1994 06 28 PC0`0
TA2
I�
yOFiN�
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
June 28, 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 94-017
Beginning Minute Motion 94-018
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 27952
Applicant .......... T D Desert Development
Location ........... South side of Rancho La Quinta Drive, east of Washington
Street within Rancho La Quinta
Request ............ Approval of 55 single family lots plus miscellaneous lots on
22 ± acres
Action ............. Resolution 94-
PC/AGENDA
2. Item ...............
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-045 (EA 94-277)
Applicant ..........
City of La Quinta
Location ...........
City-wide
Request ............
Consideration of an amendment to the Circulation Element
(Chapter 3) of the La Quinta General Plan to revise the major
arterial standard for flexibility in interfacing with similar
roadway standards in adjacent jurisdictions
Action .............
Resolution 94-
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ...............
PLOT PLAN 93-516
Applicant ..........
T D Desert Development
Location ...........
South of 48th Avenue, east of Washington Street within
Rancho La Quinta
Request ............
Final review of architectural plans for a Racquet Club
building
Action ............
Minute Motion 94-
2. Item ...............
PLOT PLAN 91-456
Applicant ..........
The Koenig Companies (La Quinta Village Partnership)
Location ...........
Northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico
Request ............
Approval of sign pprogram for shopping center
Action .............
Minute Motion 94-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 1994.
OTHER
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, June 28, 1994
Study Session Room
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
PH *1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: DUNE 28, 1994
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 27952
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE 'TRACT FOR 55 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS PLUS MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON 22± ACRES
APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING: ADVANCED ENGINEERING GROUP
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO LA QUINTA DRIVE, EAST OF
WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL.
DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT #90 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP
127-E), WHICH ENCOMPASSED A MORE EXTENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAN THAT APPROVED BY
SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, OF WHICH THIS TENTATIVE TRACT IS
A PART. APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE
SPECIFIC PLAN. * THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: G (GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE) AND LDR (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, 2-4 DU/AC)
ZONING: R-2 20,000/PD
BACKGROUND:
This property is a part of Specific Plan 84-004, which was approved by the City Council on
November 20, 1984. In addition to the specific plan, a Development Agreement exists on this
property. To date, Tentative Tract 27840, which is to the northwest, and Tentative Tract 27835,
to the east, have been approved by the City Council.
The site is generally surrounded by the existing golf course. To the northwest is the recently
installed Rancho La Quinta Drive.
PCST.183
PROTECT PROPOSAL:
The applicant is proposing a total of 58 numbered lots, two of which will be common pool areas
with a third to be a common landscape lot. Therefore, 55 single family residential lots are
proposed on two cul-de-sac streets. One cul-de-sac will be off Rancho La Quinta Drive with
the second off of a new north/south running street which ties into Rancho La Quinta Drive. The
average size lot is approximately 70-feet wide and 160-feet deep. Due to the configuration of
the properties, several flag lots will be created.
According to the submitted plans, these lots will be developed with "Hacienda" units which are
detached units of either 2940 square feet or 3265 square feet in area.
ANALYSIS:
The specific plan for this property allows a total of 1500 single family residential units and 80
guest cottages. This proposed map along with the first two tentative tract maps approved (TT
27840 and TT 27835) would bring the total number of approved lots to 274 of the potential 1500
units. The map as drafted is in compliance with previously approved specific plan and
Development Agreement.
FINDINGS:
Findings to recommend approval of this tentative tract can be made and are attached in the draft
resolution.
RECOMMIENDATION:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 94- , recommending approval of Tentative
Tract 27952 to the City Council, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Comments from various City Departments and agencies
3. Tentative Tract Map exhibits
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval
rz r )
PCST.183
-;- INDIO
'"o
PALM DESERT
HWY 111
w
PROJECT
N
SITE AVENUE
4.8
z
z
0
(RANCHO
w
LA QUINTA
w
Q
AVENUE
50
QP
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
Tentative Tract 27952
RIVERSIDE
J. M. HARRIS
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attn: Stan Sawa
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-3183
t..t' APR Z 6 i954 -
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 27952
April 20, 1994
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced
land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal
Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department protection standards:
1. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" x
4" x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2") shall be located at each street
intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any
direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet
from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 gpm for 2
hours duration at 20 psi.
2. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer
shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the
Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the
fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall
meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved
by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with
tttc foi lot -lino certification: "I certify that the design of the
water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed
by the Riverside County Fire Department."
3. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to
any combustible building material being placed on an individual
lot.
-I-
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
ZI RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 275-4777 0 FAX (909) 369-7451
:1 INDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92:01
(619) 863-8886 9 FAX (619) 863-7072
printed an re�cled parr•',Q
To: City of La Guinta
Re: TTM 27952
4/20/94
Page 2
4. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for
the construction of the model units only. Plans for a tempora7y
water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for reviev,
prior to issuance of building permits.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
referred to the Fire Department Planning Engineering Staff at (619)
963-6886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By —
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
JP/th
,NATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
��STRIC� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX io58 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER
R LLIS CO R. AS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
JOHN W. McFADDEN
DOROTHYM DELAY April 28, 1994 REDWINEAND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92233
Gentlemen:
File: 0163.1
a
MAY 2
,t_ r
Subject: Tentative Tract No. 27952, Portion of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 31,
Township 5 South, Range 7 East and the
West Half of Section 32, Township 5
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The developer shall -provide a flooding easement over a portion of the proposed
golf course which will be inundated from stormwater flows from the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel. The district shall be held harmless from any damage to the
golf course due to stormwater flows in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley
Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface
improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and roadways.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
TRUE CONSERVATION' ;' €
USE WATER WISELY
Planning Commission -2- April 28, 1994
The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly
expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells,
reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to
provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites
shall be shown on the: tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such
purpose.
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RR:lg/el3/27952
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
k
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A 55 SINGLE FAMILY LOT SUBDIVISION
ON APPROXIMATELY 22 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANCHO LA QUINTA DRIVE
AND EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET
CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 27952 - TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on 28th day of June, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing as requested by TD Desert
Development on the request to subdivide 22 acres into a 55 lot subdivision with associated street,
common area and recreation lots, generally located on the south side of Rancho La Quinta Drive
east of Washington Street, and more particularly described as:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 2, 3, AND 5
OF PARCEL MAP 20469
WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63,
that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum EIR have been adopted. Therefore,
no additional environmental documentation is deemed necessary; and,
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on June 28, 1994, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation for approval of said tentative tract
map; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Tentative Tract Map 27952 was
recommended for approval by the La Quinta Planning Commission based on said findings and
subject to certain conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on the 28th day of June, 1994,
did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said tentative tract map:
1. The design and improvements of the approved Tentative Tract 27952 are consistent with
the current goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. Tentative Tract 27952 is consistent with current standards of the Municipal Zoning and
Land Division Ordinances.
RESOPC.141
Planning Commission Resolution 94-_
3. The subject site is physically suitable for residential and recreational development.
4. The design of Tentative Tract 27952 and its related improvements are not likely to cause
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their
habitat provided that approval conditions related to mitigation measures for the flora,
fauna, and archaeological resources are complied with during project development.
5. The design of Tentative Tract 27952 and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
public health problems nor would they conflict with existing public easements.
6. There is no evidence to suggest that approval of Tentative Tract 27952 could have a
major adverse impact on the environment.
7. The location and appearance of the proposed dwelling units will be made compatible with
the area in which the development is located.
8. The proposed private circulation system will provide for the safe and efficient movement
of vehicles within the project, and the use of small private streets within some areas of
the project will not impact the overall safety of the future residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and grants approval of
the above -described Tentative Tract 27952, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as recommended by the U Quinta
Planning Commission and modified herein.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of June, 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RFSOPC.141
Planning Commission Resolution 94-_
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RPSOPC.141
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DRAFT
TENTATIVE TRACT 27952 - RANCHO LA QUINTA
JUNE 28, 1994
GENERAL:
1. Tentative Tract Map 27952 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless
otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This tentative tract reap approval shall expire and become void within two years after
City Council approval unless extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Prior to recordation of final map, the issuance of a grading or building permit for
construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
- Imperial Irrigation District
- California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
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 and Safety Department at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith or the Engineering Department prior
to recordation.
4. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable
provisions of Specific Plan No. 84-004 and applicable Development Agreement.
5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
6. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as
determined by the Building and Safety Director.
CONAPRVL.132 1
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La guinta
June 28, 1994
7. Applicant shall, insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide
visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
8. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans
to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the
District's Water Management Program.
TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN
9. That prior to issuance of the first building permit for lots in this tract, a plot plan
showing the proposed units shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and
Development :Department.
10. Any minor changes in lot mix, sizes, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to any final
map approvals for recordation.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
11. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 21/2" X 21/2) shall
be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction
with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire
flow shall be 1000 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi.
12. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system shall meet the
fire flow requirements. Plan shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company will sign the following certification: I certify that the design
of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside
County Fire Department.".
13. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an
individual lot.
14. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the
model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
UTILITIES
15. All conditions and requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District shall be met as
noted in their letter dated April 28, 1994, on file in the Department of Planning and
Development.
