Loading...
1991 10 22 PCW, 0 I ZY 10/ ya 2M lion la PLA1 XNG CO"IS,SXON AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California October 22, 1991 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAYBE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 91-047 Beginning Minute Motion No. 91-043 CALL. TO ORDER — Flag Salute ROLL. CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ................ PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 AND VARIANCE 91-018 Applicant ........... La Quinta Christian Fellowship - Pastor Koroluk Location ............ 53-800 Calle Paloma Request ............. 1. Public Use Permit request for approval on an expansion to an existing church plus associated parking area on a 1.4 acre site. A new 3,553 square foot church building is proposed. 2. Variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 22 feet; and B) To postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project. Action .............. Resolution 91- . 91- Pc/AGENDA 1 2. Item ................ BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 91-001 Applicant ........... D & M Morgan Location ............ 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place (existing) Request ............. Permission to move a 1,200 square foot building presently located at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place to 54- 038 Avenida Bermudas. Action .............. Resolution 91- 3. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019 Applicants .......... Simon Plaza, Inc.: Mr. Philip M. Pead Location ............ Southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The development on +5 acres on land is located to the west of the existing Simon Motors automotive dealership on Highway 111. Request ............. 1. Plot Plan request to develop a commercial center which may include a restaurant/bank, bowling alley, multiple story office buildings, a four story parking structure with one subterranean level, and other related structures. 2. Variance to deviate from the C-P-S Zone code set ack standards . Action .............. Recommendation to continue 4. Item ................ CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, VARIANCE 91-017, AND PLOT PLAN 91-467 Applicant ........... Desert Villas, Limited: Mr. Richard Darling & Mr. Craig Bryant. Location ............ West side of Washington Street and south of the La Quinta Storm Channel and +700 feet north of Calle Tampico. Request ............. 1. Change of Zone for +4 acres at the rear of the project site from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Multi -Family Residential and the front portion from R-2 8,000 to R-2. 2. Variance request for a reduction of the parking and unit size standards. 3. Plot Plan to develop a 109 unit single story apartment complex on +9 acres of land. Action .............. Resolution 91- , 91- Minute Motion 91- 5. Item ................ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-038, CHANGE OF ZONE 91-067, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 Applicant ........... Seastar Inc.; Mr. John Musial Location ............ East side of Madison St., 1/4 mile south of 54th Ave. Request ............. 1. General Plan Amendment request to amend the City's Land Use Element from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential. 2. Change of Zone request to amend the City's Zoning Map from R-1 20,000 to R-1 8,000. 3. Tentative Tract 27224 a request to subdivide +39 acres into 98 singe family residential lots. Action .............. Resolutions 91- . 91- . 91- PC/AGENDA 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. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form provided. Please complete a form and submit the form to the Recording Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ............... Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 2. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 8. Item ............... Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 4. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. CONSEN97 CALENDAR TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 Northstar California Corporation East of Washington Street and south of 48th Avenue within the Pyramids project. Approval of First One Year Time Extension. Recommendation to continue SIGN APPLICATION 91-157 Outdoor Media Group: Mr. Warren Hale. Northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Los Manos Drive. Request to install a temporary model home directional sign for the Quinterra tract. Minute Motion 91- SIGN APPLICATION 91-155 (TT 23935) GWR Development Southwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. Approval of sign adjustment to allow additional height for temporary signs. Minute Motion 91- TENTATIVE TRACT 24950, AMENDMENT #1 Chong Lee Northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. Approval of First One Year Time Extension Resolution 91- Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 8, 1991. PC/AGENDA. 3 OTHER ADJOURNMENT --------------------- STUDY SESSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1991 CAWCELLED PC/AGENDA PH-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH PLUS ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE. A NEW 3,553 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED. THE VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW: 1) INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT TO 22 FEET (ZONING REGULATION IS 17 FEET); AND 2) TO POSTPONE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROJECT (PARKING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A 6 FOOT WALL AROUND THE SITE. APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTINA FELLOWSHIP CHURCH PASTOR MARK COLLINS ARCHITECT: JOHN BUND LOCATION: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA; LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5 (SEE ATTACHMENT 1 & 2) ZONING: SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) NET ACREAGE: 1.4 ACRES GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-189 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. RESIDENTIAL UNITS PRESENTLY EXIST ON THE EAST AND SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE SITE. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: EXISTING CHURCH STRUCTURE, PAVED PARKING AREA WITH DESERT VEGETATION. 0 0 ,l STAFFRPT.065/CS -1- DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPORT FILL DIRT TO RAISE THE LOT ELEVATIONS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE ENTIRE SITE. A. BACKGROUND: 1. The existing church was constructed prior to City incorporation on Lot 65, Desert Club Track #5 in 1973 through the Plot Plan process. The Plot Plan as approved by the County, included 25 parking spaces with surrounding landscaping. 2. When the church was originally established the zoning for Desert Club Tract #5 was R-3. This zoning allowed a church to be developed with a Plot Plan Application. This area now has a S-R zoning designation. 3. A Public Use Permit (PUP) allows a church to be located in a residential area. 4. This project is surrounded by Desert Club Tract Unit #4, a residential area which has been in existence for many years. About half of the surrounding lots have been developed. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (See Attachment 3 & 4) 1. The existing church building (1,404 square feet) is presently located on the site. The Applicant has proposed a new church building (3,553 square feet) to seat +100 people. 2. The new church will operate during the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Sunday and 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. on Wednesdays. 3. The church will employ 2 full time and 1 part time employees. 4. The existing school will utilize the existing church building. This school covers grades 1 through 8 and has 20 students. This school has been in existence for seven years. 5. The proposed church is rectangular in shape with the entry vestibule facing Calle Paloma. The building has a gable roof and either tiles or concrete shingles will be utilized as roofing materials. Large windows have been placed on either side of the main entry door. Architectural detailing has been provided at the corners of the building. 6. Air condition units will be enclosed and located at the rear of the building. STAFE'RPT. 065/CS -2- 7. Desert color scheme has been proposed for this project. 8. The future sign will be approved at a later date. 9. Some of the parking is already existing and does not comply with the existing Parking Regulations (see landscaping plan requirement below). 10. The building is +23 feet high, higher than the 17 feet allowed in this zone. The Applicant has submitted a Variance application requesting a higher height limit. The Applicant states that this height is necessary "to prevent a claustrophobic feeling and to provide a church atmosphere. The higher ceiling is needed to preserve the character of this type of building". 11. The Parking Regulations state that a masonry wall is required around all nonresidential uses in a residential area. The Applicant has also filed a Variance request to postpone the construction of a masonry wall on the south side of the property to reduce initial financial outlay of this project. C. ANALYSIS: 1. Recent similar applications: Two church proposals have been approved by the City of La Quint:a in recent years, both located in the northern area of La Quint:a. Staff has applied similar conditions and requirements to these applications and the public use permit now under discussion. 2. Request for increased building height: The Applicant has made a Variance application to increase the height of the church from 17 feet to 23 feet. The proposed church is located 8 to 15 feet from the north property boundary of the site. Staff feels that a church 23 feet high located that close to the property boundary would have a negative effect on the properties to the north. A church building 17 feet high would have a similar impact as a residential unit in this location. If the proposed church building was located in a more central location, just north of the existing church building, 30 to 40 feet from the north property boundary, the impact of a 23 foot high church could be reduced to an acceptable level. Staff therefore recommends the Variance request for a building height of 23 feet be denied. 3. Request to postpone construction of wall on south side: Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to construct a masonry wall around the proposed project (excepting the front area) in accordance with the Parking Ordinance requirements, STAFFRFT.065/CS -3- includes the south side of the project for the following reasons. A. The existing church and school imposes negative impacts on the surrounding community. A masonry wall is necessary to mitigate those impacts. A noise study will be required of this project and in all likelihood will indicate a wall is needed to alleviate excessive noise. B. The residential unit to be build at some time in the future to the south of this project will not be required to build a masonry wall on the side of their property. Therefore, the Applicant cannot expect that they could, in the future share the cost of the masonry wall with the owner of the property to the south. C. It is difficult to guarantee that a wall will be build at a later point in time. Once the occupancy permit for the new church has been issued the City has no leverage to ensure that the wall is built. 