stories 1 2 1 1 # Different Elevations 3 3 3 3 # Bedrooms 3 4 3 2 # Bathrooms 2 2-1/2 2-1/2 2 # Family Rooms 0 1 1 0 #Car Garages 2 3 3 2 Cottage - - - YES STAFFRPT.047/CS -1- STAFF COMMENTS 1. The new unit has an architectural style in keeping with the existing three units. 2. The new unit has an optional cottage located in front of the house. 3. The rear and side elevations of the new unit includes detailing around windows on all sides. It should be noted that this detailing should appear on all units even if the units are located close to one another. This has been a requirement for all developments and was a requirement for the originally approved three units. 4. The applicant has indicated that a trellis attached to the rear of the house will be included with this unit where the rear of the unit faces west. This should also be provided on the south side. 5. A number of the windows of the house are located close to the eaves and have pop -outs which should provide some shading. The rear elevation requires additional shading where a trellis is not incorporated into the design. The sliding door on the right side and all four sides of the cottage elevation could also benefit from some shading device. 6. The unit will utilize the same desert color scheme as was approved for the other three units. DESIGN REVEIW BOARD ACTION: On September 4, 1991 the Design Review Board reviewed Unit #4 for Tract 23935. The applicant stated that units with the rear of the house facing west will have a trellis attached to the house on the west side. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the above unit elevation to the Planning Commission on condition that a trellis is attached to the unit where the rear of the unit faces west. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by Minute Motion the unit elevations for Unit #4, Tract 23935 on condition that a trellis is attached to the rear of the unit where the rear of the unit faces west. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Subdivision Plan 3. Plans for Unit #4 STAFFRPT.047/CS -2- r� t a - __ I --___ • -• ....I --.A w.\ ,. r.•v�r�.. •....♦J •-t•..• 4% wM%.A., •►tt•t� t as-ttr trw 4 "Mum O Warm ttr9 I WAOISOMW -?fz, YLSIOO t'i / sawn tt10t � S1D3jjH3uV OUVHSIM ' •S.N9Wd0'=atAiO MM0 .m..-�..�,® Mm P i �m .............. 1 I t Q 0 tjo a 0 .4- 4— U 4-3 tN 0) 00 N l0 4J 4-1 Cn o� Qs w cu j 4-3 u1 0 H 4- Zr U LC. •C1 WR DEVELOPMENT Feb. Feb. 26, 1991 City of La Quinta Planning Glenda Lainis 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 RE: Lots 5,7,16, & 20 of Tract 23935-1 Dear Glenda, Y 0� LA Effective immediately, lots 5,7,16, & 20 of phase I, Tr. 23935-1, are hereby changed from 2405 sq. ft. to 2581 sq. ft.. These lots will comply with the City of La Quinta's minimum setback requirements as shown in the enclosed footprints. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or if you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, GWR DEVELOP14ENT Dennis Cunningham V/P Construction DC/pc cy. ennis Cunn' a George Ri ards "Building Homes of Distinctive Quality Is Our Business" 429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 320, Santa Monica, California 904010 (213) 393-66274) FAX (213) 393-9693 78-105 CALLS ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564.2246 October 15, 1990 Mr. Dennis Cunningham GWR Development 429 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 320 Santa Monica, CA 90401 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23935, UNIT ELEVATIONS Dear Mr. Cunningham: On July 10, 1990, the La Quinta Planning Commission approved the unit elevations as submitted for Tentative Tract 23935 with the requirement that three changes be made. The following resubmitted plans and roof tile samples comply with the changes requested by the La Quinta Planning Commission and are therefore approved. 1. Plan B (2405) ( was 2081) the right and rear second story elevations now have sufficient detailing. 2. Plan C (2173) the right elevation now has sufficient detailing. 3. The three tile samples, "Castille clay red (flashed)", "Castille Santa Gold " (flashed), and "Castille Rosewood" (flashed), are acceptable. Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Glenda Lainis Assistant Planner GL : bja cc: Building & Safety LTRGL.018 MAILING ADDRESS - F.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JULY 10, 1990 APPLICANT: GWR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23935 - REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (SEE ATTACHMENT #1). BACKGROUND: The Applicant has submitted elevations and floor plans of three proposed dwelling units for Tentative Tract 23935 (see Attachment #2). Conditions of Approval #31 for TT 23935 reads as follows: 1131. If a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders, prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Builder shall submit complete detailed architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission shall review and approve elevations as an agenda Business Item. Basic architectural standards shall be included as part of the CC & R's." The Applicant has submitted the above required plans and color board. SUBMITTAL: The following table shows details of all units. Family D.U. # Different # # Bedrooms Room Garage Sq.Ft. Elevations Story's Plan a 3 0 2 1830 3 1 Plan b 4 1 3 2081 3 2 Plan c 3 1 3 2173 3 1 One roof the and four stucco alternatives have been proposed for these units. STAFFRPT.075/'BJ - 1 - ANALYSIS: 1. The Applicant should provide at least two other alternative roof tile samples to provide variety in the roofscape. 2. The Applicant should provide more detailing (trim or "pop outs") around the windows or show a horizontal band across the following elevations: Plan b (2081) right and rear second story. Plan c (2173) right elevation RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion approve the proposed elevations for TT 23935 on the condition the right and rear elevations are for Plans "b" and "c" respectively revised and two additional roof tiles are selected. The revisions shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval. Attachments: 1. Locality plan 2. Proposed elevations 3. Tract map STAFFRPT.075/BJ - 2 - VINUO-411VO 'V1:Nina Vl ZVd01 1N3Wd013A3Q 'W 'M 'S P P� P-* T I ro5l ♦0000 I�1 14 Q c� b� td,e� W d ;;te,r! i LU o cc J� Fj n-M ai AM Tj ZVdOL IN3Yld013A30 *U'M'o Fl, • sar: GiW R lmx , S c REAR ELEVATION --- 11:-.11- -of or A.vt ��i • r ¢ear nw6 `Y�w FiQ.t DEFT SIDE ELEVATION roe ov PL-m Uav owl • RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ' ,•-' W "V-e A.GT 'r 3db lL Te c �sy Li�l w r,•.c abe.e.t g..r.,.�a KJ �F a o br �� n� Q-e er+� La -"a&* mswa ) z-./.rl C..6m V%.m v Va0 m4owe tta.�i we �-Vl Vo d A^e m a.c.c :5 is rl, s d 'kasE d w, RF®su Gh.AQ v ac ruroi4 Q SMav IV ftw-&S �bt 4Fir a� �• c' �.�. azass a.b . P oG Aoss w . �•I• v � ad a.ac / FRONT ELEVATION — la1° fte-w &*a it, qo cm l/a••t'•Y 930 STANDARD FLFVATIMM L— w ,m- W"w ftks. ,W a. pmI6 low-i-wox cyJ4jl st¢R tro dC uRaL dL .m► ¢ n..�pr a yw oI Li..t --W A�• o�— as& a1, uo la ♦aa as lia 96 $/b Its D'�S r.4 Its . qs (�Y91grrs o vp OF Ax! :46 fil— .aver glow a liar a'at REM Or.ic sys 7g.� a..sca..lc ,Aos4 ELEVATIONS G. W. R. DEVELOPMENT e . •c . sa, !ass. ` � P { 6[ ., '� • S !• b� fir. �! : ev a.�{i.: i9. TOPAZ tt LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA � ! r a • a , .. r� •o ro . ,a`�", s s• •. •.. ... ._.... vps r,L: 0%4rvs no., rr s- liar 91 uBt! WA* y' dr•9 HA.sei. 6%jobk F,w A -AL ewwS ~ - lw as RA SIC 11 600 d cc•.rq� - wo oC Ra,� nl�sl e t QLt VA4 ra.a �w t a�— Gaw s ez3— LEFT 021 ELEYATIRK a n va•nr c�— -�� rtt-a.e Som first (�+ FaQ Rrs wac M/ ,� a D�.✓tiii� 46 4.0 (Ci.S�10 SIP f 10. tX6 Q , CiFr.a}�T— s es vt+vE or .bw Lk&,- 6-0- -, =1 — i L s .t.t,s o�— RICcNT SIDE ELEVATION MM /yo f • 41 go6 a &%kp d rn. ass J e esemL r s.49Y "� NY OF ry y 6 Ra•lI,D AJe�r, i 'Lot� W I !• •' as.z m.b FRONT ELEVATION , t�,d Ret�wrsaR oeeb 330 ALT. ELEVATX)N 1 ftcIv f>s.6- r y: ti �u1% ♦.Y:S.C'aCY"T"+Ta ,�?•Mr 3a .fRs..# a.�ya..�..y�p^+� ,r..ir4i lH DEVELOPMENT TOPAZ CALIFORNIA v I ash. .�p "41 4 REAR ELEYATION-�` -sw m aw,t zr: yc 1 rip. Z— LLM SIDE ELEVATION 1- b,l+O ar 48AS RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION lk .c .&no -4+ arr cmu .:a,1,cs HF . ra--a Gna .99"TA (k, PAN A^* MQW 2 W/ AjArr pwou aw+4 � ,y, d nr.,ee a►srk cb�a+•e.+tiw� +� ,n a a. PLANT. o up-p4lqw e�•.r mo cr a.. r,l� ram,c &.so* log `. C ,{h 3. ISM �yyrryy4 -.iiY)�f .:'4iLl :r,'",. -,' ,:.r?.r�..ailera •.ne'_'R�N !�!• A �- �R'�F);T� EY4k �"R .+y'lpY�.� 9�/�'145 � S'fS�ty{�y�.' M1Y, .,c a�" P/I�,Y+•'r.'a ALT ELEVATION 2 G.W.R. DEVELOPMENT TOPAZ LA QUINTA, �f CALIFORNIA .r _O7 AM ttss:ip3- ;si 6r �.t: �tNt�;�: -,.PHIs.... t W j'r.