CONAPRVL.132 2
conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
16. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall
be installed underground. High voltage power lines which the power authority will not
accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
17. 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.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
18. If the applicant desires to phase tract improvements, tract phasing plans shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and
Development ]Department prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map.
The applicant shall develop tract phases in the order of the approved phasing plan.
Improvements required of each phase shall be complete prior to issuance of Certificates
of Occupancy within the phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT:
19. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and
off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and
any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of any final map(s)
under this tentative tract map.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
20. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot wide public utility easements contiguous with and
along both sides of all private streets.
21. The applicant. shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to
utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
22. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this
property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of
any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are
approved by the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.132
K3
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
GRADING:
23. 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.
24. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
25. 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.
26. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan shall be
submitted on 24" X 36" media and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior
to approval of any final map(s).
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall
be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement
shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils
report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seall and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the
as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be
organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
DRAINAGE
27. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out
of the tract through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief
route. The tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at
locations that have historically received flow.
28. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on
site. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to
the centerline of adjacent public streets.
CONAPRVL.132
4
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
Storm water produced during a 100-year storm shall not overflow street rights -of -way
except through approved storm drainage conveyance locations.
29. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless
the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
30. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
STREET AND TRAFFIC MPROVENVIENTS:
31. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If
the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map for this
development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
32. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer. Plans shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media. Improvements
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code,
adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life
and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading including site and building
construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential and Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent
to the 20-year design strength.
33. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -
block street lighting is not required.
CONAPRVL.132
5
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
34. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements
to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing
improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and
practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending
beyond tract boundaries.
35. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
street type noted in parentheses:
A. North -South Street and Interior Residential Streets - 32 feet wide between curb
faces. Applicant shall submit a detail of the curb and gutter design for interior
residential streets for approval by the City Engineer.
B. Rancho La Quinta Drive - 36 feet wide between curb faces.
36. Cul-de-sac shall have a minimum outside curb radius of 45-feet and a maximum center
island curb radius of five feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and the
Fire Marshal. The configuration of other center islands is subject to review and
modification by the City Engineer.
37. All streets proposed for residential or other access drives shall be designed and
constructed with curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey
nuisance water flows without ponding in yard or drive areas.
LANDSCAPING:
38. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and common retention basins shall be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape areas shall have permanent
irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins
shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -
mounted equipment.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the
Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
QUALITY ASSUIZkNCE
39. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the
quality -assurance program.
CONAPRVL.132 6 1-3
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
40. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications and applicable codes.
41. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each
sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings.
MAINTENANCE
42. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and
related improvements.
43. The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common
lots, landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by the City's Landscape and Lighting District or a homeowner's association
(HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other improvements until final acceptance of
tract improvements by the City Council.
44. The applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for streets,
landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other
improvements. to be maintained by the HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the
facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm
with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term
maintenance.
]FEES AND DEPOSITS
45. 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
46. Plans for grading, drainage, streets, pedestrian/bike facilities, gates, common parking
areas, lighting, landscaping and irrigation, and perimeter walls are not approved for
construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer.
t � g • �;
CONAPRVL.132 7
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27952 - Rancho La Quinta
June 28, 1994
47. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
48. Prior to recordation of final map, the applicant shall submit proposed street names (three
per street) to the Planning and Development Department for approval.
CONAPRVL.132 8
PH #2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 28, 1994
CASE NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #94-045 (EA #94-277)
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT (CHAPTER 3) OF THE LA
QUINTA GENERAL PLAN TO REVISE THE MAJOR
ARTERIAL STANDARD FOR FLEXIBILITY IN
INTERFACING WITH SIMILAR ROADWAY STANDARDS IN
ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS„ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-277 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR;
THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN
PREPARED FOR THIS AMENDMENT AND IS
RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. THE INITIAL STUDY IS
INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENT #1 (20 PP.)
BACKGROUND:
The City of Indio adopted an updated General Plan in October 1993, which included
a revised geometric cross section for Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Since
La Quinta and Indio share a common border involving these two streets, Indio
requested La Quinta to consider adopting a geometric cross section that matches
Indio's. In March of 1994, staff reported to City Council the merits of revising the
Circulation Element to allow use of a revised Major Arterial standard to address the
potential for conflicts where the streets traverse/parallel jurisdictional boundaries.
The Council authorized staff to prepare such an amendment.
PROPOSAL:
The City completed its first General Plan in November 1985. La Quintals General
Plan envisioned that Fred Waring Drive and Washington and Jefferson Streets should
be 6-lane arterials. As a result, the two cities and the County have since worked
to a different "blue print" for these streets. Staff from these agencies have tried
on several occasions in the past to resolve the differences in the geometric cross
sections but a final solution has never been developed.
Recently, the cities of La Quinta (October 1992) and Indio (October 1993) updated
their general plans. Both cities now concur that Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street should be 6-Mane arterial streets. However, Indio prefers to provide an 8-foot
paved shoulder on each side of the street in addition to the six traffic lanes, while
La Quintals Major .Arterial geometric cross section for these two streets does not
provide for an 8' Paved shoulder. Environmental Assessment #94-277 has been
attached as part of this report ( see Attachment #1) , and contains specific
background details pertaining to this amendment.
PCST.003
An 8-foot paved shoulder can be used as a standard parking lane or an emergency
lane for moving stalled vehicles out of the traffic lanes in emergency situations. The
shoulder or parking; lane has also been employed as a bike lane in many areas of the
country in recent years to fulfill the need for multi -modal transportation facilities.
Moreover, federal transportation funding programs, such as the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), encourage this type of usage and provide
funds on a competitive basis to local agencies, which provide facilities for alternate
modes of transportation.
SUMMARY:
Although this amendment was initiated due to transition conflicts with the City of
Indio, La Quinta also has potential conflicts with the cities of Palm Desert and Indian
Wells, and with Riverside County. However, the majority of street interfaces are
with Indio and Riverside County. The Palm Desert interfaces are with existing
street improvements at the north west corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington
Street. Improvements are also in place along the south side of Fred Waring Drive
east of this intersection. Staff has proposed a range for the roadbed width on major
arterials, so that the standard can be modified as needed, similar to the ranges that
were established for the primary arterial and collector standards. The major arterial
right-of-way width, however, is not proposed to vary. Text and graphic exhibits
have been prepared to allow this, and are contained in the attached Planning
Commission resolution as Exhibits A, B and C .
Comment requests were sent to Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Indio and Riverside
County, along with other potentially affected agencies. As this report is being
prepared, staff has only received comments from Indian Wells (Attachment #2) . At
this time, the modified major arterial roadbed width is workable within their
standards as well. Other comments received did not indicate any significant
concerns regarding; this amendment.
Under State General Plan law, a general plan may be amended no more than four
times during a calendar year. Since the beginning of this year, no General Plan
Amendments have been approved, therefore, this limitation is not a concern at this
time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Planning Commission Resolution #94-_, concurring
with the findings of 'EA #94-277 and recommending to the City Council adoption of
GPA #94-045, as set forth in Exhibits A, B and C of said Resolution.
Attachments:
1. EA #94-277
2. Response from Indian Wells dated June 9, 1994
PCST.003
PLANNING COIMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA)
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-045
CASE NO. GPA 94-045
'WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 28th day of June, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing to
consider a city-wide General Plan Amendment for a revised Major Arterial Standard,
amending Chapter 3 (Circulation Element) of the La Quinta General Plan; and,
'WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment request has complied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as
amended) , and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and
Development Department has completed EA #94-277, which indicates that no
significant impacts will occur due to adoption and implementation of the amendment.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering
all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard,
said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment:
1. The proposed General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is consistent
with the affected goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan and the Circulation Element in that the proposed revision to the
Major Arterial Standard will allow safer and more efficient transitions to
neighboring jurisdictions.
3. The proposed circulation amendments are consistent and compatible with the
existing circulation hierarchy of the La Quinta General Plan.
4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration pursuant
to the findings made in the initial study/EA #94-277.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council concurrence with the
Environmental Determination and approval of General Plan Amendment 94-045
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in Exhibits A,
B , and C , attached hereto.
RESOPC.004
� l�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVrION 94-
:PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of June, 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning & Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.004 j
PC RESOLUTION #94-
EXHIBIT A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #94-045
PROPOSED TEXT REVISIONS TO
CHAPTER 3: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Page 3-5 Add on to end of second bullet:
"Roadway design standards must also recognize
improvement standards in other neighboring jurisdictions
are riot wholly consistent with those necessary to
implement La Quinta standards. There needs to be
flexibility in these design standards to allow variations in
improvement standards where warranted and necessary so
as to avoid conflicts at transitions and intersections."
Page 3-14 Amend Policy 3-2.1.6 under TSM strategies, first bullet point, as
follows:
"Intersection geometric and signalization improvements,
including elimination of non -matching cross-section
conflicts at jurisdictional boundaries."
Page 3-15 Revise Table CIR-2 to reflect modified curb -to -curb and median widths
for the major arterial standard, and to add Note (#5) as explanation.
Page 3-17 Revise the major arterial cross-section in Figure CIR-4 to reflect the
modif'.ied range.
Pages 3-21 Add to Policy 3-4.1.2 and 3.4.1.4:
"Where intersections or street sections are shared with
other jurisdictions, a coordinated effort shall be
undertaken to ensure that the design standards of each
entity are not significantly compromised."