4. Acoustical Stud The Applicant will be required to do a noise study in accordance with the requirements of the La Quinta General Plan addressing the following issues: A. Noise from this project affecting the surrounding area. B. Noise from the surrounding major streets affecting this project. 5. Lighting proposals: This project will have to comply with the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking area. 6. Trash Enclosure: The Applicant will be required to provide enclosed sufficient space for two bins, one for trash and the other for a recycling bin. The location of the trash enclosure shown on the site plan shall be acceptable to Waste Management of the Desert. 7. Parking and Landscaping: The standards in the Parking Ordinance indicate that 33 parking spaces are required for this project which have been provided. Parking for the existing school use can be accommodated on the parking provided for the church. The circular driveway parking arrangement is satisfactory. STAFFRPT.065/CS -4- A landscaping plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the Design Review Board. Landscaping of the parking lot and other parking details can be determined at that stage. It should be noted that a 6-foot high masonry wall is required around the perimeter of the site with the exception the front setback area. The front area will still need to be screened through berming, short walls and/or landscaping. 8. Existing School: Any further expansion of the existing school will require an amendlment to his Public Use Permit. 9. Parcel Merger: The Applicant will be required to merge Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #5 prior to building permit issuance. 10. Design of proposed building: The architectural design of the church is modest and has sufficient detailing on the front and side elevations. Some architectural dealing could be added or landscaping suitably located to add interest to the rear elevation. 11. Existing Building: Staff! recommends that the Applicant be required upgrade the existing building. It should be noted that on the existing church there is an unscreened air conditioning unit on the roof and in one wall. These should be screened with materials architecturally compatible with the building. The existing church is plain and lacks compatibility with the new church. However, the window popouts and corner treatments could be added to the existing building. Additionally, the two buildings should be the same color. It should be noted that the existing church building does not have a tile roof. However, requiring a new tile roof on this building to match the new church would create financial hardship on the church. 12. Signage: All proposed signs will be submitted and approved at a later date. 13. Comments from the Engineering Department: Comments from the above Department are as follows: The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development and determined that certain improvements, dedications, and special requirements are necessary to comply with the City's STAFFRPT.065/CS -5- General Plan and Municipal Code to assure orderly development at the proposed location. The Engineering Department therefore recommends the following comments be submitted to the City Council for consideration as Conditions of Approval for this Public Use Permit. A. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC. B. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. C. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. D. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. 14. Comments from Building & Safety Department: The above Department comments that "openings less than 10-feet from the north property line must be protected by a 3/4 hour fire assembly per Table 5-A in the UBC. 15. Comments from other Agencies: Comments from the Fire Marshall, Imperial Irrigation District and C:VWD are attached (Attachment #6, 7 & 8). D. LETTERS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Letters regarding this proposed church expansion have been received from Barbara J. Brown, Dave Hooper and John & Yvonne Sessums. The above object to the proposed project and Variance application (see Attachment #9). E. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING The Design Review Board reviewed this project at their meeting of October 2, 1991. An extract of the minutes of the above meeting are attached. F. CONCLUSION Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve Public Use Permit 91-008 with the attached conditions but not approve Variance 91-018 requesting a higher building limit and postponement of wall construction. G. FINDINGS Findings necessary to recommend approval of the Public Use Permit can be made and are contained in the attached Planning STAFFRPT.065/CS -6- Commission Resolution. Findings necessary to recommend denial of Variance Application 91-018 can be made and are contained in the attached Plannina Commission Resolution. H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the Environmental Analysis and adopt Resolution 91- , approving Public Use Permit 91-008, subject to the attached conditions. Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-018 subject to reasons stated in the attached Resolution. Attachments: 1. Overall locality plan 2. Detailed locality plan 3. Plot Plan 4. Floor Plan & Elevation 5. Environmental Assessment 6. Letter from Fire Marshal dated August 29, 1991 7. Letter from IID dated July 5, 1991 8. Letter from CVWD dated September 9, 1991 9. Letters opposing this project 10. Extract from Design Review Board meeting October 21, 1991 STAFI?RPT.065/CS -7- LOCATION MAP C ASE No. ATTACHMENT No. 2 �r 5 � �O1 5 D.33Ae � 14V s 1 v ' e M t O 56 w t � CASE MAP PUP 9 1 -008 45 Lti,N . - AVE ORTH � til►OT� t�11S3� d1J�fl0 Yl -,„, �Y����W M/VA1 r.Yrr• .M� ATTACHMENT No. 3 sl Cf' •% q V"140 0-1 VkA-ql "7 004-0D al d AOTlgj Nylls� 1/NM Vl vml@�-%WftOuw JAL _jk..'. =7J) NVY ATTACHMENT No. 4 6c- 'i � 0 o o o 0 j i I. Background ATTACHMENT No. 5 Environmental Assessment No.T-L_S7 Case No. P L1 P 91-C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent l-A CPy 1,,4t1M CAt R t S T`t C.!" f v 2 G 4 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 5 3 -- 8x:>� C•o. LLW-- 3. Date Checklist Prepared jZ�1 4. Agency Requiring Checklist s p'F- LAIC CPO /10.►t� 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes X in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of _ soils,, either on or off the site? f. Changers 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 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? j� ` 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. Exposure of people or property to water Expos p p p p Y related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, & aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish & shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? r"0+ S evcrt. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? YES MAYBE No 10. 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? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? AC4 Sib sfaMoo 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? Vim. AA4'n-0 / f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. 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? X x X YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon X existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. 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 :cater drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 18. 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? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact. upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. 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? x YES MAYBE NO 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? 21. 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? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) Atfe 1eA n 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. a I 2 c:;t l (S7 NQz;u! ^' s Date I Signature of Preparer PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 & VARIANCE 91-018 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURCH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS INITIAL STUDY I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Use Permit 91-008 proposes a church expansion plus associated parking area on a 4.21 acre site. A new 3,553 square foot church building is proposed. A Variance Application has been made to allow increased building height limit to 22 feet (Zoning Regulation is 17 feet) and to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project (Parking Regulations require a 6 foot wall around the site). This property is located at 53-800 Calle Paloma; Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #15. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The environmental checklist completed for this project shows the potential environmental impact of this project III. MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental checklist identified areas where an environmental impact will take place as a consequence of the proposed development. The following pages discuss these impacts and mitigation measures to be taken to reduce these effects. 1. Earth a. No impact. This is a small project comprising one building on a relatively flat site. No major disruption of soil will occur. b. c. e. The proposal will result in very minors disruptions, displacements, compaction, overcovering of the soil and a minor change in the topography and ground surface features. This is due to proposed grading to be done when the implementation of the project is commenced. Unless mitigation measures are taken, once the land surface is disturbed wind erosion might occur. Note should be made that no exceptional topographical features exist 'on the site. Mitigation measures proposed are as follows: CS/DOCGL.007 - 1 - - Prior to any grading permits being issued, the Applicant shall submit (to the Planning and Development Department) an interim landscape program for the entire parcel which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan prior to issuance of building permit with a engineering geological and soils engineering report. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided on the site as required by the Director of Public Works. d. & f. No impact. There are no unique geologic features on this site. g. This area is located in Groundshaking Zone IV as identified on the Riverside Seismic 1 Geology information maps. The site, however is not in close proximity to any established fault line, nor does it lie in any zone susceptible to liquefication. There will however be some groundshaking in the event of fault activity, depending upon the magnitude, location and other characteristics of the tremor. The Uniform Building Code provides seismic safety standards for buildings which help mitigate the above impact. 