-f — ,► r LU LU I y i cn ate cy gi fs 1� N o uj ca Z a I ,i �cr O 0 LL I F- i cc 4. ZVd01 IN3WdOl3A30 a M o `Seel s ' � a 6: s_ 3 O Q N d C J 0 aLL cr O J LL n .Z O V W V) f lj ��• i Q FF 'Ed1 Cr �// � .R � 1\ j I� n.. �I� l I A; EJ ILI 'wl J I AMIJ� ztt:. ♦3 is T F:T W w ral -- ZVdOl .. lw3w'dO73A3a a M o will I I I , � I e . rT �1F`1.11.�i1! r �a ra ' e 3 • ye �3 B= 01 re ! r 13 ZI � J tL ax. TZ 13 a_ w LA- .i ~"j.aT�non4aicnsSsarz�. •.YMU M —W MM VINUO411VO'Vt. ,O VI YVd01 IN3WdO'13A30'V 'M 'D RAO►OC,� N1 i W is i 10- Hvid Howu WUVATM aavCWvt: 3rat r- r• - _ - lie Nit �1 I _-+ �•- � it I I � '�• ose+-s41 - - — . 1►-- a CD r" -5 w CYo Q N u- cr c� 4 iP .f N.'e� usQQMT a s . FAW a�6 Q as aPeM aec •! L-L I - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ti C, -0 as at aa+S e .rt s i I I � I ���IIIIII 111��� 1 r— ~"'"� AIGHT SIDE EL,EVAT� P41-4-- IV a.e�caca..b G .� �,'. o r4v.0 e.ro iv ,V<d A,6,0 afto ALT EL EVATGON 2 FRONT ELEVATTION G.W.R. DEVELOPMENT TOPAZ LA ®I,IINTA, CALIFORNIA t&.-:n c.1Y SOT— — zv eo Amc E.@Y. fyY $:..trl M7•. I i :7 6ej no- 2173 ALT.ELEVATtON 1 Z.L..Fd.ii39 I O V s wIt*0 -k '110 s w.s MON LEFT SIDE ELEV� ATIO�N vTdi M aa+ x;F •C Fo6 aMd RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION o. ,..., .• 2• Sr••'a yrd Anaraz mJp RrBtt¢ wl *i ,e/ 312d en+o ALT ELEVATION 1 G.W.R. DEVELOPMENT r" �+ 1 Y •�� •'�•O�' � --�� 9oK. c.•a rvRr I � ryrc M+�. gyp• �� •. 1.0 of �Mb 1173 STANDARD ELEVATION 191111MI-XIMMMIR � N i%s' a6�Mefle0. yrm.r FT SIDE ELEVATION U—O%IW w* 4c' !r P OA S .MM fW rT1 ry• d► I/ —�i Vr 11%1 axc tb .Pew 6 If• Re. VNnaJ i fio w iu•, P ,'Ter w .W'i I _ Ell ` iGHT SIRE ELEVATION s- sI•.e EtF �.�c�-I-aRa• h pif ee FLA qo^ MIID L r104: A- "'%�x�'ERt®R ErLEVAFIONS G. �ii. R. DEVELOPMENT ® FtBPAZ LA QUINTA, CALiFORMIA i/INao�I1V� `Vtt�fnp V1 ZVd01 dN3h1d013A3tl '11'AA•p S311:Oad i1VM N011VA313 '11V 1Val .e�� lka p� �I �- Rsae S}7rM �s v w is c. 2- "o ,c2,1 L",.,bum- v :t-jr6 W1 i y,' X 60 R,-6TC/Z 04401 -L-j APc%% ekjv� DEVELOPMENT TOPAZ LA QUINTAy CALIFORNIA 6X6 12.5, IJD RnTb 4xg Rz5, 140 I,3FPr1 2X6 12,5, ,,016TS,SZ4�0, Cawul.W- To Lags IP of PLPq'r-- F:1416A FICA 2xs�h nw,�Q. • �ZN I ON Ordinance 212 ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 9.25.030. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMPATIBILITY REVIEW PROCESS. The units shall only be approved when they comply with the following standards: 1. The proposed use conforms to all the provisions of the General Plan and specific plans, and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City. 2. A two story house cannot be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision, unless proof can be provided showing that a two story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. 3. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the developer must provide the same, or better, type of fencing including perimeter subdivision fencing. 4. A proposed single family dwelling unit must be compatible in terms of: a. Architectural material such as roof material, window treatment and garage door style b. Colors C. Roof lines as the existing units, or units which are approved for construction as determined on the plans and materials board, within the same subdivision unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. 6. At least one specimen tree shall be provided in the front or street side yard as part of the landscape requirements of the zone. 7. All single family dwelling units proposed must comply with the requirements contained in the Development Standards Section of the applicable zone. 8. The single family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than ten percent (10%) from the square footage of the existing or ap2roved units. 9. The Planning Commission when approving compatibility units may limit the type and the number of a particular unit to be constructed within the subdivision. SECTION 9.25.040. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW All residential units shall be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved by action of the Planning Commission, based upon the standards referred to in Section 9.25.030 of this Chapter. The following findings must be made when an application is approved: l . The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in the subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1991 ATTACHMENT 4 VII. ]BUSINESS SESSION A. Tract 23935; a request of the GWR Development Company for review of an additional unit. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked for a clarification of the detailing requested by Staff. 3. Commissioner Ellson inquired how this unit would compare to the other units in the area in regard to price and size. Mr. Dennis Cunningham spoke on behalf of the Applicant and stated the house would be in the price range of $150-155,000 and the current houses are $175-$215,000. 3. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-028 approving the additional unit for Tentative Tract 23935 subject to the Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. D . Plot Plan 91-442* a request of �bVi'a Pacific for approva of a new architectural iit for Marquessa Lake La Quinta. 1. Priplipal Planner Stanawa presented the inforpfation contained i the Staff report, copy of which is on file i he Planning and 0106evelopment Department. Commissioner llson inquired if the rage would need any additional fi,e' walls due to its locatio . Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that the building code ould be strictly enforce and thi§,6ivould be addressed at t time. 3. The' being no questions of S f or the Applicant, it was oved b Commissioner Ladner and econded by Commissioner lson to I Minute Motion 91-029 pproving the new architec ral units for Plot Plan 91-442. U nimously approved. C. T ntative Parcel Ma 26525,• a request of Chuck Stro r for approval f residential unit on one, arcel of the Orchard D s . 1. Associate Pla er Glenda Lainis pre nted the information contained in �ie Staff report, a cop f which is on file in the Planning a Development Depart t. PCMIN9/10 10 C. Tract 23935; a request of GWR Developers for review of proposed single family dwelling elevations. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Zelles questioned Staff as to their recommendation on roof tiles. Principal Planner Sawa stated that Staff felt there should be more of a variety throughout the project. 3. Chairman Moran asked if this project had been before the Design Review Board. Principal Planner Sawa stated that this project had been approved before the Design Review Board was formed. 4. Following discussion regarding detailing on the right and rear of the second story of Unit B and the right elevation of Unit C and two additional roof tiles, it was moved by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Minute Motion 90-027 approving the elevations subject to the above changes. Unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1990 ATTACHMENT 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES (TRACT 23935) THE CLASSICS AT TOPAZ MAY 24, 1994 FINDINGS: 1. The architectural aspects of the development will be compatible with and not detrimental to other existing units in Topaz based on the following conditions. 2. The proposed homes are comparable in size to the existing Topaz homes. No impacts are anticipated provided the minimum house size in the tract is 1,400 square feet or greater, and the unit mix is regulated by the Planning Commission. 3. No two story homes shall be built next door to any existing single story home unless proof can be provided showing that a two story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. 4. The developer's roof eaves, although slightly different from the previous phases, shall be considered a minor deviation in the architectural package. No major impact is anticipated. GENERAL 1. The lawn for each front yard shall be either hybrid Bermuda or premium Perennial Rye depending upon when it is installed. Fescue grass shall not be used. 2. All plants shall be drought tolerant and either watered with emitters or bubblers. 3. All trees shall be staked to prevent damage from the wind. Two stakes shall be used for all 24"-box trees. 4. The concrete driveways shall include expansion joints and a broom finish, (or better) texture. 5. The driveway approach for each home shall be a minimum width of 20-feet unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 6. Final irrigation and landscape plans for the project shall be approved by the Department of Planning and Development. 7. All trees shall be appropriate for our micro -climate (i.e., Zone 13-Sunset Book) . 