Page 3-24 Add the following to Policy 3-6.3.2:
"...on both sides of the road, except where project or
roadway design either prevents location of sidewalks
entirely within the right-of-way, or otherwise presents an
alternative design which is acceptable to the Public Works
Department. "
ENVASS.001
PC RESOLUTION * 94—
EXHIBIT B
E
a:
m
® w
9w
x0
:
cli
CY
Sw
0
z
� J
�R
�
m
�•
tC
N
C�
.2
® !"
N
Q
ffi
>-
c
C4
.E
sz —
C
Bo
1
�b
a
IL
to
CY
N
N
kz 3 CD'C
BC Q
.00
Ix
CL
CD
ccN ?
29 c
r
'(3
M
P
a
fV
2..�l 0 ��
0
F
0 CC
°cc
35
��
vO
u)w
=;
N>
in
E
S g,
V
t3
E
b
E
c
PC RESOLUTION *94-
EXI-IIBIT C
pil
Major Arterial'
1W
W 102'
IV
f
4
Primary Arterial
100-11 C
ti
S�e ondary Arterial
W
I
Coll"t®r
64-7C
40-SO
Local Street
W
9.
Cul-De Sac
I
9'Min. ti6/ , W
.tom O� Twf OEff�t
GENERAL PLAN
TYPICAL
MIDSLOCK
ROADWAY
CROSS -SECTIONS
Eux cac n, w d low
Ou.sat;n rew
FIG CIR-4 0
State Highway 111
constitutes a special
Gass of Major Arterial
with a right-of-way
requirements of 172
feet established by
Caltrans. Parkway
can be reduced to 9°
,where alternate street
section is employed.
ATTACHMENT # 1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT #94-277
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #94-045
The following information was modified/updated from a report to City Council dated
March 1, 1994, from the Public Works Director, City of La Quinta.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Indio adopted an updated General Plan in October 1993, which included
a revised geometric cross section for Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Since
La Quinta and Indio share a common border involving these two streets, Indio
requested La Quinta to consider adopting a geometric cross section that matches
Indio's. In March of 1994, staff made a report to City Council on the merits of
revising the Circulation Element to allow use of a revised Major Arterial standard to
address the potential for conflicts where the streets traverse/parallel jurisdictional
boundaries. The Council authorized staff to prepare such an amendment.
PROPOSAL:
The City completed its first General Plan in November 1985. La Quintals General
Plan envisioned that Fred Waring Drive and Washington and Jefferson Streets should
be 6-lane arterials. As a result, the two cities and the County have since worked
to a different "blue print" for these streets. Staff from both cities have tried on
several occasions in the past to resolve the differences in the geometric cross
sections but a final solution has never been developed.
Recently, the cities of La Quints (October 1992) and Indio (October 1993) updated
their general plans. Both cities now concur that Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson
Street should be 6-lane arterial streets. However, Indio prefers to provide an 8-foot
shoulder on each side of the street in addition to the six traffic lanes, while La
Quintals Major Arterial geometric cross section for these two streets does not provide
for an 8' shoulder (see Exhibit A) .
An 8-foot shoulder can be used as a standard parking lane or an emergency lane for
moving stalled vehicles out of the traffic lanes in emergency situations. The
shoulder or parking lane has also been employed as a bike lane in many areas of the
country in recent years to fulfill the need for multi -modal transportation facilities.
Moreover, federal transportation funding programs, such as the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), encourage this type of usage and provide
funds on a competitive basis to local agencies which provide facilities for alternate
modes of transportation.
La Quinta's Major Arterial Street Network
La Quintals Major arterial street network consists of the following streets:
1. Washington Street (500' north of Darby Road to Avenue 52)
2. Jefferson Street ( Fred Waring Drive to Avenue 54 )
3. Fred Waring Drive (Washington Street to Jefferson Street)
4. Avenue 52 (Washington Street to Jefferson Street)
5. Highway 111 (Point Happy to Jefferson Street)'
1. Highway 111 is designated as a Major Arterial Street by the General Plan.
However, since the highway is owned by the State, it will be improved in
accordance with Caltrans' geometric cross section which consists of six
traffic lanes, plus 8-foot wide shoulders constructed in a 172-foot wide
right-of-way with a 24-foot wide raised median. r)f)
ENVASS.001
A Major Arterial street in La Quinta is a 6-lane facility with an 18-foot wide raised
median constructed in a 120-foot wide right of way; the City has approximately 15.5
miles of street designated as a Major Arterial.
La Quinta shares approximately 4.3 miles of longitudinal border (shared centerline)
on the Major Arterial network with other jurisdictions; 1.8 miles of Jefferson Street
with Indio, 1.0 mile of Fred Waring Drive and approximately 1.0 mile of Washington
Street are shared with Riverside County, and about 0.5 miles are shared with the
City of Palm Desert, which has recently completed an annexation of the Palm Desert
Country Club area, affecting Washington Street, north from Fred Waring Drive.
In addition to the 4.3 miles of longitudinal borders with other jurisdictions, the City
also has twelve transverse border crossings where the street improvements join "end
to end" (Exhibit B). These are shared with Indio, Palm Desert, and the County.
It is these twelve "end to end" locations that create traffic continuity conflicts when
the geometric cross, sections of the street at the border crossing do not match.
Advantages and Disadvantages
There are several advantages and disadvantages to implementing a geometric cross
section similar to Indio's .
The advantages are:
the extra pavement width improves traffic safety by providing an area
out of a traffic lane where a stalled vehicle can be parked in emergency
situations;
• the extra pavement width provides opportunities for other modes of
transportation such as commuter bicycle traffic and golf carts;
the opportunities for federal and state funds are improved by including
facilities for more than one transportation mode in the pavement area;
• extra pavement width means less landscaping --- pavement is more cost
effective to install and maintain than landscaping;
• the extra pavement width will provide better continuity of traffic at
locations where the traveled way crosses a jurisdictional boundary;
the adoption of the new Arterial Standard is consistent with the
cooperative effort between the City of La Quinta and the City of Indio
to adopt similar development and construction standards.
The disadvantage is:
• diminished landscape aesthetics due to the reduced proportion of
landscaped area to paved area.
Exhibits C-E are the proposed text and graphic amendments. These amendments
basically have been prepared to be flexible, and only to convey intent. The
amendment does not limit applicability of the augmented major arterial to specific
street sections, but will allow it to be used whenever necessary, either now or in the
future. The amendment modifies the major arterial standard to be similar to the
primary arterial standard.
r !) (-
ENVASS.001
F-
4A\
13 - - -----
GEM OF
OTHE DESERT
GENERALPLAN
CWUUTI" SYSTEM
POUCY DIAGRAM
IU11UI8UU11111 ,WEV-M IC F. - MAJOR ARTERIAL
PRIMARY ARTERIAL
25 SECONDARY ARTERIAL
PoR COLLECTOR
MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH SPECIAL CALTRAN
RXVIT-OF-WAY REOUtREMENTS
,I IIII"`I'� -_ arwvw Kb ww mnmm prmwws �u r,®
M
,!Yt
6 oclow Im
t
—xmm
a. am 4
CFT 5W MW MW CM S*
1
0. IM 3,-
52 **Sst . . . an. . . . . man" ... a
ODIC
........... .................. Li -
6. I'M
ts
21. ljj -Z- 1 21-
LAKE
SAtJC*4&
M
=A\
j.
2b 3b 29 2p-j
OD
*RMSPWTva. DAMMEMW tfGM DESON
BRW W- 2700 k CEWRAL 9AK IWD PHW4X AZ 0504
EXHIBIT A
NOT TO SCALE
EA 94-277
LA QUINTA
Major Arterial
120'
12' Mina _ _-------- —96' 1 12' Min.I
14' 1 12' 1 13' 1 18' 1 13' 1 12' 1 14'
R
102'
MK
E' a' I V -12' 13' T T 13' 12' 11' a•
T
9WJ( SaEtiuUc
R8 CURB 4' 10'
� 2 CURB 22 CURB�I
CURBED OR P)YWO WEDM
AUGMENTED MAJOR A
INDIO
w
w
w
w
w
w
00
cn
w
O
�
N
`n
[.�
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
c}d
H
x
b
tw
bo
to
0
O
Gl
C7
9,
3
w
w
cd
O
Q
O
�
O
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
ao
o
wo
0
0o
z
ao
r.
W.,
fd
Gii
..
Ri
.,
Cd
0
4.1
U
"C3
ol
0
.0
i
c
c�
avv
�c
t—
00
O�
�
�+
.Nr
'M-+
.�+
EXHIBIT B
EA 94-27 1
EXHIBIT C
EA 94-277
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT #94-045
PROPOSED TEXT REVISIONS TO
CHAPTER 3: CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Page 3-5 Add on to end of second bullet:
"Roadway design standards must also recognize
improvement standards in other neighboring jurisdictions
are not wholly consistent with those necessary to
implement La Quinta standards. There needs to be
flexibility in these design standards to allow variations in
improvement standards where warranted and necessary so
as to avoid conflicts at transitions and intersections."
Page 3-14 Amend Policy 3-2.1.6 under TSM strategies, first bullet point, as
follows:
"Intersection geometric and signalization improvements,
including elimination of non -matching cross-section
conflicts at jurisdictional boundaries."