2. Air No impact. This type of land use does not emit any hazardous substance into the air. 3. Water a. No impact. See #1 d. and f. Site not located close to any water body. b. Development on this site will result in charges in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. Mitigation measures to reduce this impact has been covered under l.b., c. & e. (see previous pages). c. to h. No impact. A limited amount of excess water will be discharged from the site. i. In accordance with Federal Flood Maps, this project is located in the "AO" Flood Zone and therefore is an area subject to shallow flooding. The Developer will be required to raise the building 1-foot above ground level in accordance with applicable regulations. 4. Plant Life. No impact. No unique plant life presently exists on site. 5. Animal Life a. to d. This site does not lie within the designated area for Fringe Toed Lizards or any other endangered species identified at this time. 6. Noise a. & b. This development will result in an increase in existing noise levels in this area in the following ways: 1) During construction periods. The City Ordinance has set forward work hours for construction crews and adverse noise after hours should therefore be minimal. 2) During normal working hours of the project there is the potential for surrounding residents to be disturbed by the noise of church activities. The La Quinta General Plan states that the Developer will be required to do a noise study and take enough mitigation measures to ensure that this project does not produce excessive noise in this area. 3) Future residents in this development will be exposed to a minor amount of traffic noise from Washington Street. The La Quinta General Plan requires noise studies for all projects within 2,800 feet of the centerline of major streets, which would apply to this project. P-C /nnr- --T AA 7 - i - 7. Light and Glare This proposal will introduce an additional illuminated area to the City. All lighting proposed will be subject to the Outdoor Light Control Ordinance adopted by the City of La. Quinta. The project will be conditioned to use low, shielded lighting in the parking area. 8. Land Use. No impact. La Quinta General Plan designates this area as Residential. A church is considered a function which takes place in a residential area. The site is zoned S-R which allows a church with a Public Use Permit. 9. Natural Resources 10. 11. 12. a. This development will increase the rate of use of natural resources. The effect will however be gradual and proportionately very small. Risk of Upset. No impact. No hazardous substances are proposed. Population - This house any people. Housing project does not permanently This project will not affect the demand and supply of housing in this area. Existing residents or new residents in independently planned neighborhoods will utilize the church. Employees of the church have a wide variety of housing in which to live in the surrounding area (low, medium & high income, rent or owned). 13. Transportation/Circulation a. to f. Sufficient parking for the project will be provided on -site in accordance with City ordinances. This facility will generate additional traffic but it is not an excessive amount as stated in discussion with Steve Speer of the Engineering Department. The existing and future road system (when the wall is built leaving Calle Tampico as the major access into this area) has enough capacity for the proposed traffic. 1.4. Public Services a. b. e. & f. This development will result in a very minimal demand for public services. The Master Environmental Study for the La Quinta General Plan has addressed these issues. All conditions set out by County & City departments will be complied with. Detailed building plans will be subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. 1.5. Energy. No impact. This is a small development and will not utilize a substantial amount of fuel or energy. 1.6. Utilities The development will connect to existing utility services and comply with any requirements each utility agency will have. 1.7. Human Health. No impact. This development does not create any health hazard. No toxic chemicals, etc., are produced. i S (Z /7t, �-1a I 3.8. Aesthetics. No impact/. This project will be reviewed and approved by the La Quinta Design Review Board ensuring that the resultant structures will be aesthetically of a high standard. This zone allows structures a maximum of 17-feet high. A residential unit could be located on this site with a height of 17-feet and have a similar visual impact. A building higher than 17-feet (22 feO , as proposed by the applicant however, might disturb the view and have a greater visual impact. A building more centrally located on the site at a height of 23-feet might have less visual impact. 1.9. Recreation. No impact. This project will not create a demand for recreational activities. 20. Archaeological/Historical This development may result in the alteration of as yet unknown archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building. To mitigate this issue a comprehensive condition regarding archaeological studies is attached to the approval of the project. There is no evidence of this site having any unique ethnic cultural value. CONCLUSION Therefore based on the above project will have no great effect subject to the discussed mitigation information, this on the environment measures. - 5 - ATTACHMENT No. 6 e-4— f.OUNTY RIVER d: GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To. City of La Quinta Planning; Department ATTN: Glenda Lainis RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 August 29, 1991 SEP Cr, lou. Re: Public Ilse Permit 91-008 UINTA CITY yr Irr► v This letter supercedes Fire Department letter dated March 17;LIir, P. OEVELOpUGqEP1 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Public Use Permit, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4 " x 2J" x 2}") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 3. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2:A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 4. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 5. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 6. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist PLANNING DIVISION ® INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342MM • FAX (619) 7752072 C1 RIVERSIDE OFFICE ❑ Ti]ECI A OFFICE 41002 County Center Drive. Suite 225, Temecula, CA 9239 (714) 694.5070 U FAX (714) 694.5076 PD-DDC IMPtRIA[ ATTACHMENT No.7 IRRIGAIIUN oisl�icl COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81.600 AVENUE 58 P. O. BOX 1080 LA OUINTA. CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (619) 398.5811 FAX (619) 398.5848 July 5, 1991 City of La Quinta . , Development Review Committee � U _ � �•:' 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Dear Sir: Subject: Public Use Permit, 90-008. Addition to Existing La Quinta Christian Fellow Church. In response to your letter dated February 21, 91, please note that a preliminary assessment of the proposed project has been completed. Based upon the information provided, it has been determined that the project will impact the District's power system and surrounding customers. The effect of the additional electrical demand on the District's existing facilities at peak loading periods will result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation and distribution facilities, which would impact future power rates in the District's service area. The availability of power service and future power supply to the project is contingent upon the system capacity at the time service is required. Any prior verbal or written inference to service, or future service availability having been implied is not a guaranty of same, but rather a declaration of intent to provide service, subject to the system capacity at the time service is requested. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, or if I might be of some assistance, please advise. Yours very truly, r �L THOMAS G. HILL Superintendent, Distribution Coachella Valley Divison LQChurch.LTR C�*AR ATTACHMENT No City of LaQui . 8 �tP 13 1991 c.1 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRIEVBLIC WOR, POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (519) 398269• DIRECTORS TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMASE _ OFFICERS LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER.C4 c RAYMOND R RLIMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT ' ENGINEER JOHN W MCFADDEN BERNAROINE SUT':-, SECRETARY DOROTHYM NICHOLS September 9, 1991 OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GEhE�A� MANAGER THEODORE J. FISH REDWINE AND SHERR __ ATTORNEYS Catty of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta„ California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163`.1� ftfawtV SEP I.'A 4o", LA QUIMTA 'LANNiN� 0�lELOQ `w Wl Subject: Public Use Permit 91-008, Portion of Northeast Quarter, Section 6, Township 6 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 shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 1 foot, on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Eater District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Malley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have: any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 2:64. Yours very truly, fiLevy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:1g/e9 cc: Don Park Riverside County DepartmentTRUE CONSERVATION of Public Health USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT No. 9 LETTERS OPPOSING THE PROJECT May 17, 1991 �t8,p CITY OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: PROPOSED CHURCH EXPANSION/PARKING LOT ON CALLS PALOMA STREET IN THE DESERT CLUB ESTATES COMMUNITY OF LA QUINTA Dear Planning Commissioners: 'The Church Expansion and Parking Lot case will soon be before the Planning Commission for your approval or denial. In March of this year, my family moved into a beautiful home located at 50-945 Calle Paloma in the Desert Club Estates after living up in the Cove for some 18 years. We love La Quinta, and are pleased with all the improvements made through the years. We were fully aware of the small community church that sat directly across the street from our new house when we purchased our home, and at that time, it did not seem to pose a privacy problem. As the weeks continued on, we became aware there is also a school which goes on at the church during the week, and a Spanish congre- gation rneets there on Saturdays for services. Sometimes during the week, in the early evening, there is singing and instrument playing at the church which has become annoying. Please understand that we do not oppose the church and all the related programs; we only wish that it not be in our front yard, and not on a seven-day week bases, which seems to describe the nature of the church operation. Recently, we were made aware that the community church had submitted to the City plans for expansion including a parking lot to the north and south of the church. My sister-in-law's home would be beside the parking lot to the north on Calle Paloma, and our home is located directly across the