8. The requirements of the R-1 Zone Code shall be met during plan check. CONAPRV.L.045 9. The requirements of the Compatibility Ordinance (Ordinance 242) shall be met during plan check unless otherwise modified herein. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition by the property owner. 14. All requirements of Tract Map 23935 shall be met during plan check. 15. The applicant shall provide six foot high walls for all new homes. The front yard or street side yard and perimeter tract walls shall be stuccoed to match the existing Topaz units. The interior side yard fencing of each home can be either decorative masonry, or another material as approved by the Director of Planning and Development. The walls shall be built prior to final occupancy clearance of each dwelling unit. 16. Sectional metal roll -up garage doors shall be installed on all garages. 17. All concrete roof tiles shall be similar in color and style to the existing Topaz homes (i.e., desert tones) . Brown concrete tile shall be used in Phases I and II. 18. Decorative wrought iron gates shall be used for all street facing pedestrian gates. 19. A two story house cannot be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single story home constructed in a prior phase of the subdivision (i.e., Phases I or II) unless proof can be provided showing that a two story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior developer. 20. A trellis is to be attached to each single family home where the rear of the unit faces west or south. The trellis shall be a minimum depth of eight feet and be constructed in a fashion similar to the initial Topaz homes. 21. All units shall have architectural detailing on each side of the proposed house, but in no case shall the plant -on feature project less than 2-inches from the building facade. All gable vents shall include this architectural feature. CONAPRV1.045 22. If homes are built in Phases I and II of the existing tract, the minimum house size in those phases shall be 1,830 square feet or larger. 23. The developer shall regulate the mixture and/or number of proposed single family homes within each tract phase to the following percentages: (1) Plan 2X = 10 0 (2) Plans 3X, 4X, 4ALT & 5 = 40% (3) Plan 5X = 300 (4) Plans 5L and 5LX = 20% 24. Each new single story home shall include a front entryway similar in design to the existing Topaz homes. The entry shall also include a gable roofed covered porch with supporting stucco columns a minimum dimension of 30 square inches or greater. The gable height shall be the same height as the proposed single family house. 25. Three car garages shall be constructed on approximately 30% of the tract lots. 26. The facia on the roof eaves shall be constructed with a 2" by 12" overlapped by 1" by 811 wood trim. The underside of the eave and facia shall be stuccoed to match the existing homes. 27. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150-feet of the ultimate right-of- ways of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20-feet in height. The applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for approval a drawing showing the location of any units higher than one story located in proximity to the miles Avenue frontage. 28. The rear elevation of each new plan (Plans 2 through 5) shall include additional building projections to enhance the architectural characteristics of the home. The projections shall not be less than 4-feet in width and not less than 50% of the building length. 29. The applicant can, as an option, provide gated entry courtyards. The private entry courts shall include stucco fencing and decorative wrought iron gates. CONAPRVI,. 045 ATTACHMENT 6 MR. GREG TROUSDELL ASSOCIATE PLANNER CURRENT PLANNING CITY OF LA QUINTA 70-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CALIF. 92253 MAY 1 1 1994 Cl2Y OF !A GI.�LtiA PLANNING DFPARTi MENT DEAR SIR, I AM WRITTING YOU TO REQUEST THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE NEW CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT AT TOPAZ (TRACT 23935-1 TO 4) BE CLASSIFIED AS MAJOR DESIGN DEVIATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE 242 WHICH AMENDED TITLE 9 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND REQUEST THE COMPATIBILITY REVIEW PROCESS OF CHAPTER 9.25. I BASE MY REQUEST ON THE OP.DINANCE'S STANDARD OF COMPATIBILITY SECTION 9.25.030. I BELEIVE THERE IS A SERIOUS INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE NEW PHASE AT TOPAZ AND THE PREVIOUSLY BUILT PHASE. A COMPARISON OF THE NEW PROPOSED PLANS. WITH THE CURRENT SUBDIVISION, REVEALS NUMEROUS DEVIATIONS IN THE PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONS, BACK ELEVATIONS, AND SIDE ELEVATIONS OF THE NEW PROPOSED PHASE. IN CONCLUSION, I FEEL THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPOSED OF A SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT STYLE HOME. I FEEL THAT THIS IS N0- IN THE SPIRIT OF ORDINANCE 242 AND THAT A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ALL INTERESTED CURRENT RESIDENTS SHOULD BE HELD ON THIS MATTER. WE, THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF TYE TOPAZ CDMMUNITY, ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR COMMUNITY, AND DO �'OT WANT A NEW BUILDER TO CAPITALI7E ON THE BEAUTY 0;:' OUR COMMUNITY TO ENHANCE THE VALUE OF HIS HOMES. SINCERLY, MR. & MRS. GARY G. GRIFFITH 45420 DESERT EAGLE CT. LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 May 8, 1994 Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner Current Plannino Ci t•r of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Calif. 92253 CITY QF LA QUINTA r l [he 4`PARTMENT Dear Sir; I am writing you to request the classi can of the new Century Homes development at Topaz ( Tract 23(?35-1 to 4) be classified as Major Design Deviation under the provisions of Ordinance 242 which amended Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and request the Compatibility Review Process of Chapter 9.25. I base my request on the ordinance's standard of compatibility Section 9.25.030. I believe there is a serious incompatibility between the new phase at Topaz and the previously built phase. A comparison of the new plans with the current subdivision reveals the following deviations: Front Elevation 1) In plans 2 and 3 which make up 68.5.. of the proposed phase the entryways are neither recessed or gabled. 100Y.. of the cu^rent houses are recessed or gabled with most being under a Gabled arch. 2) Currently 100% of all doors in the subdivision contain laroe windows made of Crystal Lead. The new plans call for solid doors in all models. 3) No proposed plan has the raised ledges and recessed channels which can be found on every house in the subdivision. These lines add enormously to the beauty of the ne i ghborhood and the lack of these should be considered a major deviation. 4) In the proposed plan only 32% will have a window over the door. In the current subdivision 100Y. have windows over the door. 5) The new phase and I assume all subsequent phases will use traditional eaves. This is directly opposed to the box eaves oeing used in the original Topaz development which is one of the distinctive touches of the neighborhood. 6) In the proposed plan no houses will have a detached quest house. While currently perhaps only 20% of the homes have tie detached houses, the unique styling adds to the elegance of the neighborhood. BacK Elevation 1) 100% of the current homes feature rectangular windows set over regular windows. No elavation shown in the plans had this feature. 2) 100% of the current homes feature raised masonry framing around the rear windows. No proposed plan had this feature. 3) The proposed plans included sliding glass doors in all plans. In the current Topaz development, double hinged doors are being used. 4) None of the proposed plans included side panel windows or the fabulous 10 window conglomeration featured in the largest Topaz model. 5) No proposed plan has a buttressed upstairs window except Plan 4. Plan 4 represents 15% of the proposed houses. 6) Essentially 30 out of 35 proposed homes will have an absoulutely straight back wall to the house. 