Page 3-15 Revise Table CIR-2 to reflect modified curb -to -curb and median widths
for the major arterial standard, and to add Note (#5) as explanation.
Page 3-17 Revise the major arterial cross-section in Figure CIR-4 to reflect the
modified range.
Pages 3-21 Add to Policy 3-4.1.2 and 3.4.1.4:
"Where intersections or street sections are shared with
other jurisdictions, a coordinated effort shall be
undertaken to ensure that the design standards of each
entity are not significantly compromised. "
Page 3-24 Add the following to Policy 3-6.3.2:
"...on both sides of the road, except where project or
roadway design either prevents location of sidewalks
entirely Within the right-of-way, or otherwise presents an
alternative design which is acceptable to the Public Works
ENVASS.001
EXHIBIT D
EA 94-277
1�
aCL
i
oIn
--�
NCL
C9
E
A�
cc
LU
N
Cl)g
< VVV
2
fi
A
jj{�JJ
NNCL�
ul
g
~ z
T
`
a
m
a
CS+"�
�zo�
E
G ..
L >
V-
tQi
C
ofCIA
N
N
eCCL
N O G ti
®Q
f
occ
a
U�
Lu
5
N;
?
.0s
C
_
7
L
7
E�
6
e
m
Major Arterial'
120'
14-1V °
q.
Priiiiary Artarfal
�12-1 S'
I 1
f3econdar f Arterial
W
EXHIBIT E
EA 94-277
410THE DES[�T
GENERAL PLAN
TYPICAL
MIDBLOCK
ROADWAY
CROSS -SECTIONS
gas= as d La a&= 0,ma"n fwx
K9rYaZal I %M A&W43 ftvta' = ISO
Eq FIG CIR-4 Q
1
� State Highway 111
` constitutes a special
Collector class of Major Arterial
with a right-of-way
6-4-70 tz -- Aso' tz requirements of 172
feet established by
Caltrans. Parkway
can be reduced to 9'
where alternate street
Local Street section is employed.
1a1z s= , Fr- 364a i0-1z
i
C'ul-Da— ac
50'
T-9' 3736° T-9'
t
rt -
Environmental Assessment No. 9Y 2
Case No. C,-AA
9Y - vYs
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Proponent C iry 6,te 6�4 Ov,--r^
2. Address & Phone! Number of Proponent
Z,+ QLJ,^r-A i�4 9205- 3 lA/`j- �-�'i
3. Date Checklist Prepared S - 5' y 5'
4. Agency Requiring Checklist C��'�s or` L , 6?
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable�ME+��"�
f=dR /►�ivvrz /ZE �/is�AV Tn / /Q'Zi"E2vrt G/?a6
II . Environmental. Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions„ displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification _IK
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic X
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
rnRM_nnQ1r.q -1-
YES
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. ExpDsure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
MAYBE NO
X
_X
0
0
M
IM
k. r
FORM.009/CS -2-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of biological
resources?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, �.
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals?
c. Introduction of new species of plants i
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment or migration or
movement of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? _
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
5. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? x
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _X
6. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce X
new light or glare?
7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
8. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any X
natural resources?
9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
10. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
a c'�
rnpm nno/rc —I—
YES MAYBE NO
11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
0
X-
X
a
FORM. nnq /rs -4-
C 1 9
YES MAYBE NO
15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard `excluding
mental health).
17. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
19. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse _
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric: or historic building, structure
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
_X_
0
k
FORM.009/CS -5-
r " 1)
YES
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment., substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are _
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
MAYBE NO
M
x
P "
FORM.009/CS
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation S, c
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant; effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature of Preparer
FnRM.009/CS -7-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1#94-277
CHECKLIST SECTION III
DISCUSSION OF EVALUATION
The following responses explain the rationale for the selected answers in the preceding checklist.
The responses relate to the overall area of impact (i.e., all earth impacts are discussed as one
component, with specific concerns addressed if a potential impact is indicated to exist).
1. Earth (a.-g.)
Adoption of this amendment will not cause any measurable impacts related to soil
conditions.
2. Air (a.-c.)
Adoption of the amendment will have no significant impact on any aspect related to air
quality.
3. Water (a.-i.)
No quantifiable water -related impacts are associated with this amendment.
4. Biological Resources (a.-e.)
No impacts to biological resources can be anticipated due to adoption of this amendment.
5. Noise (a.,b.)
Although no significant impacts are envisioned with regard to noise levels, the proposed
amendment may affect them due to a reduction in parkway width from 12' to 9'.
However, with the 8' emergency parking/bike lane separation between travel lane and
curb face this impact would be minimized. Sound level analysis of traffic noise will need
to be undertaken during project review, as required by the General Plan, to determine
any necessary mitigation for projects along the affected segments.
6. Light and Glare
No new light or glare impacts are anticipated with this amendment, as no additional
traffic lanes are required and no additional street lighting is necessary.
7. Land Use
The proposed amendment is not expected to change land use patterns in any areas
affected by its implementation.
ENVASS.001
8. Natural Resources a
The amendment will not result in any increase in use of natural resources.
9. Risk of Upset
No risk associated with any upset condition can be found to exist in light of this
amendment.
10. Population
The proposed amendment is not expected to change any characteristic(s) of the human
population of areas in which it may be implemented.
11. Housing
See #f5, Noise Impacts. The proposed amendment is not likely to affect a demand for
housing, and is not anticipated to affect existing housing, as the longitudinally affected
segments will not likely use the augmented major except where full street sections cross
City/County boundaries.
12. Transportation/Circulation (a.-e.)
The amendment will not likely alter circulation patterns, increase traffic, or otherwise
measurably affect the existing system.
f. An incremental increase in potential traffic hazards will occur, as the amendment
will allow bicycle traffic within the roadbed. However, the minimal additional
curb to be affected would indicate that this incremental increase will not be
significant.
13. Public Services a.-f.
It is not anticipated that adoption of this amendment will affect existing or require new
public services. There will be an insignificant incremental increase in public road
maintenance due to increased roadbed width, but no new services would be necessary.
14. Energy (a.,b.'i
No measurable increase in fuel or other energy source requirements are anticipated due
to this amendment.
15. Utilities (a.-f.)
ENVASS.001
No significant new or modified utility provisions will be required due to implementation
of this amendment.
16. Human Health
No potential health hazards are envisioned to occur due to implementation of this
amendment.
17. Aesthetics
The proposed amendment will not result in obstruction of any views or vistas, nor would
it create any offending view or site. There would be a minor reduction in parkway area
which could result in a 3' loss of area landscaping, depending on sidewalk width within
the parkway. Staff has determined that this would not be a significant reduction, in
terms of aesthetics, due to the existing General Plan requirement for a 20' landscape
setback from ultimate street right-of-way along major arterials.
18. Recreation
There will be no impact to potential recreation opportunities or existing facilities due to
implementation of this amendment.
19. Cultural Resources (a.-d.)
Implementation of this amendment would not affect any cultural resources beyond the
current condition, as ultimate right-of-way requirements remain the same as under the
existing General Plan standard.
20. Mandatory Finding of Significance (a.-d.)
Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed amendment has no potential for
environmental degradation, to discount long-term environmental goals in favor of short-
term goals or cause substantial adverse impacts to the human population. The cumulative
impact of this project includes full development of the major arterial traffic system,
which was addressed in the Master Environmental Assessment/Final EIR for the La
Quinta General Plan, certified on October 6, 1992. Impacts due to this amendment,
beyond those previously addressed by the environmental documentation prepared for the
La Quinta General Plan, are not considered significant.
ENVASS.001
44 950
Eldorado I)n%'e
Irdian Wells
CA 92210 7497
Tel: 619,' 346 2489
Fox., 619,' 346 0,107
June 9, 1994
Wallace Nesbit
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
ATTACHMENT #2
(2PAGES)
JUN1D1994A f
CITY CIF +a
PLANNihC�f? F-14 PTrr'.FN7
RE: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT TO ACHIEVE
CONSISTENCY WITH INDIO CROSS SECTION
Dear Wally:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your
proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA). As I
understand, this GPA is proposed so as to achieve
consistency for major arterial street standards with the City
of Indio.
For reference only, I have enclosed Indian Wells street
section for major arterials. As the only street segment
potentially subject to a interface situation between La
Quinta and Indian Wells is Washington Street from Fred
Waring south to the Whitewater bridge, no comment is
merited at this time. However, should Indian Wells ever
annex its Sphere of Influence to Washington Street and it
would Ibe recommended that ultimate design of this street
section be addressed at that time.
COYLE, IAICP
munity Development Director
TC/bjb-c: \lettenAnesbit. tom
MAJOR ARTERIAL
126' R/W
10' 106' C.C. 10•
I
17' I 12° I 12' 24, � 12' I 12' I 17'
MEDIAN
PRIMARY ARTERIAL
102' R W
78' C.C. 112'
8' I 12' 1 12' TT 1 12' I 12' l 8'
MEDIAN
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
88' R W
12' 64' C.C. 12'
8' I 12' I 12' 12' I 12' 1 8'
COLLECTOR
64'-72' R W
12' 40'-48' C.C. �j 12'
LOCAL
60' R W
10' 40' C.C. 10'
VNorth no scale
SOURCE: Weston Pringle and Associates.