street from the church and proposed parking lot to the south. lit is my understanding that if the church expansion is approved, a condition of that approval would be to provide more parking facilities to accommodate the increase in traffic. I would like to suggest that the parking required for a church expansion, in of itself, be incompatible with the residential character of this area. If this proposed expansion and parking lot is approved, can you imagine the noise, traffic, etc. in our front yard? Barbara J. Brown Planning Commission, City of La Quints Continued, Page 2 The residents of the Desert Club Estates have paid premium price for their homes and do not want a full fledged church and parking lot in our front and back yards. This use should not be allowed in a small, soon to be walled, community to spoil the privacy and tranquility every resident desires in their neighborhood. The Desert Club Estates property owners will be getting together a petition against the expansion and parking lot, and will also be present to give testimony at the public hearing. I would hope the message would come through to the applicant that in order to expand their facilities, and enjoy their right to congregate in a large fashion, they move their location to a more appropriate area that would not infringe upon local resident's privacy. Thank you in advance for your consideration, and I hope the Commission agrees on denying the expansion of the church and parking lot. Sincerely, Barbara J. Brown 50-945 Calle Paloma La Quinta, CA 92253 564-5120 cc: Glenda Laines, Planner City of La Quinta City of L a Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca 92253 Attn: Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director Dear Mr. Herman, ► Lei yy�,, �;� iy �' �� r f 0 C T 1 0 1991 „y OF tC. M.AIA In May, 1989 my wife and I moved into our new home in Desert Club unit 15 in La Quinta. We are very happy with our home and really enjoy the neigh- borhood. At the time we purchased our home we were told that we are in a SR zone that would guarantee no roof over seventeen feet would intrude into our view and our neighborhood. We now note an application for a public use permit and associated variances; to build a large new church with a roof height in excess of twenty-three feet and exemption to requirements for a six foot masonry wall around the proposed project. There are several discrepancies in the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING regarding this application. They include but are not limited to the following: 1. "--expansion to an existing church --on a 1.4 acre site—". Actually the proposal is for a completely new 3553 sq . ft. church and expansion of school activities in the existing structure, all on .75 acre. 2. "increased building height limit to 22 feet". The building plans indicate a ridge height in excess of 23 feet. The La Quinta City land use ordinance states in 9.42: "The SR zoning district is intended to provide development standards for single family residential uses and to assure high quality devel- opment". 9.42.050 E1 says " shall be limited to seventeen ft. or one story in height whichever is less". The City of La Quinta General Plan states: The 17' height limit was established ( prior to incorporation) in 1974 by Riverside County "for protection of views—". This action was based on a request by the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce. The design re- quirements of the SR zone are necessary to maintain the continuous upgrading of the area and to prevent the intrusion of blighting influences. Health and Safety issues are at stake." This plain has served the area well as can be witnessed by noting the continuing development of beautiful homes in the area. 1 The General Plan continues: "Any suggestion that the City should consider relaxing its design requirements --does not square with the law or with test cases as it relates to zoning administration. The purpose of zoning is to insure uniformity by regulation. The relaxation of a requirement for this applicant could be construed as actionable discrimination, and could provide the basis for lawsuits against the City for differentially administering the requirements. " The application states "higher ceiling is needed to preserve the character of this type of building" and goes on "I do not be- lieve any of the property owners have been denied such requests". While an increased height limit may "preserve the character of the building" it would do so at the expense of the character of the neighborhood. At least one close neighbor of the proposed development inquired about the possibility of building a second or elevated floor to take advantage of the exceptional views, and was told by the planning department that "the height limit is a very firm item". The environmental Impact Analysis initial study appears flawed in that the reference to "church expansion" may be misleading, this is truly a completely new building on a lot that is now vacant. Also item 18. AESTHETICS. No Impact--- This is a false and misleading assumption. It is patently obvious that a 231+ roof height in a 17' height limit zone will have a substantial impact. In, view of the foregoing I request that your staff recommend that these applications be denied. I ' also request that a copy of this letter be entered into the Planning Commissions consideration of this application. I will ask to be heard at the hearing on the evening of Oct. 22. Sincerely, ---IId `75ane Hooper 78-620 Ave. Tujunga La Quinta, Ca 92253 (619) 564 1976 2 r' no i ri 50-645 Calle Quito Lf T 15 1991 J La Quinta, Ca 92253 October 14, 1991 J �TA Pl d v., Planning & Development Department City of La Quinta. P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Ref: Variance requested by La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church at 53-800 Calle Paloma Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman Dear Mr. Herman, We would like to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the above referenced variance. Moreover, the project described in your notice dated October 22, 1991 understates the scope of the undertaking, according to the church's plans. The building would actually be taller and be constructed on a considerably smaller area than listed. We would have liked to have been able to build our home with one slightly elevated room but were told that it was impossible. We certainly do not wish to have our view restricted by and cluttered with another building. Moreover, while a variance is requested enabling them to postpone building the required 6 foot fence around their property on the South side, no mention is made of the `act that they have no fence on the East. We believe fences are necessary as prescribed in the City Code. Our only contacts with the church in the past have been very cordial. We would like to keep them this way. Their present building is used as a school during the day on Monday through Friday. Evening meetings are held there most nights. Another denomination rents the building on Saturday and services are held on Sundays. It is a very busy place and is obviously serving a useful purpose. Perhaps it would be better suited in another locality. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Sincerely, Joj� D. Sessums Yvonne Sessums Design Review Board Minutes ATTACHMENT No. 10 October 2, 1991 6. There being no further discussion, it was move by Chairman Dice and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to adopt Minute Motion 91- 031 recommending approval to the Planning Commission subject to the Applicant working with Staff on concerns. Unanimously approved. C. Plot Plan 91-466; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a commercial center. 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. Mr. Phillip Pead, Developer for the project, addressed the Board regarding the project. 3. Chairman Rice stated he felt the project was an excellent solution to the vacant corner. 4. Boardmember Curtis asked if there was not another way of locating the parking structure so as not to be so close to the street. Mr. Pead stated they had spent a great deal of time on the layout of the buildings and this was the only workable solution. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives for the structure location. Putting one floor of parking below the bowling alley was suggested. 5. Boardmember Harbison inquired if they had considered putting any of the parking floors below grade. Mr. Pead stated there was one floor below grade. Boardmember Harbison stated they needed to soften the height of the building by the use of trees and landscaping. 6. There being no further discussion it was moved by Chairman Rice and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-032 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91-466 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. D. Plot Plan 91-467; a request of Desert Villas, Inc. for approval of a proposed single story apartment complex.. 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. Mr. Craig Bryant, Applicant addressed the Board regarding the background of the proposed project. DRBMIN-10/2 Design Review Board Minutes october 2, 1991 the additional shading that Staff was recommending. Mr. Armstrong indicated there would be no shutters on these units/ 4. Mr. Ben Aguillar, Designer for the project gave a brief description of the units and also requested that the roof remain as is. 5. Boardmember Curtis asked the Applicant if he felt he could work this out with Staff . Mr. Armstrong stated he could. Boardmember Curtis asked how many two story units there would be. Mr. Armstrong stated there would be 24. 6. There being no further discussion, Boardmember Curtis moved and Boardmember Harbison seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-030 recommending approval to the Planning Commission of the architectural elevations for the four unit types subject to Staff recommendation maintaining the gable roof (two story units) with the Applicant to work with Staff to find a solution to the shading problem. Unanimously approved. B . Public Use Permit 91-008; a request of the La Quinta Fellowship Church for approval of an expansion of an existing church with associated parking in the SR Zone. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project, addressed the Commission on the project. He requested that the church not be required to up grade the existing church as their intentions were to probably demolish the existing building. Discussion followed as to how soon that would be. The Applicant stated within a maximum ten years, hopefully sooner. Mr. Bund presented color chips indicating white stucco with brown trim. 3. Boardmember Curtis asked how many phases they were planning to build in and was landscaping part of their budgeting. The Applicant stated there would be only one phase and landscaping was included in their budgeting. 4. Boardmember Harbison and the Applicant indicated he could work out a time table with Staff. 