100% of the current subdivision have a back walls with protusions and recessions. This is a major deviation in architectural style. Side Elevation 1) 100% of the current homes have rectangular windows mounted above other windows on the side elevations. In the proposed plans these will be eliminates. Mixture of Homes Although this is not strictly a criteria for compatibility the radical departure concerning the mixture of plans should be noted. In the current subdivision there is a mix of about 30% of houses with square footage under 1600 feet, 30% with about 1800-2100 and 30`/. with square footage of 2500+. In the proposed plans 65% of the new homes will have square foctac_e under 1650 and only 17% will exceed 2100 square feet. In conclusion, I feel that the new development is composed of a substantially different style home. I feel that this is not in the spirit of Ordinance 242 and that a public hearing should be held on the matter. I believe that the builder is trying to capitalize on the beauty and elegance of the original Topaz development to enhance the value of his homes. I further believe that this might lead to a possible deterioration of my own property values. Sincer y Edmund A. Munson 7?-355 Desert Rock Court La Quinta, California TELEP-0NE (6191 773-466B May 10, 1994 LAW OFFICE OF LANTsoN E. ELDRED A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VILLAGE n 74-900 HIGHWAY III SUITE 223 INDIAN N'EI-1 , CAI.iP'OBNIA 92210 Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Dear Mr. Trousdell: TELECOPIER 1619) 773-5897 �u MAY 12 1994 .��.«..�.. .ti- f C i LiVOW- f}} e /CITY [[�1= Y�LY A41 is ��4 �. 1•`i�: T• ..t.h�` e I am an owner at the original Topaz development, Tract 23925. I recently learned of the application of Century Homes for plan approval of homes to be constructed on Desert Hills Court, and Desert Fox Drive. It is my understanding that this application has been submitted with a request for review under the Precise Plan Process. I was one of the two property owners asked by the City of La Quinta to serve on the committee that developed what became ordinance 242 regarding compatibility requirements. The plans as presented by Century Homes are clearly not what was anticipated under the Precise Plan process, as they represent substantial deviations from existing homes. I believe that current City ordinances require that the plans comply with the requirements of the Compatibility Review process set forth in chapter 9.25 commencing with the completeness of application requirements. A major design deviation is defined under the code to be any variance of 5% or more from the square footage of existing constructed or approved units within the tract, or any exterior architectural modification not specifically defined as a minor design deviation. Under Section 9.25.2030 5/10-CityLQ Mr. C. Trousdell May 10, 1994 Page Two any deviation in architectural materials such as roof material, window treatment or garage door style, any deviation in colors, and any deviation in roof lines from existing and approved units are defined to be material. The units proposed by Century Homes vary by more than 5% from the existing and approved structures and contain numerous design deviations requiring compliance with the Compatibility Review process. Mr. Edmond Munson, in his letter dated May 8, 1994, specifically addressed a number of the design deviations which are apparent in the floor plan and elevation drawings available from the City. I therefore request, and believe that the City of La Quinta is obligated to, require compliance with the Compatibility Review process beginning with the filing of a complete application with all required items which is available for inspection by the public, notice to effected property owners of the application, and an opportunity for the property owners to be heard as set forth under the Code. I would appreciate receipt of confirmation that d that compliance e with design deviations have been acknowledge y the Compatibility Review process has been required. Very tru!„ LANTSON E. ELDRED LEE/amb cc: Mr. Munson 5/l o-ciryLQ 909-381-0041 "ENTLRY HOMES 028 P02 MAY 18 194 08:'' CEN'TURY HOMES ATTACHMENT 7 �\ Century -Crowell Communities May 17, 1994 l'/*,/e Honorable Mayor and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Compatibility Ordinance 1242 You have before you the designs for The Classics at Topaz by Century Homes Communities. The design process from concept to completion was executed under Webster's definition of the word "Compatibility": (1) capable of living or performing in harmonious, agreeable or friendly association with another or others; and (2) capable of orderly efficient integration and operation with other elements in a system. our reference source was the Compatibility Ordinance 0242 along with a presentation meeting we had with the existing homeowners at Topaz. On Wednesdgy Avrii 6th, we hosted a presentation meeting for the Topaz Homeowners at the Indian Wells Hotel. Elevation renderings along with 8 1/2" x ill, productions with elevation and floor plans were available for review. Vie Homeowner turnout was in the 70-80 percentile. We felt the meeting was a success in that t:he homeowners were able to have input during the design phase. The Homeowners suggested that we name the new homes something other than Topaz, in order to differentiate between the new versus the existing homes. Reason being that the new homes, even though compatible in appearance would be selling for less than the existing homes. We agreed and suggested we name the new homes The Classics at Topaz. The Homeowners asked if we would plot the largest homes in the Classic Series on the 6 remaining lots in tract 23935-1&2. We agreed and changed our mix to accommodate the Homeowners' desire. We used the existing Homeowners' input and the following comparable design criteria in order to reach the end result: The Classics are within 5% of the square footage of the existing homes at Topaz. The existing homes are rectangular with the long side parallel with the street. U'hey have protruding garages creating an "L" shape when garage and housa are viewed as one. The Classics are rectangular as well with the garage creating a smaller i'L" to facilitate larger rear yards. The existing homes are 5 and 12 pitch gables with dormers that are gables and hips with partial arch, Pull arch and square top inserts. Creating similarity while avoiding redundancy, The Classics are also 5 and 12 pitch gables with dormers that are gables and hips utilizing 1535 South " D" Street, Suite 200 • San Bernardino, CA 92408 909-381-00.31 (�ENTURT HOMES 028 P03 Mir 18 '94 Compatibility Ordinance #242 page 2 of 3 May 17, 1994 square top, partial and .full arch inserts continuing the theme of similarity without redundancy. and adding colors and also adding a different shape tile to the mix as the development processes to completion. Otherwise the end result would be a development with a cookie cutter assembly line appearance. Keeping with the original Topaz concept in mind, the 6 buildout lots will be the same as the existing roofs as shown on color board series A. However, roof colors and styles for the Classics new phases, will have the variations as shown on color board B. Again, the goal is to continue the theme of similarit:' without redundancy. 9AUGB SIZE The existing homes have a mixture of two and three car garages depending on buyer preference. The Classics will have a configuration offering 3 car parking on some and a two car with the third car section converted to living area or hobby area on others. The existing homes have metal garage doors with raised panel simulated wood graining. The new homes will also have metal doors with raised panel and wood graining. EXTERIOR 99—y9Oo _'."KITS_ COLORS The existing homes have lace finish stucco. on existing phase I there were 3 colors. On c-xi-sting phase II we dropped one of the phase I colors and added two (-.31crs, in order to create a greater sense of individualism, wj;.no4t breaking up the continuance in the style of the development. The new homes c&rry Dn in this tradition with the build -out lots having .the same stucco col )rs and compatible trim colors as is evidenced by "Color boards ": cheaLE All, but with the homes in the new phases having the evolving theme as presented on color boards "B#I. The existing aomc-3 awe white framed with the front elevation white framed with whits insert grids. © 5 PO4 MOZ, : 16 ' 9s k:- Compatib .] ity 0-_dinance 1242 page 3 f 3 May 17, 1994 The n,:w homes will also be white framed with white grids on the front elev2.tions and white framed on the balance. PRT�'ACY 7GL$ C�ATSS The existing homes have block walls with a top band and stucco over. T:1e gates are metal with a metal privacy screen. The new homes will match the existing stucco walls and gates from the street elevations. The rear yard and side yards walls, which are not visible from street level, will be Tan Malibu Block (see pictures "exhibit B"). There will be no co-iflict using malibu block adjacent to the existing homes as the existing homes have their rear and side wall in place. LAM J I I . _S The existing homes have mounded front yards with