City of
Indian Wells
General Plan Review
Figure C-3
Typical Road Cross -Sections
BI *1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JUNE 28, 1994
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-516
APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (RANCHO LA QUINTA)
REQUEST: FINAL REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR RACQUET
CLUB BUILDING
LOCATION: SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET
WITHIN RANCHO LA QUINTA
BACKGROUND:
On December 14, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved preliminary
landscaping plans for the main entry road from Washington Street and the Casita area
landscaping plans along with the landscaping and architectural plans for the Racquet Club and
surrounding area. One of the conditions of the approval was that more detailed architectural
drawings for the Racquet Club building be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for
review by the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted working drawings for this
structure. In order to comply with the required review, the applicant has submitted copies of
the site plan, floor plan, roof plan, building sections, and exterior elevation plans.
Racquet Club Architecture
The proposed racquet club will be approximately 41-feet by 165-feet and consist of
approximately 6,765 square feet of floor space, including an open breezeway. The facility will
consist of a pro shop, exercise room, locker rooms, storage area, office area, and small club
grill area. The architecture of the facility is Spanish/Early California to conform with the
architectural theme of the project. The one story structure will be a maximum 23-feet high and
utilize a two piece 18-inch barrel vault clay tile roof material. Two roof pitches will be utilized
on this building. A covered veranda of 14-feet width will be provided on the three main sides
of the building on the fourth side the overhang will be smaller. However, this area is only
utilized for tennis storage, pool storage, and a mechanical room.
The walls are proposed to be stucco with a mission finish. The veranda floor around the
building is proposed to be washed aggregate panels with bands of inset Mexican pavers. The
doors, windows, and sills will be painted a teal color. Any wood exposed will be stained. The
applicant has indicated that the material and color board utilized for the administration building
on 48th Avenue will be the same utilized for this building.
PCST.182
SUBMITTED PLANS:
The plans that have been submitted are part of the working drawings which are in for plan
check. Staff believes that the plans provide the detail which the Planning Commission wishes
to review.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission review the submitted plans as required
by the original plot plan Conditions of Approval and determine acceptability.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Excerpt from Conditions of Approval
3. Minutes of December 14, 1993, Planning Commission meeting
4. Plan exhibits
PCST.182
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 93-516 - T. D. Desert Development
December 14, 1993
Fire Marshal
0 Public Works Department (grading permit, improvement permit)
o Planning and Development Department
o Riverside County Environmental Health Department
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Imperial Irrigation District
® California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant
shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on
the plans.
Evidence of pennits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the
Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use
contemplated, herewith.
11. Landscape, street, and walkway lighting shall be in compliance with the City "Dark Sky"
Ordinance.
12. Street name sign, design, and location, shall be approved by the Engineering and
Planning and Development Departments prior to construction and installation.
DES IG\' RiE 1EN►4' }30ARD:
13. Drip or emitter irrigation shall be utilized to the greatest extent.
14. The final landscaping, irrigation, and architectural plans, materials and colors, pavement
patterns, etc., shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development
Department: prior to issuance of permits or beginning of work.
MISCELLAus:
* 15. That bicycle racks be provided around the racquet club building.
' *16. That more detailed architectural drawings for the racquet club building be submitted prior
to the issuance of a building permit for review by the Planning Commission as a business
item.
10
CONAPRVL.113
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
2. Obmmissioner Adolph asked if any further discussion had been held with
the applicant regarding what had been given to them. Staff stated they
hiad not.
3. Commissioner Abels asked what would happen if the Commission denied
tt a request. Staff stated the applicant would be in default with the
conditions and staff would have to consult with the City Attorney.
Discussion followed.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant was conditioned to contribute
to 'the construction of the corner and if it was done in two phases would
it not be more expensive. Staff stated it would be more expensive.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Commissioners
Abets/Adolph moved to continue Plot Plan 93-495 to January 11, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
IV. BUSINESS SESSI®N
..,> A. Plot ;Plan 93-516; a request of TD Desert Development for approval of
preliminary landscaping plans for the main entry road and Casita area and
approval of landscaping and architectural plans for the racquet club area.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked that a condition be added requiring bicycle
storage.
3. Mr. Strother stated he was available to answer any questions.
4. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern about approving the plot plan
without seeing a more detailed plan. Discussion followed regarding the
food service area, columns, dormer vents, and whether the item should be
continued. Mr. Strother stated his need to have approval so he could
proceed with his project. Commissioner determined that a conceptual
approval could be made with progress drawings submitted at a later date.
PC12-14 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 14, 1993
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Ellson/Abels to approve Plot Plan 93-516 by the adoption
of Minute Motion 93-054, with the addition of a condition requiring
bicycle storage and with progress drawings be resubmitted. Unanimously
approved.
B. �' �nolication 93-22�; a request of Norwest Financial, Inc. for approval of a
s;
rate sign for Norwest Financial.
la Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2."' Commissioner Abels asked if the height of the letters was the same as the
other tenants. Staff stated it was.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked what the width of the tenant's building was.
Staff stated they were uncertain but the sign did not take up the entire
width of the frontage as only 75 % was allowed.
a
4. Commissioner Ellson asked that staff supply the Commission with photos
of the buildings and the adjoining buildings when presented with this type
of request.
5. Mr. Jim Engle, Imperial Sign Company, stated he was available to answer
any questions of the Commission. Commissioners asked if the banners
were only temporary. Mr. Engle stated they were for temporary
identification only.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Adolph to approve Sign Application 93-225 by
adoption of Minute Motion 93-055. Unanimously approved:
V1. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of November 23, 1993, Commissioners
Ellscn/Adolph moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes as
submitted. Unanimously approved.
VH. OTHER
Commissioners discussed with staff items that could be discussed during the study session
period.
PC12-14 9
BI *2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JUNE 28, 1994
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 91-456, AMENDMENT #2
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR A COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CENTER WHICH CONSISTS OF 79,333 SQUARE FEET
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE
TAMPICO
BACKGROUND:
This project was originally approved in April, 1991 and granted a second amendment on March
22, 1994. The second amendment decreased the size of the project to its current 79,333 square
feet. One of the Conditions of Approval is that a sign program be approved for the center. This
approval is to include: building signs as well as free-standing center identification signs.
SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL:
The applicant has submitted a fairly comprehensive sign program which includes the main
Ralphs Shopping Center signage, in -line shops, center identification signs, and some of the pad
locations.
For the individual shop tenants, the applicant proposes a two foot high by 12-foot wide internally
illuminated sign hanging in the arch way in front of the shop space. As can be seen in the
submitted exhibits, the metal cabinet around the sign and the sign face background would have
a opaque stucco finish to match the building. The retainer on the front edge of the sign would
be painted to match the roof tile color. The lettering would be created by routing the letters out
of the background face and mounting plexi-glass face letters inside the cabinet. The applicant
will have a sample of this type of sign available at the meeting. As indicated these will be
mounted by steel tubing under the archways. The archways do not necessarily line up with the
shop space behind it and therefore, in some cases the signs may be off -centered from the shop
space. However, it appears that there are adequate arches for each shop as indicated in the
current working drawings. For those shops on corners, a second sign would be permitted.
PCST.184
For the Ralphs market:, the proposal is to install a standard oval Ralphs sign which would be 8-
foot high by 22-feet long. The colors would be their standard red plexi background with plexi
white letters. The sign would be mounted on the front elevation in the center of the store in the
large stucco area above the archways. No other signage is shown. This sign is proposed to be
internally illuminated with no use of stucco. The returns around the cabinet of the sign and
retainer would be painted to match the roof tile color.
For Pad A which is on the north side of Calle Tampico near Washington Street, and proposed
to be a bank structure, the proposed sign program indicates that signage is proposed to be
internally illuminated channel letters, two feet in height, in a black and white plexi-glass color.
This bank which also has other branches in the Valley is proposing to utilize the same style of
letter which exists at the other facilities. The trim cap on the face of the sign is proposed to be
bronze with the returns of the letters to be stuccoed to match the building.
Two shopping center identification signs are proposed, one at the traffic signal on Calle Tampico
with the second at the driveway entrance south of Pad "C" . As can be seen by the submitted
exhibits, this free-standing sign would have a rectangular face with an arch at the top supported
by stucco columns at each end with a tile treatment base. The sign would be at its highest point,
Moot 9-inches in height and 13-feet wide. The sign face area would actually be 5-feet 9-inches
high and have a two foot open space below it. The square footage of the sign would be
approximately 70 square feet including the supports.
The sign face would read "La Quinta Village" with the Ralph's sign below it. The width or
depth of the sign at its base would be approximately two feet with the width of the sign and
stucco column area approximately 18-inches.
Columns and sign face background would be opaque stucco to match the building. The base
would be tile which matches the roof tile. Additionally, the retainer around the perimeter of the
sign face would also match the tile color. The sign which would be double-faced would have
La Quinta Village in a turquoise color and Ralphs in their standard logo design and colors.
These letters are proposed to be cut or routed into the face of the background and internally
illuminated.
The applicant has also submitted individual free-standing monument signs for the pad buildings.