5. Chairman Rice stated he was in support of the church and felt that every effort should be made to see the project to completion. DRRMIN-10/2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION 91-018 CASE NO. VAR 91-018 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church for a Variance to allow increased building height limit to 22 feet and to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project to expand an existing church complex located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5, MAP BOOK 21/61-62 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find that the following facts exist to justify the denial of said Variance: 1. The approval of Variance 91-018 would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 2. This site does not have any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances including shape, size, location, and surroundings that do not apply to other property owners in the same zone. 3. The La Quinta Zoning Ordinance does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby deny the subject Variance 91-018 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: RESOPC.059 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC . 05 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF A CHURCH ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE CASE NO. PUP 91-008 - LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church to expand an existing church complex generally located at 53-800 Calle Paloma, more particularly described as: LOTS 65 & 66, DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #5, MAP BOOK 21/61-62 WHEREAS, said Public Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5) , in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study, that the church complex will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Public Use Permit 91-008, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find that the following facts exist to justify this approval of said Public Use Permit: 1. That Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, SR Zoning District development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is fairly level and the proposed circulation design and building layout, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for development. S. That the proposed buildings, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the site layout of Public Use Permit 91-008 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. RESOPC.058 1 5. That the proposed Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, and noise mitigation. 6. That the development of Public Use Permit 91-008, as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 7. That general impacts from the proposed church were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91-189 relative to the environmental concerns of this Public Use Permit. 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve the subject Public Use Permit 91-008 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: TERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California REsoPc.058 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 OCTOBER 22, 1991 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development of the site shall comply with approved Exhibits as contained in the Planning Department's file for Public use Permit No. 91-008 and the following conditions which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with these exhibits. 2. Public Use Permit 91-008 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division and Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final approval. Otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Prior to expiration of the permit, the Applicant may apply to the Planning & Development Department for an extension of time in which to use the permit, with the total time of approval not to exceed a period of three (3) years. 4. Construction of the future buildings and facilities authorized under this permit shall begin within five years after the final approval by the La Quinta City Council, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion; otherwise, approval of those unconstructed or uncompleted portions of the development authorized under Public Use Permit 91-008 shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Chimes or church bells are not permitted on this site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a 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: o City Fire Marshall o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o ]imperial Irrigation District 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. CONAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 October 22, 1991 7. 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. 8. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any signs. 9. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigating measures of Environmental Assessment 91-189 and Public Use Permit 91-008. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 10. The Applicant shall submit a parcel merger application to the Planning and Development Department prior to building permit issuance. 11. Any further expansion of the existing school will require the submittal of an application to amend PUP 91-008. 12. The existing building shall be upgraded in the following ways: A . All air conditioning units shall be shielded with materials architecturally compatible with the building. B . Pop -outs shall be added around windows to match new church windows. C. Corner treatments shall be added to match new church building. D. Both buildings shall be painted the same color. BUILDING DESIGN 13. The proposed building complex shall comply with all the SR Zoning requirements, including 17 feet height restriction and setback restrictions. CONAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 October 22, 1991 14. PUP 91-008 shall comply with the La Quinta Parking Ordinance including the requirement for masonry walls on the rear and side of the project. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 15. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire parcel, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. B . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provisions of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand . 16. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval final plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation system for all retention basin, landscape buffer, and entry areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn use shall be minimized and not used adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used adjacent to curb. B . Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required wall and sidewalk. C . Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. D . Location and design of walled enclosure for trash and recycling bins. E . Parking area layout in accordance with the Parking Ordinance . 17. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and viable condition for the life of the project. CONAPRVL.038 3 Conditions of Approval PULP 91-008 October 22, 1991 18. The Applicant shall comply with the La Quinta Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 19. The applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the City Fire Marshal as stated in the memo dated August 29, 1991, including the following: A . Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2250 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. B. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1 / 2" x 2 1 / 2t1) located not less than 25' nor more than 165, from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . C. Install portable fire sprinklers per NFPA 13, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. D. Comply with Title 19 Of the California Administrative Code. E. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. F . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained a fire lanes. G . Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 20. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, applicant shall provide approved construction plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for the on -site grading and improvements required herein. 22. Prior to issuance of grading permit applicant shall post an approved form of security in guarantee of grading and environmental control. 23. Applicant shall fully landscape and maintain all street right of way contiguous to 1the site. CONAPRVL.038 4 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 October 22, 1991 24. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscape lots shall conform with the requirements of the Planning Director and the City Engineer and shall be approved prior to construction. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas such as setback lots and retention basins. 25. An engineering, geological, and soils engineering report shall be submitted for review along with the grading plan. Recommendations in the report shall be incorporated into the grading plan. The adequacy of the grading plan shall be certified by the soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist. 26. Applicant shall submit a copy of the grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 27. The site shall be designed and graded so the difference in building pad elevations with those of adjoining lots in the adjacent tract does not exceed three feet. If compliance with the pad elevation differential requirements is not feasible, city will consider alternatives. 28. The parking lot and drives shall be improved in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 29. Applicant shall provide a California registered civil engineer to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, and applicable codes and ordinances. The engineer shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: A. That grading improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . That the finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 30. Applicant shall pay all plan check and construction permit fees. The fee amounts shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken. 31. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 32. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.038 5 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 October 22, 1991 33. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC . 34. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. 35. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. 36. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. CONAPRVL.038 6 PH-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 PROJECT: BUILDING MOVING 91-001 REQUEST: PERMISSION TO MOVE A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING PRESENTLY LOCATED AT 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE TO 54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AT 54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS WILL BE REMOVED. APPLICANT: D & M MORGAN REPRESENTATIVE: BRAKE MANAGEMENT GROUP EXISTING LOCATION OF BUILDING: 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE - APN 617-051-031 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) PROPOSED LOCATION OF BUILDING: 54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS - APN 774-225-013 & 014 (SEE ATTACHMENT #2) A. BACKGROUND: 1. This is the first building moving application request to be processed by the City in accordance with Chapter 14.20 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. The attached information booklet (blue cover) provides the following information as required by Section 14.20.100 of the Municipal Code: a) Kind of Building: This is a single family residential unit. b) Proposed Location: 54-038 Avenida Bermudas c) Route: See Attachment #3. d) Plans: See attached booklet and full scale plans. e) Number of Sections: Building is to be moved in one or two sections. f) Time Schedule: Late November or early December, 1991. g) Owner of Building: 46-485 Cameo Palms Drive, Darrell Morgan, Jr. & Marian Morgan 54-038 Avenida Bermudas (in escrow) John Brake to Darrell Morgan, Jr. & Marian Morgan. STAFFRPT.064/CS -1- h) Age of Building: Unknown i) Present/Prospective Value of Building: Present Value: $150,000 Prospective Value: $250, 000 to $275,000 (The home will be remodeled & enclosed. A pool & surrounding landscaping will be added.) 3. The building to be moved presently forms part of a group of buildings on 6 lots all under one ownership. Other structures on the site includa a main house, bath house and swimming pool. No Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger has been filed for this property to date. The applicant intends to retain the pool located alongside the building to be moved. Once the house in question has been moved the intent is to file a Lot Line Adjustment application to resubdivide the existing 6 lots. 4. The existing trailers at the property on Avenida Bermudas will be removed prior to the house moving taking place. B. ANALYSIS: 1. This proposal was distributed to a number of City & County Departments. Their responses are as follows: a) Engineering Department: See Attachment #4 The above Department requests a number of conditions be attached to the approval of this request: o An encroachment permit is required same as Condition VA. o The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning or at a time stipulated by the Engineering Department. o The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. o Pilot and follow cars with appropriate lights and markings shall accompany the building along the collector and arterial portions of the route (Washington and Eisenhower). o Flag persons shall assist in routing traffic around the building in any location where two-way traffic is blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at bridges, 90-degree turns and other locations where both directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked. STAFFRPT.064/CS -2- o In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a minute or two, applicant shall arrange temporary detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's deputies. o We request that the procession enter Washington from the frontage road rather than attempt the 90-degree turn from Highland Palms onto Washington. o We suggest that the applicant select a route from Eisenhower to the destination property that does not have cross -gutters (Madrid or Nogales). We also suggest that this portion of the route and any narrow streets in the Highland Palms area be posted no -parking the night before. The Engineering Department also notes that inspections fees will also be required for the house moving process as stipulated in Section 14.20.180 and 14.20.190 of the Building Moving Ordinance (see Attachment #5) b) County Sheriff Department: (See Attachment #6) The County Sheriff suggests that the City consider requiring the applicant to contract with the Sheriff Department for the possible use of Deputies for traffic control during the move. c) Building & Safety Department: The above Department states the following: o The moving contractor must be licensed by the State (C-21 Classification). o Building permit and plan review are required. o The house must tie into the sewer system, both existing septic systems must be abandoned. o New electrical service must be underground. o The structure must comply with the SR Zone requirements. 2. The applicant will be required to provide adequate insurance coverage for the house moving process. This shall cover possible cost of repair to city streets, right-of-ways or other public property encountered during the house moving process. STAFFRPT.064/CS -3- 3. The following section of the house moving ordinance will have to be complied with: 14.20.130 Deposit or bond--Conditions--Forfeiture "A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the city shall be deposited with the City Manager in an amount equal to the value of the work contemplated by the building permit, upon conditions that such work will be fully completed in accordance with the directions of the Planning Commission, the building permit and all applicable city regulations within a period of ninety days following issuance of the building permit; otherwise the full amount of the deposit or bond will be forfeited to the city". The applicant will have to coordinate with the Building and Safety Department to establish a bond amount. 4. Certificate of Occupancy for the house moved to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas will be withheld if the applicant does not complete the clean-up of debris, concrete, foundations, and other material left at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place. 5. The proposed building appears to comply with the requirements of the SR Zone. A precise plan application will have to be filed at the time of building application filing in accordance with the requirements of the SR Zone. 6. The applicant intends to resubdivide the property on Cameo Dunes Place once the house on that property has been removed. A condition will be attached to the approval of this house moving permit that stipulates that either a Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger be submitted within 30 days of permit approval ensuring that the existing pool is on a lot with a primary structure. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the house moving permit is acceptable with the attachment of conditions that address all the issues mentioned above. STAFFRPT.064/CS -4- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- _ approving Building Moving 91-001 subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Existing location of building 2. Proposed location of building 3. Proposed route 4. Engineering Department comments 5. Building Moving Ordinance 6. County Sheriff Department comments STAFFRPT.064/CS -5- drr,p+.Ov y 19 'ATTACHMENT Q /® 7lb h I • 7is OOPt No. 1 , /B® O5AAe. /B ACE SAND PLACE 0 FL OWFR is© ,90 ap,#AG 9 0"'. 2 ,0 (7,`, T la,� O C •76 50 •• 52 75 5/ 34 v 0.23Ac..t 1►'.,,-LO, -t-A Lot L +` /7 74 ; 52 / \✓• 0.23Ac..t l6 73 ; ORTH ATTACHMENT NO. 2 h wl hAA: I h (n a C': a �y .. ,• 0�� ti � '.� Q ~ t 2 t 17 _CLE CHILLON ' ti 'I w , F .s �� ZZ THE SITE CASE MAP ORTH CASE No. BM 91- 001 PROPOSED LOCATION OF BUILDING ATTACHMENT No. 3 MDQ IN SUPPORTENG 9119"ESM AttAAlES'O AEMEMSEA 66 ANDERSON'R►VELUW,mCl C2 ►AQA RRST REALTY N AS•RO 'HERAPY N w.,-w.e-..• SED YA, 'l NTCNEw:MS Ca . •.. siP l MEW Ca WE LA QUWU M J• D f ME CAF•NE CWDEER W LA••...5 CIRCLE E a OUFNTA N ;+e I CA F E r 4 a A•fi•• CRYSTAL CAhgMM W? DAPPLA DDD EA OUNTA C 2 THE SW r,:w DESERT Cun N DEWW MEDICAL CENTER ►T rA,M wPDEV DOWN" teAW& CHECIUNG E LOAN ASSN C•2 C.Fs•` f •f ¢ • DEAFA LA OLARA HDMEJ M i , EEENI,OFFER DAMEDIATE CARE CENTER W GO, DEw S. ELDDPADD POLO C"S WIG ELACTW CAR De?"VTOF4 D.0 R-we MVIEB •Ew ,D«.A«: � A0.S•WORLD PAOPESStpNA. TRAVEL UNITA•S Ca •P s"" ••� �° OEOFFDE L FGHER DE! Cd THE GROVE C, RALDS REFTAUMM B CATERING S6 JOHN P KENNEDY MEIIORuI HOSPITAL Who ZA WNTA AFRISTIC Q.AU L MIRADA bd LA OLJNTA RUILDEFG BUPPLY• DLC M LA QANTA CIWIpPRACTc HEALTH CENTER M s = L LA QAFTA CLEANER{ W LA OLAE'A DENTAL EENV= !! LA D.ANTA NDTEL S6 LA QANTA UOUOA L DELICATESSEN LA 0L&rA MIFLSERv A LANDSCAPING M P ✓ r•« AV[ - LA QAN'A PHARMACY 0• LA&" DE LA PK C6 .E.'. ,ANDMAM REAL ESTATE COMPANY S6 W E,E ► MrtLL INC 0• PDA WEST E6 E WosA C t PLAZA WE C2 t = EA PLAZA u ouRFTA W DF PLAZA LA OUIMA HAIR STYLING C2 s •.F • _ _ ' FANS PRES'ECE MOTOP CAFES Cath.•cw CIT SAN'A ROSA COVE AS - wSTA 9JS.NESS SERVICE K LaQuinta ` S•.' :•E: S• � fG• .t .•E� _ < 11D�fd - � AVE AEA.,•y. = i cy • - ?: E'� S•Gf Bells« •vF L7 cCO A : s ? _ Fe. eC•'.EBe.tS« D• T�4.'i .. bV ` i S.G...O D. E ¢ .es. • CE" Lf14 SF . DAfA v _144 < see L FUP Yrn AVF S �` V. „ � C s OIL• v' •vf J.•.0 - Ig E .vE •w J«G. U..F ••.pu j i . UP Iwn •w BCD!! C.♦+v.uer C• R¢i.W E77 STREET Ilro .w .cot G.«. P c! s.P.A ., .» Cs L+ •w E • INDEX � S. D•l7.ik• C• • c C6 s'.+•e. C< L.'.." 7 C S U 0D s, B. _ _ 7 S H•1• CJi•Wunn •s! S.-'- •cS a, - B. • . B< s.- . e c i . Wo-��..• B: S.• • B �• C7 _ e•0•w a•!1 •h.•rc •s• _ :.. �• •: ..•.. w•k.� _ aOd } _C.as«• • .•mac• w..••vt+s• s•:•:L!7 W.ovP a e i . Soro•. s •w.e. M.«w s e • 11 C. a ••cN . B B a ••• M WI•aw. B<' 1 •.ru Mxv.e C s Y -p D.'— P CI • B E w.n• t.w.,w•N M C.w.ro Owet.w. Aa __� A.•wr. tw.w A•El •.«.a. twr•M Ca C.wp•,vu CA ►S Gars G M AwnO. ./..wts Bl TJ CP.ce P M! w •' f f C :�'a• MWP• a c. ►t C...e p q A•erw N L, Cw 0 LA1 C. iB AwnM'WroAa w C.n. A D, C F Awew T.I+w C• Cm Tw. Ca A..11 w CB Awws V.RNP AasAB C. Dr ►E D.N Ps- C. E.2 wwa vw.e• M,EJ,I D••.n qr> k .wM• VtY M/J •w vnM BavM AS Dw P•v,u FM D,y 9-_ w D. B• s.0 E B B C. s••c.taw P A t san.wwn a u 1.¢ I Wrow T.A, 4ww a B.a POINTS OF INTEREST Cwl. AeMB• w C.A. AnPs ARI uP.e. a N rr•M a Ba CHAMBER OF COMMERCE B$ c— B.weNtl N Cw Cm M rw• rr.wty a ALCJ).Lt m .w B. •• w w C,vy HALL M Cw,. C...i r ALE .0I wa P_ O• DS M LAKE CAHUILLA PARK E8 Cw c ,OR, A.M w e...A AM EbrMrAM Me w tAeeweyws N Ea LA OUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION B•6 Ga tw.nB• A►T C.+E•w•.. Iwa a •+ POST OFFICE 86 1• •.f,'.o, e< 1,2: ,•«,.•¢n s, .S1.1 ,. :' e• -*7lL-.C--- y r-�eG lC�t`k {R1 ATTACHMENT No. 4 C&t'Vl 4 44�V (4UW(V MEMORANDUM TO: Glenda Lainis Associate Planner FROM: Fred R. Bouma Associate Engin er DATE: October 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Building Moving 91-001 Because of heavy traffic and narrow road sections between the origin and destination of the building, this move will likely result in traffic hazards and undue inconveniences to motorists. We request several conditions on the permit. o The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning. u The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. o Pilot and follow cars with appropriate lights and markings shall accompany the building along the collector and arterial portions of the route (Washington and Eisenhower). o Flaggers shall assist in routing traffic around the building in any location where two-way traffic is blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at bridges, 900 turns and other locations where both directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked. o In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a minute or two, applicant shall arrange temporary detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's deputies. We request that the procession enter Washington from the frontage road rather than attempt the 901 turn from Highland Palms onto Washington. We suggest that the applicant select a route from Eisenhower to the destination property that does not have cross -gutters. Madrid or Nogales come to mind. We also suggest that this portion of the route and any narrow streets in the Highland Palms area be posted no -parking the night before. FRB/frb 14.20.010 ATTACHMENT No. 5 Chapter 14.20 MOVING BUILDINGS Sections: 14.20.010 Title. 