half circle planter beds and drivewaylsidewalk transitions at the utility box areas. The new homes will mach the existing landscape plan. The term "we" has been used when discussing the existing homes as well as the new homes. In -his context "we" means Topaz Associates, who are the land owners and Developers of Tracts 23935- and adjacent tracts to the west. Topaz Associates is a partnership of Santa Rosa Developers and Century Crowell Communities. Santa Rosa Developers started Topaz and plans to continue through to completion with Century Crowell Communities as their partner. The original concept designers of Topaz are still involved and play an instrumental part in the continuing evolution of Topaz. We are as proud of our new series as we are of our earlier homes at Topaz. We look forward to your favorable review. Thank you. Sinc -elp e is Cunningh p�� Rrojec:t Dire DC:db F\U\P\D\LAQ.10 PH *3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 24, 1994 CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISED) APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. (PHILIP PEAD) OWNERS: 3S PARTNERSHIP AND POMONA FIRST FEDERAL BANK LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5.6 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. ARCHITECT: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS: BACKGROUND: MERLIN J. BARTH MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. NORTH: 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN PROPERTY (VACANT) EAST: EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP WEST: EXISTING PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER Project History A one year extension of time has been requested in order to retain the applicant's 1993 approval of an 82,013 square foot commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres zoned C-P-S Commercial. The project includes a three story office building, a restaurant or bank, an eye institute or office, a two level parking structure, and related at -grade parking. This case is a resubmittal of Plot Plan 91-466 (Revised) which was approved in 1992 and expired in 1993. This project is approximately 44,000 square feet smaller than the previous plan in order to conform with the newly adopted General Plan Floor Area Ratio Policy. The applicant originally proposed a four story medical office building, a restaurant or bank, an office, and two level parking garage on a +5.6 acres site. (See attached Minutes from the meeting) . The Planning Commission did not approve the four story medical building, but they did approve a three story building and allowed the developer to reallocate the fourth floor building square footage to other locations within the project. The Planning Commission approved this case at their meeting of May 11, 1993. MEMOGT.049 Description of Site The proposed +5.6 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on three streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington street to conform with the city's adopted Specific Plan Alignment Program and General Plan. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development of Simon Motors automobile Dealership as well as to establish commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial land uses. Previous Planning Commission Review On April 13, 1993, the Planning Commission continued discussion of this project to May 11, 1993, to allow the applicant additional time to revise the project pursuant to the newly adopted provisions of the General Plan. The applicant did modify the proposal by reducing the overall size of the project from +126,411 square feet to +82,013 square feet. On May 11, 1993, the Planning Commission examined the revised application of Simon Plaza to develop their project at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the comments of the Design Review Board and they concurred that further refinements to the project were warranted. The Planning Commission felt the downscaled proposal was more fitting to this corner parcel, but were opposed to the proposed four story medical office building because it was too massive for this small site. The majority of Commission members stated they would prefer a three story project because it would be more consistent with the existing uses in the area. They noted that the tallest projects approved at this time are the three story El Mirador Medical Center (Desert Hospital) at 47th Avenue and Washington Street and the three story Eisenhower Medical facility at Washington Street and 48th Avenue. The Commission recognized that the applicant could apply for a four story building, but also felt the site could not accommodate such a large structure and retain a pedestrian character (see Condition #73) . Mr. Philip Pead, the applicant, present at the meeting spoke concerning his project. He went through some of the Conditions of Approval he wished to see modified and the Planning Commission discussed each item at length. The applicant also brought additional Highway 111 renderings which were modified after the May 5th Design Review Board meeting. Mr. Pead stated that his architect addressed most of the items identified in the report. However, there were a few items he felt were not necessary as they would add additional costs to the project either in future maintenance or construction. Many of the items requested by the Design Review Board were either modified by the Planning Commission or deleted at the applicant's request. MEMOGT.049 The Planning Commission amended a few of the recommendations of the Engineering Department at the meeting. Two of these items were the amount of improvements required by the applicant on Washington street and the percentage amount the applicant needed to contribute to the existing traffic signal at Simon Drive and Highway 111. The Planning Commission felt the developer should not be required to reimburse the City for the future raised median nor perform street improvements westerly of the existing curb and gutter facilities on Washington Street. The Commission however thought the developer should be required to install new street improvements per the provisions of the Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment Schedule (Condition #39) • The Commission thought the site was too small to justify all the requirements of the Engineering Department. The applicant also requested that the Planning Commission reduce his traffic signal fair -share contribution from 25% to something less than this because they felt their project did not justify this fee based on the size of their project. Mr. Pead thought the larger projects in the area should pay for this existing signal. The Planning Director stated that the other projects in the area were contributing, but 25% was the remaining amount since the One Eleven La Quinta Center contributed 50% and Washington Square will contribute 25%. Staff stated that if Simon Motors was not built, the City would ask this property owner to contribute to the signal during the development process. But since it is a currently existing business, the City cannot request the traffic signal money from their business. The Commission felt the project did benefit from the existing traffic signal but they thought 12.5% was a more reasonable fee ( Condition #41) . The final vote of the Planning Commission was 4-1 to approve the project provided the project does not exceed three stories in overall height. The City Council accepted the Planning Commission approval of the project at their May 18, 1993, meeting. Public Hearing In 1993, staff began requiring that all time extensions be a public hearing in order to inform the general public and surrounding property owners of the time extension request. This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 3, 1994, and notices were mailed to the abutting property owners within 300-feet of the project. Prior to the meeting, staff received no letters in support or in opposition to the one year extension request. Illegal Dumping In 1993, staff informed an individual contractor that no fill dirt could be imported to the site until the on -site archaeological study had been completed. However, some dumping was done on the southeast corner of the site before a stop work order could be issued. No additional on -site work shall be done until proper clearances are secured from the Engineering and Planning Departments. Proposed Condition Changes (1) Condition 2 - The new expiration date would be May 24, 1995 provided the Planning Commission approves the applicant's request. (2) Condition 35 - The applicant is requesting that Condition 35 be amended to require the land dedication for street widening