The pad buildings which are spread out around the perimeter of the site adjacent to Washington
Street and Calle Tampico within the landscaped setback areas. These signs are proposed to be
similar in color and materials with the main shopping center signs. They would not have the
columns, but be supported by tiled base. The size would be 5-feet wide and approximately 5-
feet high for a total of 25 square feet. The width or depth of these signs would be
approximately 11/z-feet wide. These signs would also say "La Quinta Village" with a maximum
of two tenants on each sign.
PCST.184
Due to the location of the main sign on the arch face which stands out over the covered
walkway, the applicants are also proposing a pedestrian sign which would hang underneath the
walkway and be visible to pedestrians. The sign would be 4-feet by 16-inch sandblasted wood.
The wood border would match the tile color with the background to match the corridor colors.
Copy colors are to be designated by the tenant.
ANALYSIS:
In general, staff feels that individual sign face colors where not specified, should be limited to
a specific number. Staff feels that possibly three colors should be allowed to be chosen from.
Due to the proximity of the shopping center across from City Hall and near the Downtown
Village Specific Plan area, staff feels that signage should be a little more restrictive than that
permitted along Highway 111.
Specifically, staff would offer the following comments regarding the proposed sign program:
Shop Building Tenants
1. Each tenant shall be allowed only one sign placed as close to the entry door as possible.
2. Consideration should be given to possibly utilizing raised plexi-glass letters rather than
plexi-glass letters placed behind the routed background.
3. That steel sign supports should be painted the same color as the adjacent stucco
background.
4. No logos or special consideration for National tenants with trademark signs shall be
allowed.
RaIDhs Market Sian
1. Rather than allow the entire sign face to be internally illuminated, consideration should
be given to possibly requiring the red Ralphs sign background to be a stuccoed red
surface. This would permit the sign during the day to appear as a normal sign. At night
then just the white lettering would be illuminated, reducing the impact on adjacent
residential properties.
First Bank Siens
1. Since the plans for First Bank have yet to be submitted or approved by the Planning
Commission, staff feels that the letter heights should be noted to be a maximum of two
feet high which would allow the Planning Commission some leeway should they feel that
the signage should be shorter in height. At this time the overall length of these signs is
not being designated but would be subject to approval. Staff would suggest that the
signage be specifically approved with the building plans.
PCST.184
Shopping Center Identification Signs
1. Staff feels that since this is the major shopping center identification sign, rather than the
letters being routed and placed behind the background, that both the "Ralphs" and "La
Quinta Village signs should be raised above the face of the background to provide some
depth and improve the appearance. At 13-feet long and 8-feet high, the Planning
Commission may wish to consider reducing the size of this sign which is relatively large
for the area. This area is generally surrounded by existing or future residential uses to
the east, north, and west.
Pad Monument Signs
1. These signs if utilized should be replace the building wall signs which would face the
public streets. Additionally, only tenants who are on the corner facing the street should
be allowed to have signage on this sign.
2. The "La Quinta Village" should be removed from the signs. The main shopping center
identification signs are intended to provide identification of the shopping center. By
removing this copy, the extra height should be removed from the signs. This would
decrease the height of the sign approximately six inches which would provide a better
proportion for these signs which are proposed to be essentially square at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the sign program, subject to the submitted sign program and
amendments as contained in the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Proposed sign, program text and exhibits
PCST.184
J U N 1 3 1994
t
La Quinta village
Sign Program
46.120 CALHOUN STREET • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 • (619) 347.3566 • (619) 345.1155 • FAX (619) 347-0343
CA. LIC. * 207136 C45 C61 /D38 C10
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Sign Program is to assure coordination and
compatibility between all signs within the sign Program area. As
such, the sign program is intended to address placement, color,
style, lighting and sign materials, and their consistency on the
property. Although the Sign Program exhibits establish the letter
and sign dimensions, the Sign Program is not intended to substitute
dimensional requirements for those provided in Chapter 9.212 of
the City Zoning Ordinance.
APPLICABILITY:
As defined in the City Zoning Ordinance, Section 9.212.030, a Sign
Program is a coordinated plan for signage for an individual
building or a group of buildings. For those signs requiring a
program, no permit shall be issued for an individual sign unless
and until a Sign Program for the lot on which the sign will be
erected has been submitted and approved by the City in conformance
with the City Ordinance.
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE:
i
All signs shall be constructed, installed and maintained in
Accordance with the following standards:
1. All signs shall comply with the applicable provisions
of the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable
construction codes.
2. The tenant and the tenants contractor shall be
responsible for obtaining any and all permits required.
3. All signs shall be maintained in good structural
condition and appearance and in compliance with the
Sign Program., the La Quinta Municipal Code, and
with all building and electrical codes.
4. No exposed lamps will be permitted.
5. All tenants must maintain service and appearance.
6. Upon removal. of signage, the party that purchased the
signage shall be responsible for the removal of the
signage, including patching and painting of holes.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
A sign application consistent with this program shall consist
of the following:
For each proposed Sign application on the building the
following shall be specified on drawn to scale and dimensioned•
plans:
a) a dimensioned location of each sign on the building
and property
b) sign dimensions including letter height, color, sign
length, and sign prjection from the building.
c) color scheme
d) type style or graphic style
e) materials being used
f) method of installation/attachment
SPECIFICATIONS FOR BUILDING TENANT SIGNS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
8.
9.
Only internally illuminated stuccoed cabinet signs shall be
permitted
Color of Letter faces are up to the discretion of the tenant.
Sign face background shall be an opaque stucco finish, painted
to match building
Color of stuccoed cabinet shall be painted to match color of
building
Cabinet reatiner shall be color of roof the
Letter heights to4be proportional to working surface area
Cabinet sign, to be 2' high X 1211ong.
Type style shall be approved by landlord.
Double and single -line copy shall be permitted.
All signs shall be mounted in allotted space and must align
with other tenants
SPECIFICATIONS FOR MONUMENT PAD SIGNS: (A,B,C, and D)
1. The monument: sign shall be double -sided.
2. The sign shall be internally illuminated by fluorescent
lighting.
3.
The sign shall not exceed
(8) eight feet
in height.
4.
Total signac4e area not to
exceed 25 square feet.
5.
Color of letter faces are
up to discretion of the tenant
6.
Sign face to be an opaque
painted stucco
finish to match to
match building
7.
Retainer on sign shall to
match color of
tile on building
e.
Type style shall be approved by landlord
and
9.
See exhibits for materials and location
requirements.
10. Only (2) two tenants per monument
11. Signs shall have divider bars for tenant seperation
12. See exhibits for materials and location requirements
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLYON SIGNS: (Includes Ralph's)
1. Pylon sign shall be double sided
2. Sign shall be internally illuminated by fluorescent lighting
3. The sign shall not exceed (8) eight feet in height
4. Total signage area not to exceed 50 square feet.
5. Color of letter faces are up to discretion of the tenant
6. Sign face to be an opaque painted stucco finish to match
building
7. Retainer to match color of tile
8. Signs shall ;have divider bars for tenant separation
8. See exhibits for materials and location requirements
FIRST BANK SIGNAGE:
1. only internally illuminated channel letters shall be permitted
2. Letter faces will be black/white plexiglas with 3/4" bronze
trim cap.
3. Typestyle will be banks type.
4. Returns of the letters shall be stuccoed to match building
5. Illumination must be neon tubing, mounted inside the letter
6. Letters shall be mounted to facia
7. Sinle line copy only
8. Height of letter to be 2'
9. Channel letters must be painted inside and out (Excluding
plexiglas)
RALPH'S SIGNAGE:
Inline
1. Size of sign to be 8' X 22'
2. Sign to be single face
3. Background of sign to be red
4. Color of copy to be while
5. Return and retainer to match tile
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - DRAFT
PLOT PLAN 91-456 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE PARTNERSHIP
SIGN PROGRAM - LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER
JUNE 28, 1994
GENERAL:
1. The sign program for the La Quinta Village Shopping Center shall be subject to the sign
program on file in the Planning and Development Department, subject to the following
modifications:
A. The final text of the sign program incorporating these Conditions of Approval
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance
of the first sign permit.
B. Sign letter and colors for the shop building tenants (building tenant), and
monument signs (monument pad signs) and pedestrian signs shall be limited to
red, turquoise, and forrest green. Each tenant for the shop buildings shall be
limited to one sign only with corner tenants allowed a second sign on the second
frontage.
C. Steel supports for the shop building tenants shall be painted to match the
background stucco color.
D. No logos shall be allowed and no special signs shall be allowed for tenants with
trade mark signs in the shop buildings.
E. The sign heights for the First Bank shall be a maximum of two feet high, as
approved by the Planning Commission during consideration of the building
approval.
F. For the shopping center identification signs the lettering shall be raised two inches
rather than placed behind the background.
G. If the pad tenants utilize the monument sign, it shall replace the sign on the
building facing the public street. Only tenants who are on the corner facing the
street shall be allowed to have signage on a pad monument sign.
H. "La Quinta Village" shall be removed from the pad monument signs and the sign
lowered by six inches to eliminate the "La Quinta Village" background area.
CONAPRVL.133 1
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
June 14, 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 Abels led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph,
Ellson, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioners Adolph/Ellson moved and seconded a motion to excuse
Commissioner Marrs. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners
Greg Trousdell and Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty
Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS -
Commissioner Abels withdrew from the meeting during consideration of Item A due to a
possible conflict of interest.
A. CONTINUED - 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. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what the radius was to turn a car around
in a parking lot. Staff stated the two-way drive aisle width would be 26-
feet and went on to explain the on -site parking program.