14.20.020 Permit —Required. 14.20.030 Permit —Issuance. 14.20.040 Application for permit --Forms. 14.20.050 Separate applications, permits required. 14.20.060 Filing fee. 14.20.070 Indemnity deposit. 14.20.080 Prerequisites to issuance --Absence of public detriment. 14.20.090 Permit upon terms --Conditions. 14.20.100 Contents of application. 14.20.110 Submission of plans to planning commission— Public hearing. 14.20.120 Approval of plans by the planning commission. 14.20.130 Deposit or bond---Conditions—Forfeiture. 14.20.140 Clean-up bond. 14.20.150 Use of clean-up bond. 14.20.160 Plot plan --Photographs of building. 14.20.170 Plans of proposed appearance of building. 14.20.180 Supervision of moving. 14.20.190 Inspection fee. 14.20.200 Damage to street or property ---Restoration— Cost. 14.20.210 Lights on building. 14.20.220 Hours for use of streets. 14.20.010 Title. This chapter shall be known and may be referred to as the "housemoving ordinance." (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.20.020 Permit —Required. No person, firm or corporation shall move any building or structure constructed before or after the adoption of the provisions codified in this chapter or any section thereof over, upon, along or across any public street within this city without first obtaining a permit for that purpose from the city manager. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.030 Permit —Issuance. No permit shall be issued by the city manager except upon compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.040 Application for permit —Forms. Application to the city manager shall be made prior to the issuance of any permit, and the application shall be made in writing upon blanks and forms to be provided by the city manager and filed with the city manager. (Ord..10 § I (part),1982) 14.20.050 Separate applications, permits required. A separate application shall be made to, and a separate permit obtained from, the city manager for the moving of each separate structure or building or section or portion thereof. (Ord. 10 § I (part),1982) 14.20.060 Filing fee. There shall be paid to the city manager at the time of the filing of the application or applications; a 552 14.20.060 processing fee or fees in an amount or amounts as established by resolution of the city council to defray the expense of investigation and processing. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.20.070 Indemnity deposit. (� ° There shall be deposited in the office of the city manager at the time of filing the application for a permit a sum of money in such amount as has been established by resolution of the city council, to indemnify the city for the expense of any repair to city streets, rights -of -way or other public property occasioned by the applicant and chargeable to the applicant under Section 14.20.090, for each such application. No application shall be accepted for filing unless accompanied by the deposit. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1.982) 14.20.080 Prerequisites to issuance --Absence of public detriment. No such permit shall be issued by the city manager unless the city manager first finds that the granting of such permit will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the public safety or public welfare, or to the property and improvements in the district to which such building or structure is proposed to be moved. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.090 Permit upon terms --Conditions. Upon determining that the granting of any such permit is justified and meets the requirements of this chapter, the city manager may grant such permit upon such terms and conditions as he may deem necessary and proper, to the end that the relocation of such building or structure will not be materially detrimental or injurious to public safety or public welfare, or the property and improvements in the district to which such building or structure is proposed to be moved, or to any person or property necessarily involved in such removal, whether public or private. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.100 Contents of application. Each application shall show: A. Kind of building: the kind of building or structure to be moved; B. Proposed location: the street location or other identifying description to which the building or structure is to be moved; C. Route: the route over, along, across or upon which such building or structure is to be moved; D. PIans: detailed plans and specifications showing the building or structure in its completed form at its new location; E. Number of sections: the number of sections in which the bu0ding or structure will be moved; F. Time schedule: the time proposed for the moving of the building or structure, together with the time required to complete the removal; G. Owner of building. the name of the owner of such building or structure; H. Age of building: the approximate date when such building or structure was erected; I. Present value, prospective value of building: the estimated cost or value of the building or structure proposed to be moved, and the estimated cost or value of same when the removal or reconstruction has been completed; J. Other information: such other pertinent information as the city manager may require. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.110 Submission of plans to planning commission --Public hearing. The detailed plans and specifications provided for by Section 14.20.100(4) shall be first submitted to the city planning commission. The planning commission shall thereupon provide for a public hearing to be held in the manner provided for conditional use permits in the zoning ordinance of the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) Z( d4xV . 14.20.120 Approval of plans by the planning commission. The planning commission, after holding the public hearing provided for by Section 14.20.110, shall make a determination to approve or disapprove the housemoving permit applied for. The planning 553 14.20.120 commission shall make a finding as to whether the move of the building to the proposed site in the application will be compatible with the best interests of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. If the planning commission does grant a housemoving permit, the planning commission may impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.130 Deposit or bond--Conditions--Forfeiture. A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the city shall be deposited with the city manager in an amount equal to the value of the work contemplated by the building permit, upon conditions that such work will be fully completed in accordance with the directions of the planning commission, the building permit and all applicable city regulations within a period of ninety days following issuance of the building permit; otherwise the full amount of the deposit or bond will be forfeited to the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.140 Clean-up bond. In addition to the bond required pursuant to Section 14.20.130, an applicant shall post with the city a cash bond in an amount to be determined by the city manager, not to exceed such maximum amount as may have been established by resolution of the city council, to insure clean-up of debris, concrete, foundations and other materials left at the site. This bond shall be required only of an applicant desiring to move a building or structure from a point within the city to a point outside the city limits. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.150 Use of clean-up bond. An applicant desiring to move a building out of town shall have a period of thirty days in which to clean up the site in accordance with the instructions of the city manager. If the site is cleaned in accordance with the instructions of the city manager within thirty days, the entire cash bond shall be returned to the applicant or person posting same. If the site is not cleaned in accordance with the instructions of the city manager, then the city manager shall be empowered to use all or a portion of the cash bond to accomplish the remaining clean-up requirements. If all the bond is not used by the city manager, then that portion remaining shall be returned to the applicant or the person posting the bond. Should the cleaning up of the site require an amount in excess of the bond posted, then such cost shall be a claim against the applicant, due and owing to the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.160 ' PIot plan --Photographs of building. Each such application shall be accompanied by a plot plan showing the location and size of the lot to which the building or structure is to be moved together with photographs of aU sides of the building or structure, showing the general architectural design and appearance of the building or structure proposed to be moved. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.170 Plans of proposed appearance of building. In the event that any material alteration, repair or other work is proposed to be done upon the building or st-*ucrue after removal has been completed, then plans shall be furnished showing the general architectural design and appearance of the building or structure on all sides after such work has been completed. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.180 Supervision of moving. Every building or structure or portion thereof moved over, upon, along or across any street shall be moved under the inspection and supervision of the city manager. (Ord. 10 § I gmrt),1982) 14.20.190 Inspection fee. The applicant shaU pay to the city an inspection fee in an amount as established by resolution of the city council, in addition to the fees and deposits otherwise mentioned and required in this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1(part), 1982) 554 14.20.200 14.20.200 Damage to street or property —Restoration --Cost. In case of damage to any street or other public property by reason of the moving of any building or structure or portion thereof, the city manager shall do such work as may be necessary to restore the street or other public property to as good condition as same was in prior to such damage and shall charge the cost thereof to the applicant for permit, and deduct the costs from the indemnity deposit required by Section 14.20.070. (Ord. 10 § 1(part), 1982) 14.20.210 Lights on building. No person moving any building or structure or portion thereof over, upon, along or across any street shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at all times between sunset and sunrise at each corner of such building or structure or portion thereof and at the end of any projection thereon while the same or any part thereof is located in or upon any street or other public place. (Ord.10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.220 Hours for use of streets. The hours during which moves are to be made on public highways shall be determined by the city manager. (Ord.10 § 1 (part), 1982) 555 ATTACHMENT No. 6 UVERSIDE UOUNTY A if Sh er '()IS BYRI . SHERIFF '% e0 r2-695 I)k. CARREO\ BL% I;. • INDIO. CA 9„01 (6191 342-899C October 1, 1991 Ms. Glenda Lainis City of La Quinta Planning Department 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 RE: BY, #91-001 Dear Ms. Lainis: Our only suggestion reference the building moving is that you consider contracting for Sheriff's Deputies to provide traffic control during this move. CB: RD:gt Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. D:e, Lieutenant Indio Station 1 p C T 0 2 1991 may_ a. , � +-.