be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff has modified the condition as requested by the applicant. MEMOGT.049 (3) Condition 39 - This condition was imposed by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1994, in order to reduce the applicant's off -site improvement costs. The City Attorney has requested that the original condition be reimposed (Condition 38). The City Attorney is of the opinion that the applicant should negotiate with the City Council or Redevelopment Agency for any reduction in their on or off -site improvements through a formal request. Because the reduction in improvement obligations of the developer is a fiscal matter which should be handled in an independent process separate from the review of the project. (4) The conditions which identified the Design Review Board have been modified to state that the Planning Director will finalize the project during plan check (Conditions 23, 65 & 73). (5) to conditions referred(� r story building have been changed ostate three story 23 & 73 STAFF CONCLUSION: Staff supports the time extension request because it meets the provisions of the City's Zoning Code, the adopted General Plan, and the provisions of the Washington Street/Highway 111 Specific Plans as conditioned. RECOMMENDATION,: By Minute Motion 94- , approve a one year extension of time for Plot Plan 93-495 (Revised) pursuant to the attached Finding and revised Conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Planning Commission Minutes 3. Draft Conditions of Approval - PP 93-495 (Revision) 4. Large exhibits (Planning Commission only) MEMOGT.049 ATTACHMENT 1 CAM N�-" - N� - M - M� Vicinity Map Simon Plaza. Inc. SCALE: nts Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1993 ROLL CALL VOTE: ATTACHMENT 2 AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None.. C. tentative Tract 25691; a request of Richard L. Demzor approval of a second one year extension of time for a tentative tract t - bdivide : 9 acres into 39 single family° lots. 1. 'Associate Planner Greg Trousdellrpf&nted the information contained in the Staff report, a copy ofvfiich is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions''of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public ff ^ hearing. A0 3. Mr. Richard f man, applicant, stated he had no objectigpir to the { Conditions o`Approval and further stated his request for ension was based on Pi,s dependence of the tract to the east devel ing in order to hook upto the sewer system. Commissioners discus with Mr. Deman the prlems that were involved regarding the se . 4. Ere being no further public comment, Ch ' oman Barrows closed the ublic hearing. Commissioners Ellson/ sher moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-021 r mending to the City Council approval of a second one year ension of time for Tentative Tract 25691, subject to conditions. el ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. * ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. D. Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) and Master Sign Program 93-210; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. (Philip Pead) for approval to develop a mixed use commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres zoned C-P-S. 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. PCs-11 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1993 2. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Staff about the theme plaza. Staff stated there was a 50-foot landscape strip on Highway 111 that would reduce down to 20-feet along Washington Street. Staff stated the corner should be maintained as required by the City's General Plan. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff if the plaza should have the same fencing as the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center had. Staff stated it was not necessary as long as some sort of landscaping and wall was required by the applicant. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked what happened to the property owner who owned the comer parcel (Desert Outdoor Advertising). Staff stated they had not received any additional correspondence from them since their original complaint regarding the City's right-of-way requirements. 4. Commissioner Adolph asked if the sign program before them was the same as the old 2pplication. Staff stated it was with some modifications. 5. There being no further questions for Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Philip Pead, applicant, addressed the following conditions with the Commission: a. Condition #13: The applicant preferred to hire their own archaeologist. Staff stated they had no objection as long as they were selected from the City list. b. Condition #24.D. The applicant questioned the limitation of the height of the restaurant. He stated to the top of the tower it was 48-feet and it would be difficult to incorporate the design with the mechanical equipment. Commissioners questioned what the height was to the roof line below the tower structure. Staff stated it was 24-feet. The Commissioners discussed leaving the condition as written but adding verbiage to exclude minor architectural appendages. C. Condition #24.N. The applicant asked that the condition be changed for the parking structure ramp to allow him to pick up the color of the building and provide arches in order to let it blend in with the overall design of the center. Commissioner Ellson stated she would prefer landscaping were used to screen the ramp. Chairwoman Barrows agreed as she felt the wall would become a problem with graffiti. PC5-11 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1993 d. Condition #24.0. The applicant requested that he be allowed to use foam molding instead of pre -cast stone window trim. Also he would prefer to use molding on the window and he would like to eliminate 24.0.6 and 7. He further stated he was uncertain as to what was being required of him in Condition #24.0.3. Staff stated they had no objections. Commissioner Ellson asked for clarification as to what type of molding and windows were better. Chairwoman Barrows stated she would like to have Condition 24.0.6 to remain in as a reminder to the applicant to conserve energy (Title 24). e. Condition #36.C. The applicant stated that due to timing he would like to request 30-days. Commission and Staff had no objections. f. Condition #39. The applicant requested that he be responsible for those improvements that were from the existing curb to the proposed curb line only. He stated he felt it was an unfair amount to require centerline to proposed curb as they had already paid for these improvements once. Staff explained to the Commission the history of how the costs had been determined. g. Condition #41. The applicant requested that they be required to pay a smaller percentage of the improvements as they were so far west of the signal. Discussion followed between the applicant, Commission and Staff as to a fair percentage. h. Condition #56. The applicant asked for clarification on the condition. Staff stated this was a standard condition required of all developments. i. Condition #65. The applicant requested clarification of the condition. Following discussion it was determined that the condition would be changed to require perimeter Iandscaping for the parking structure to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. j. Conditions #67, #69, #70, #71. The applicant requested clarification. Staff explained the changes that had been required due to new State law. PC5-11 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1993 6. Mr. Steve Robbins, ESCO Engineer, stated he was representing the Washington Square project and they would be opposed to changing the percentage of the cost that the project is required to pay for the Simon Drive signal as they were being required to pay 10% for the Washington Street signal. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 8. Commissioner Ellson stated her empathy for the number of times this project has gone through to gain approvals, but she would like to see more art work incorporated in to the architecture of the building. She would like to see a water feature included at the comer. 9. Commissioner Mosher stated he felt the applicant had been extremely cooperative with all the changes that had been required of him and he was very pleased with the changes that had been submitted in this proposal. Commissioner Marrs agreed. 10. Chairwoman Barrows expressed her concern that this project location was an image corridor and she felt the building was still too massive. In addition, she missed the plaza area for the workers which was part of the original case (PP 91-466). 