3. Chairwoman Barrows and Commissioner Ellson asked that the windows
be recessed three inches for shade.
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. The applicant, Dan Featheringill stated he had tried
to address all the conditions as requested by the Planning Commission but
the economics of the project wouldn't allow him to do all of them.
Discussion followed regarding recessing the windows and the thickness of
the roof parapet.
5. Commissioner Ellson questioned why so many windows were needed on
the front of the building (Calle Estado) where there would be so much sun
light. Mr. Featheringill stated this was the front of the building and the
energy issues would be solved with the Title 24 (U.B.C.) requirements.
6. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the effect would be to recess the
windows 6 to 8-inches. Mr. Featheringill explained the added
construction costs of widening the building walls.
7. Commissioner Ellson asked how the applicant proposed to retain nuisance
water. The applicant stated that had not been determined as of yet, but
would solve the problem to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department
and it would be on -site.
8. Commissioner Adolph asked how the log columns where it meets the
beam would be treated. The applicant stated they were a flat surface, not
rounded, and would be bolted through.
9. Commissioner Adolph asked about the Desert Club Drive screen wall and
would he comply with the Art in Public Places conditions. The applicant
stated he would do what the City required.
10. Commissioner Ellson asked how the sign that is proposed to be painted on
the wall will be maintained. Mr. Featheringill stated that all signs fade
with time, but it will hold up as well as any other sign and there would
be a water sealer applied to it.
11. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
12. Commissioners discussed the four foot passageway between the building
and determined that there was no need to have one at this point.
Commissioner Adolph stated the building would have a different look once
physically built.
13. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for the building being top heavy.
Discussion followed regarding window recessing, overhangs, and the
parapet being 8-inches thick instead of 18-inches. It was stated the
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
windows could have pop outs of ±4-inches. Staff stated the conditions
would be amended to show the parapet would be a minimum of 8-inches
and the windows would be recessed 8-inches.
14. Commissioner Ellson questioned the amount of space the French doors
would take up on the interior and whether the header over the window
would project out from the building. The applicant stated it would, but
not past the stucco. Staff stated the French doors could be changed to
slider French doors if the tenants desired.
15. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was an alternate light source than the
incandescent that was more energy efficient (e.g, metal Halide or
fluorescent).
16. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Adolph/Barrows moved
and seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 94-016 approving Plot
Plan 94-522, subject to the amended conditions. The motion carried with
Commissioners Adolph and Chairwoman voting AYE, Commissioner
Ellson voting NO, Commissioner Abels abstaining, and Commissioner
Marrs absent.
17. Commissioners Adolph/Barrows moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 94-011 approving Variance 94-025.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, and Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Ellson.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN:
Commissioner Abels.
Commissioner Abels rejoined the Commission.
B. CONTINUED - PRECISE PLAN 94-846 (THE CLASSICS AT TOPAZ); a
request of Century/Crowell Communities for compatibility review of new model
homes for the Topaz project.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Adolph questioned staff regarding Findings #2 concerning
the mix. Staff stated it was an option but the Commission did not have
to regulate the mix. Commissioner Adolph asked if the applicant agreed
to the mix. Staff stated Condition #23 addresses the issue but staff did not
believe the applicant agreed with the mixture requirement.
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
3. Chairwoman Barrows stated if there was a condition that requires the
window treatment to be the same as the existing homes. Staff stated the
revised plans show popouts and the applicant knows he has to provide
additional window treatment on the infill lots. Discussion followed
regarding the exterior treatment.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked staff what condition applied to the six homes
in Phases I and II. Staff stated Conditions #22 and #30 applied.
5. Chairwoman Barrows explained that the public hearing portion of this item
had been closed but the Commission had the option to move the Public
Comment portion of the meeting to enable anyone to speak regarding the
precise plan item at this time. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell explained
what could be said and the time limit allowed to speak.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Mr. J. J. Mulcahey, Desert Rock Court, addressed the Commission regarding the
Topaz project. He stated he felt the use of the name "Topaz" was misleading and
should not be used.
B. Mr. Gerald Shea, Desert Eagle Drive, stated his concern that the streets were still
not under the City's responsibility at this time (not dedicated). He asked that
Century be required to dedicate the streets to the City.
C. Mr. Ed Munson, Desert Rock Court, stated his concerns were; 1) the new
elevations in that Century Homes did not make any effort to meet the
architectural detailing of the existing Topaz units; and, 2) the mix should be a
50 % limit; and 3) the rear of the houses need to have additional detailing as the
existing homes.
D. Mr. Dennis Cunningham, applicant, addressed the questions raised and explained
his proposal.
E. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive (La Quinta Highlands), stated his disapproval
of Century submitting their plans at the last; minute. He stressed the need to plan
ahead and require three car garages for the larger homes so the City did not face
what Cathedral City was facing by not allowing any parking on the street at night.
F. Ms. Jenny Plantz, Desert Rock Court, asked if the walls were going to match the
existing. Staff stated they would be the same stuccoed wall as Phases I and II.
G. There being no further public comment, Commissioners continued their
discussion of the project.
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTUSUED:
B. Precise Plan 94-846 - The Classics at Topaz
6. Commissioner Ellson stated that Condition #30 needed to be modified.
Commissioner Adolph asked staff what the square footage of the plans in
Exhibit "B" were. Discussion followed regarding the mix on the six
homes closest to the existing homes.
7. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Condition #26 and asked that the first
sentence be deleted. Staff stated the boxed eaves it would resemble the
existing homes. Discussion followed regarding window treatments.
8. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Condition #23 relative to the mix of the
homes. Staff clarified that Condition #23 only deals with the 12 % of the
smaller units and doesn't state what percentage they have to have above
the 1600 square foot. Discussion followed regarding the mix. Mr.
Cunningham stated they were in agreement with the 1687 square foot as
it puts 50% over that and gives them the mix on Plan 2 and allows
flexibility to the developer. He further stated this would assure that 50 %
of the houses would be over the 2,000 square foot size as they proposed
the mix to be. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the condition could
be worded to state that 50 % of the homes in each tract phase would be
over 2,000 square feet or greater.
9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the Commission could condition the tract
name. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the current Compatibility
Ordinance as drafted does not address this issues.
10. Staff asked if the Commission wished to address Condition #25 regarding
three car garages. Commissioner Adolph asked how many were planned
now for three car garages. Mr. Cunningham stated 30% were planned.
Commissioner Ellson asked what the market showed. Mr. Cunningham
stated there hasn't been enough time to examine the market to make a
determination. Discussion followed regarding three car garages.
11. Commissioner Adolph asked staff how big a difference there was on the
rear elevations. Staff explained the differences and discussion followed
regarding compatibility and the conditions that require additional
treatment.
12. Staff asked that the Commission address Condition #25 regarding three car
garages. Commissioner Adolph verified that the 30% that will have three
car garages are the larger homes. Mr. Cunningham stated they would be
the larger homes over 2,000 square feet. Chairwoman Barrows asked for
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
clarification that the 50% of houses over 2,000 square feet would all have
three car garages. Mr. Cunningham agreed.
13. Staff clarified the changes required by the Planning Commission: 1)
Condition #23 (add) 50% of the houses shall be over 2,000 square feet in
each tract phase; 2) Condition #25 (modify) 50% of the houses will have
three car garages; 3) Condition #26 - strike the first sentence; 4)
Condition #30 - changed to refer to Exhibit "B" for homes in Phases I and
II; 5) Condition 28 - clarified the building protection requirement.
14. There being no further discussion, Commissioners Adolph/Ellson moved
to adopt Minute Motion 94-017 approving Precise Plan 94-846, subject to
conditions as modified. Unanimously approved.
C. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-043; a request of the City for an
amendment to allow Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resorts in the City.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified for the Commissioners the
modifications that had been made to the ordinance.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked that staff define what a Fifth Wheel trailer
was and how it relates to a recreational vehicle. Staff explained.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff what the difference would be in the
ordinance regarding people who own their own lots. Staff stated that the
ordinance was written to prevent long term stays and space ownership.
5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Robert Metkus, North La Quinta resident, stated
his concern that a trailer would downgrade the living standards of the area
as well as the lighted golf course with a driving range.
6. Mr. Joe Richards, applicant representative for Conditional Use Permit 94-
012 and 94-013, stated they would be providing a good baseline for
regulations for developments of this type. He continued to explain his
project and addressed sections in the ordinance that concerned him;
setbacks, the requirement for a wall, the requirements for curbs, and a
clarification of what the HCD approval was.
7. Commissioner Ellson asked if the berm and wall combination was used
what would the residence on the other side see. Mr. Richards stated that
PC6-14
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
it depended upon what was there, but in their project a berm would be
seen from both sides. Discussion followed regarding the berm/wall
combination used as a fence.
8. Ms. Christine Clarke, (adjacent property owner for Inco Homes site),
stated her concern that the Commission needed to address "line of sight"
for all residential property owners. She felt the wall/berm combination
would be the best solution to the sight problem.
9. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
10. Commissioner Abels stated he had been concerned about the wall, but
after the explanation of the additional height he had no objections.
11. Commissioner Elllson stated her concern was to make sure that the
recreational vehicles are screened from all sides.