11. Commissioner Adolph stated this was the focal point and entrance to La Quinta and the project has a nautical look and needs to be more compatible with the rest of the community. In addition, he felt the signage was an afterthought. 12. Following discussion, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 93-022 approving Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision), subject to the amended conditions: Condition #13: The City is to review and approve the selected archaeologist. Condition #24.L.: Eliminated. Condition #24.N.: That landscaping would be used to screen the parking ramp. Condition #24.0.1-Eliminate. .2-Add grid molded windows. .6 & .7-Eliminate. PC5-11 6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1993 Condition #36.C.: Time limited extended to 30-days. Condition #39: Street improvements from existing curb line to proposed property line including the applicant being responsible for the sidewalk. Condition #41: Changed from 25% to 12.5%. ndi i n #65: Landscaping would be required for the perimeter grade planting for the parking structure to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. Condition #72: allowing project identification sign to be incorporated into the theme plaza with the stipulation that an artist be hired to help design and landscape the plaza. 13. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any discussion regarding the motion. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff what the Commissions alternatives were. Staff stated they could vote yes or no on the motion. If it fails another motion can be made. Chairwoman Barrows clarified that the Design Review Board would still review the final proposal. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, and Marrs. NOES: Commissioners Ellson, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 14. Discussion followed between the Commissioner and Staff regarding the changes they would like to see in the project. Following the discussion, it was determined that the medical office building should be reduced to three stories with the applicant being allowed to pick up the square footage in other on -site areas (e.g., over the parking lot). 15. Commissioner Adolph moved and Chairwoman Barrows seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 93-023 approving Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) with the amended conditions as stated above and the addition of the medical office building being reduced to three stories with the applicant being able to reorganize the square footage. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows . NOES: Commissioner Marrs. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. PC5-11 ATTACHMENT 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 93-495 (REVISED) MAY 24, 1994 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 *** Deleted by the Planning Commission on 5-11-93 + Modified by staff on 5-24-94 FINDINGS 1. The revised project and time extension request are consistent with the provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. The project will not have an adverse environmental impact on the surrounding properties based on the proposed Conditions of Approval. 3. The project is a logical progression of development for this community zoned area. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the General Plan. GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 93-495 (Revision), unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. +2. The approved plot plan shall be used by May 24, 1995; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code provided an extension request is filed by April 24, 1995. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and Off -Street Parking requirements. CONAPRVL.437 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 5. Adequate masonry trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code, State, and Federal requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (terming, landscaping and walls, etc.), and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing Off -Street Parking requirements including but not limited to, shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and planted with landscaping. 12. The project shall comply with all applicable Art in Public Places Ordinances. A public art piece shall be installed on the property at a location agreeable to the Art in Public Places Committee (e.g., at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street). A public easement shall be offered to the City for the site that any art piece may occupy which has been established by the Art in Public Places Committee. 13. * The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist and pay all associated costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The Planning and Development Director shall approve the firm to be used in the study prior to any on -site activities. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistants)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: • City Fire Marshal • City of La Quinta Public Works Department • City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department • Coachella Valley Water District • Desert Sands Unified School District • Imperial Irrigation District • Caltrans (District 11) CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 15. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 16. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 17. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c) provisions of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development Departments. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 18. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit as determined by the Building Official. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection of other monitoring to assure such compliance. 20. 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. 21. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 22. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 23. + That all conditions of the Design Review Planning Commission shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Beafd Planning Director prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the applicant/developer. B. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle trees, and Washington Robusta Palms shall be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander shall be utilized. Native (low water use) plants shall be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). Landscaping plan shall conform to Ordinance 220 regarding water conservation. Y proposed parking lighting P y �esigfi neyi C. + An ro osed arkin lot li htin plan shall be reviewed b the �� Beard Planning Director prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking). The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. D. A maximum building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.). E. + Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design, and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Desigfi Review-Beafd Planning Director during a final plan check review. CONAPRVL.037 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 F. + The revised concept design plan shall be reviewed by the Design Re-Aew Board Planning Director prior to the submission of the plans to the Building and Safety Department for final plan check consideration. The plans should include but are not limited to landscaping and irrigation, building elevations, signs, and any other major exterior design features of the project as noted at the Design Review Board meeting of May 5, 1993. G. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code. H. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. I. All open parking stalls shall be screened by berm walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. J. The maximum floor area ration (F.A.R.) for this project shall be 0.35 per the Policy Standards of the General Plan (LU Table #4). K. + The roof design for the 3-story medical office building shall be either 4:12 or higher to give the building balance and proper scale to its mass. L.... M. + The parking structures tile roof facade shall be eliminated because it is not compatible with the design motif of the €&ff three story medical office building. The applicant should evaluate another design style which incorporates a cornice design feature (similar to the upper portion of the four story building) and other articulated features which will soften the elevation and not enhance its presence. N. * The parking structure ramp on the south side of the project shall be stuccoed to match the building. The structure shall be landscaped along its westerly side to conceal its presence. O. + The applicant shall include the following features into the three story medical office building: 1 n east stenewindew «. . 