12. Chairwoman Barrows stated there was no provision to require vehicles to
be screened from adjacent streets or residences from view.
13. Commissioner Abels asked if the applicant could require that only smaller
vehicles be allowed next to the perimeter wall. Mr. Richards stated there
were several options to deal with the problem in addition to the berm/wall
combination, such as the bumper car stops to keep the vehicle back from
the wall as well as landscaping. Discussion followed regarding
alternatives.
14. Commissioner Adolph stated the question was whether the City wanted
this type of development in the City. He did not object to recreational
vehicle resorts in the City, but was concerned about having one on
Washington Street.
15. Ms. Christine Clark, again stated her concern that the Commission
address the line of sight issue.
16. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive, stated there were no recreational
vehicles twenty feet high or as high as a single story house. He felt that
with appropriate landscaping and setbacks there would be no problem.
17. Mr. Robert Metkus, stated he was against any recreation vehicle ordinance
in the City.
18. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
PC6-14 7
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
19. Chairwoman Barrows stated she felt the setbacks provided a minimum
standard and should not be reduced.
20. Commissioner Adolph stated there needed to be a greenbelt between the
sidewalk and street.
21. Commissioner Ellson asked where the setback is measured to. Discussion
followed regarding the proposed plans and the conditions relating to
setbacks.
22. Chairwoman Barrows questioned Section #14.a. and stated she wanted
adequate screening to block the view of the vehicles. Commissioner
Abels stated he felt the berm/wall combination was attractive and should
solve the line of sight problem. Commissioner Ellson questioned the
amount of screening needed. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt the
berm/wall would also solve the problem. Staff stated they would add a
condition to address the berm/wall combination.
23. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the Commission wished to address the
request for rolled curbs. Commissioner Adolph stated he felt it was a
better and safer solution.
24. There being no further questions, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to
adopt Resolution 94-012 recommending approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 94-043.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None.
D. CHANGE OF ZONE 94-076; a request of the City for a change of zone from C-
P to R-3 for 7.6 acres to allow a 356 space Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer
Resort and a night lit golf driving range.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. As no one wished to speak, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
3. Commissioners Ellson/Adolph moved to adopt Resolution 94-013
approving Change of Zone 94-076.
PC6-14 8
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None.
Chairwoman Barrows dismissed the Commission for a five minute break.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-012 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
94-013; a request of Thomas Bienek for approval to allow a 356 space
Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resort and a night lit golf range.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department. Staff noted the number of spaces is actually 356.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was enough land available in the
overflow parking area and were why was staff requiring a year to
determine whether it was needed. Staff stated there was adequate space
for the needed 84 spaces and staff felt that one year was enough time to
determine whether additional parking was needed.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked what would happen if it was determined that
the lights were a problem. Can the Planning Commission condition the
project to eliminate this problem. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
it would need to be written in the Conditions of Approval. Staff indicated
that a condition be added to so state the Planning Commission would
review the lighting within one year of operation.
4. Commissioner Abels asked why the applicant changed the lighting from
ground lighting. Staff stated that the applicant stated the ground lighting
would cause a halo effect and would be detrimental to the project.
5. Commissioner Abels asked if there were palm trees on the south end of
the driving range. Staff stated there were some palm trees but it was felt
that no one could hit a ball to the rear of the range. Discussion followed
regarding the location and number of trees.
6. Commissioner Adolph asked how extensive the traffic impact would be.
Staff stated the property is zoned for high density and would meet the land
use portion of the General Plan as it would be less than an apartment
complex. Commissioner Adolph stated he was concerned with the
congestion on Washington Street. Discussion followed regarding traffic
concerns.
7. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the project would meet the Dark Sky
Ordinance requirements. Staff stated it probably could if it were pole lit.
PC6-14
Planning Conurission Minutes
June 14, 1994
8. Commissioner Ellson asked if the clubhouse would be visible from the
Washington Street bridge. Staff stated that by virtue of the grading and
landscaping, it probably would not be visible.
9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the open fencing at the south end of the
project would allow the recreational vehicles to be visible from
Washington Street. Staff stated they would be visible until the
landscaping matured to fill in the fencing.
10. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Mr. Joe Richards, applicant representative described
the project and introduced Mr. Thomas Bienek, the owner, who gave the
background on the project and addressed some of the questioned raised by
the Commissioners.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked if the two-tier driving range was the reason
to have the netting so high. Mr. Bienek stated it was partially the reason.
Commissioner Ellson asked if it was only one tier could the net be
lowered. Mr. Bienek said it could be lowered approximately 10 feet.
12. Commissioner Adolph asked what the height of the dip in the netting
would be. Mr. Richards stated they hoped there would be no dip because
they hoped to keep the netting at 80-feet. Commissioner Adolph asked
what the life expectancy of the netting would be. Mr. Richards stated it
should last eight to ten years. Discussion followed regarding the netting
and poles.
13. Mr. Richards, the applicant, asked questions regarding Conditions #20,
#16, #14, and #27. He further requested that they be able to submit the
lighting and netting plan when they submit their landscaping plans.
Discussion followed regarding the conditions and the lighting plan.
14. Mr. Joe Irwin, North La Quinta resident, stated his support of the project
and thanked Mr. Bienek and Mr. Richards for including them in early
discussions regarding the project.
15. Mr. Robert Tyler, Villetta Drive, stated his concern that the residents did
not understand the type of facility was being planned. He further stated
that most recreational vehicles are priced from $15,000 to $500,000 and
very few have children. Therefore, there would be no impact on the
school system or the post office as there would be if an apartment
complex were constructed.
16. Mr. Fred Far, representing Inco Homes to the east, stated his support of
the project.
PC6-14 10
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
17. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
18. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that the rear of the recreational
vehicles would show over the perimeter wall.
19. Commissioner Ellson asked what the consequences would be if a block
wall was required along the channel, Mr. Richards stated it would block
the view corridor.
20. Staff asked if there were any plans for phasing the project. Mr. Bienek
stated they did not plan on phasing the project. They hoped to have the
range open by November, 1994 and the remainder open by September,
1995.
21. Commissioner Ellson stated she had no objections to the project but did
have a concern about the lighting, netting, and line of sight.
22. Chairwoman Barrows stated she had the same concerns but she would
need to review the landscaping plans before she could say it was
adequately screened.
23. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the channel side of the project needed
a block wall. Commissioner Abels stated he felt landscaping would
conceal the interior of the project.
24. Commissioner Abels asked what type of fence was being planned for the
perimeter. Mr. Richards stated it would be a block masonry wall with
vines.
25. Commissioner Adolph asked how the applicant could protect the course
from the channel waters. Mr. Richards stated they would work with the
Coachella Valley Water District.
26. There being no further questions, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to
adopt Resolution 94-014 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-012, a 356
space Recreational Vehicle/Travel Trailer Resort.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, and Abels.
NOES: Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT:
Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None.
27. Commissioners Abels/Adolph moved to adopt Resolution 94-015
approving Conditional Use Permit 94-013, for a night lit golf driving
range.
PC6-14 11
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, and Abels.
NOES: Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT:
Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-014; a request of the City Redevelopment
Agency and Williams Development Company for approval of a 91 senior citizen
apartment complex (including a manager's unit) and recreational/management
building on 9.23 acres.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked about the trash enclosures. Staff stated there
would be eight randomly scattered throughout the project with centralized
recycling. Commissioner Ellson questioned the use of metal doors and
they could be too heavy for the seniors. Staff stated this would be up to
waste company.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Ms. Betty Williams, Williams Development
Corporation (applicant), gave a brief description of the project and stated
her concern that she would be required to have two parking spaces per
unit. Staff stated they were recommending 1.5 units per unit instead of
two spaces per unit. Discussion followed regarding the parking
requirements.
4. Commissioner Abels stated visitors always have a hard time finding
parking spaces.
5. Commissioner Adolph asked how the age of the tenants would be
controlled. Staff stated it was State mandated for 62 year of age and
older.
6. Commissioner Adolph asked what the applicant would do if the tenant did
have two cars. Ms. Williams stated they would give them an additional
parking space.
7. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing. Commissioners Ellson/Abell moved to adopt Resolution
94-016 approving Conditional Use Permit 94-014, subject to conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Abels, and
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Commissioner Marrs. ABSTAIN: None.
PC6-14 12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14, 1994
V. BUSINESS SESSION: None
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioner Adolph asked that the Minutes of May 24, 1994, be amended on
page 3, Item 14, to show that he voted No on Plot plan 93-495. There being no
further corrections to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Adolph to adopt the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VH. OTHER - None
VIH. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Adolph/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on June 28, 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 11:30 P.M.,
June 14, 1994.
PC6-14 13
DEPARTMENT REPORT (C)
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE: JUNE 21, 1994,
SUBJECT: SUMMER CALENDAR
In order for staff to appropriately schedule agenda matters, it's necessary for the Council to
deterrnine its summer schedule. As you'll recall, last year the first meeting of August was held
along with the second meeting in September. The second meeting of August and the first
meeting of September were canceled. In reviewing the agenda for the second meeting in
September last year, it appeared to be a "normal" agenda. In discussing this matter with staff,
there was no indication that there will be an "avalanche" of items on September 20th if the same
schedule as Summer 1993 is followed. As always, a special meeting can be called if necessary.
The City Council will meet do August 2nd and September 20th.