2. * Individual pane windows or grid molded windows can be used. CONAPRVL.037 6 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 3.*+ Additional building column connections should be used where agreed upon with the Design Review Beafd Planning Commission. 4. Accented building roof heights. 5. Revision to the elevator shaft design and its relationship to Highway 111. 6.... 7.... The twe stefy elenients en the west side ef the four- stefy btfilding shall be fedesigned so that the feef eenneets into the building (delete existing CITY FIRE MARSHAL 24. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a three hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 25. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 21/2" X 21/2"), 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. 26. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 27. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 28. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. CONAPRVL.037 7 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 29. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 30. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 31. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 32. Install Panic Hardware and "Exit" signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 33. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 34. Install a Class I Standpipe System. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 35. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right-of-way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right-of-way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55-foot curb return (45-feet right-of-way). C.*+ Applieant shall dedieate the requifed right of way within thifty (30) days afte Property owner(s) shall dedicate the required right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit. 36. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right-of-way: A. Washington Street - 20-feet wide; B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Drive, 10 feet wide 37. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. CONAPRVL.037 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 38. + Applicant shall fund and install all street improvements located east of Washington Street Specific Plan centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, 8-foot wide sidewalk, traffic striping and signing and signing along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. Applicant shall retain registered professionals as needed to prepare plans for the improvements required by these Conditions of Approval. 40. + Applicant shall modify the traffic signal and intersection improvements at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection as requied by Caltrans to accommodate the Washington Street widening improvements. 41. * Applicant shall reimburse City for 2-5-% 12.5 % of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection. 42. + Applicant shall install a bus stop "pullout" and bus shelter on Highway 111 in compliance with Caltrans, Sunline Transit, and City requirements. 43. + Applicant shall pay for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway l l l and Washington Street in the portion contiguous to the project site. 44. + Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to ensure installation of improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 45. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 46. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. CONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 47. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 48. + Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1-hour duration, 25-year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 49. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 50. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 51. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right-of-way between all street curbing and property lines. 52. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 53. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 54. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 55. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 56. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the applicant. 57. The parking stalls on the north side of the office complex as determined by Staff, shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing at the Highway 111 access driveway. 58. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 59. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 60. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 61. The parking structure shall not exceed 15 feet in overall height as measured from finished grade pad elevation within 100 feet of Highway 111. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. CONAPRVL.037 11 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 62. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-211 shall be met. 63. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 64. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 65. +* The north side of the parking structure shall include perimeter grade planting as deemed appropriate by the Design Planning Director. 66. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance with the Off -Street Parking requirements. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demard shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. 67. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off -Street Parking Code. The facilities shall include areas for recycling bins and be approved by Staff during the final review process. The standards and requirements of AB 939 (recyc:ing) shall be met. This shall include provisions for on -site recycling of recyclable materials by the tenants in conjunction with the City's franchise hauler contract provisions. 68. An on -site elevator(s) shall service the site and provide accessibility from the parking garage to each respective building floor level. The design and installation of the elevator shall meet both Uniform Building Code standards and any other California State requirements. 69. The existing six foot high soundwall along the Washington Street frontage road shall be extended between the frontage road and Washington Street northerly of its present location to the northeasterly corner of Lot 27 of Tract 2043 (Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street) to mitigate traffic noise impacts on the existing R-1 single family neighborhood. 70. A Transportation Demand Management Plan shall be submitted (Ordinance 217) if the project or the ultimate development of the site employs 100 or more persons. The plan can be prepared by either the property owner or the tenant(s) within the development. The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. CONAPRVL.037 12 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 93-495 (Revision) - Simon Plaza May 24, 1994 71. The provisions of the City's newly adopted Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (#220) shall be met. 72. ** The applicant shall provide a theme plaza at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street as required by the General Plan which shall include landscaping, public furniture and a public art piece. The art piece can contain the developers main identification sign (Sign #1), if it is an integral part of the theme plaza and/or the public art piece. The design shall be approved by the Art in Public Places Committee and the City Council as required by Chapter 2.65 of the Municipal Code. The developer shall retain an artist to help design the theme plaza. The theme plaza size shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and the overall design should be similar to the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center theme plaza at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. 73.+•* The medical office building shall not exceed three stories with a maximum 40-foot height. The height of the building shall be measured from the existing grade (top of curb) on Highway 111. The developer can reallocate the fourth floor square footage into the project (e.g., over the parking structure) provided the new site plan does include adding two story elements into the 150-foot setback requirement on either arterial street. The revised design shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Beafd and Planning Commission prior to preparation of final working drawings. CONAPRVL.037 13