- tA. • i1- T 15 ,. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 91-001 TO MOVE A BUILDING FROM 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE TO 54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS CASE NO. BM 91-001 - D.W. & M.C. MORGAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of D . W. and M. C . Morgan to move a 1200 square foot building from 78- 435 Cameo Palms Place, La Quinta to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas, La Quinta; more particularly described as: LOT 12, TRACT 2043, M.B. 41 /6-7 AND LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 293, UNIT 27, SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA MAP BOOK 19/82 RESPECTIVELY WHEREAS, said Building Moving Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta, Ordinance No. 5) , in that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed Building Moving request will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and is therefore exempt under Section 15061(3) of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Building Moving Permit and ensure that the above is not detrimental to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare: 1. That conditions have been imposed on the proposed building moving permit, requiring the house to be attached to the public sewer and water system once moved. 2. That the proposed Building Moving Permit has conditions attached requiring safety standards be met during the moving procedure. 3. That the proposed Building Moving as conditioned, provides for adequate clean-up of debris, concrete foundations and other materials left at the site. 4. That the proposed Building Moving as conditioned provides for adequate insurance coverage to indemnify the City for any repair to City streets, rights -of -way or other public property damaged by the Applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: RESOPC.057 1 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusions of the determination of the Planning Director relative to the environmental concerns of this Building Moving application. 3. That it does hereby approve subject Building Moving Permit 91-001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.057 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUILDING MOVING 91-001 - PROPOSED OCTOBER 22, 1991 1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code, in particular Chapters 14.20 (Moving Buildings) Title 9 (Planning & Zoning and Title 11 (Subdivision Regulations) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. The applicant will be required to provide adequate comprehensive insurance coverage for the house moving process naming the city as co-insured. This should cover possible cost of repair to city streets, right-of-ways or other public property encountered during the house moving process. 3. A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the city shall be deposited with the City Manager in an amount equal to the value of the work contemplated by the building permit, upon conditions that such work will be fully completed in accordance with the directions of the Planning Commission, the building permit and all applicable city regulations within a period of ninety days following issuance of the building permit; otherwise the full amount of the deposit or bond will be forfeited to the city. The applicant shall coordinate with the Building and Safety Department to establish a bond amount. 4. The Building Department has the following requirements: a. The moving contractor must be licensed by the State (C-21 Classification). b. A building permit and plan review are required. C. Once located, the house must tie into the sewer system. Both existing septic systems must be abandoned. d. The new electrical service must be underground. e. The structure to be moved must comply with the SR Zone requirements. 5. A Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger must be submitted and provisionally approved by the Planning & Development Department ensuring that the existing pool on the site is on a lot with a primary structure. CCNAPRVL.023/CS -1- 6. The Engineering Department has the following requirements: a. An encroachment permit is required for the following; 1) the building to be moved from 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place; 2) the trailers to be moved from 54-038 Avenida Bermudas. b. The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning or at a time stipulated by the Engineering Department. C. The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. d. Pilot and follow cars with appropriate lights and markings shall accompany the building along the collector and arterial portions of the route (Washington and Eisenhower). e. Flag persons shall assist in routing traffic around the building in any location where two-way traffic is blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at bridges, 90-degree turns and other locations where both directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked. f. In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a minute or two, applicant shall arrange temporary detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's deputies. The applicant shall contract with the Sheriff's Department for the use of Deputies, if necessary, for traffic control during the move. g. The procession shall enter Washington from the frontage road rather than attempt the 90-degree turn from Highland Palms onto Washington. h. The applicant shall select a route from Eisenhower to the destination property that does not have cross -gutters (Madrid or Nogales). This portion of the route and any narrow streets in the Highland Palms area shall be posted no -parking the night before. i. The Engineering Department shall approve the detailed moving schedule, supervise and inspect the moving process and the applicant shall pay the appropriate inspection fees required thereof. 7. Once the house is removed from 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place the applicant shall immediately comply with the safety fencing requirement for swimming pools as stated in Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code CONAPRVL.023/CS -2- 8. No person moving any building or structure or portion thereof over, upon, along or across any street shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at all times between sunset and sunrise at each corner of such building or structure or portion thereof and at the end of any projection thereon while the same or any part thereof is located in or upon any street or other public place. CONAPRVL.023/CS -3- PH-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 CASES: PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MR. MERLIN J. BARTH PROJECT ENGINEER: MR. JOHN SANBORN, SANBORN/WEBB, INC. OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL REQUEST: 1. PLOT PLAN - REQUEST TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. 2. VARIANCE - A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE C-P-S ZONE CODE SETBACK STANDARDS. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission continue the request to either your November 12th or November 26th meeting. Staff needs the additional time to examine the traffic study (not submitted at time of writing) and hydrology study. Caltrans has also requested an opportunity review the traffic study. Since this request was noticed in the paper and mailed to the residents, it is appropriate for the Commission to take public testimony at the meeting, however, no action is warranted. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearings for Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019 to November 26, 1991. PCST.022 tMHMNtI !0W tJ-MLAol n*. Mt t C" x,- %— 5 � �Q o d O N �g CL z W �z a) c s- r QJ r 4--1 c O N CD U i r. ie V) i c K5 fu 4J N O � 1 ol 0 0 3 c� a a) > O �c -0 E ¢ O O U S.. >> CD S.. N O U 3 4-t •r O (n tF r 4- N N O Co LID PH-4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 PROJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066; VARIANCE 91-017 AND PLOT PLAN 91-467 - DESERT VILLAS APPLICANT: DESERT VILLAS, LIMITED MR. RICHARD DARLING & MR. CRAIG BRYANT ARCHITECT: GIORGIO DAZZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.; MR DAZZAN CIVIL ENGINEER: KEITH COMPANIES; MR. MIKE ROWE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RONALD GREGORY & ASSOCIATES; MR. RONALD GREGORY OWNER: AMCOR REALTY FUND III, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CHANGE IN THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR +4 ACRES OF PROPERTY AT THE REAR OF THE PROJECT SITE FROM R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE) AND THE FRONT PORTION FROM R-2 8,000 TO R-2. VARIANCE: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THE PARKING STANDARDS BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL HOUSE SOME SENIOR RESIDENTS. THEY ARE REQUESTING: TANDEM GARAGES, A REDUCED NUMBER OF ON -SITE PARKING SPACES, AND PROPOSED UNIT SIZES WHICH ARE LESS THAN REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE. PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 109 UNIT SINGLE STORY APARTMENT COMPLEX ON +9 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO. THE PROJECT WILL BE A MARKET RATE APARTMENT COMPLEX EXCEPT FOR 30% OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL BE FOR SENIOR ADULTS WITH VERY LOW AND LOWER INCOMES. BONUS DENSITY: THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DENSITY BONUS FOR THEIR PROJECT BASED ON GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915 BECAUSE THE PROJECT WILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. EXISTING ZONING: R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL & R-2 8,000 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STAFFRPT.057/CS -1- SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: DESCRIPTION R-3/R-2 8,000 MULTI-FAMILY/R1 SINGLE FAMILY; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (TENNIS RESORT) SOUTH: C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL; VACANT (FUTURE RALPH'S SHOPPING CENTER) EAST: SR SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL; SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WEST: R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; LA QUINTA COUNTRY CLUB (TENNIS RESORT) OF SITE: THE PROPOSED +9 ACRE SITE IS THE NORTHERLY HALF OF A PORTION OF 3 TAX LOT (18.4 ACRES). THE LOT IS FLAT AND UNDEVELOPED AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTY HAS +680 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE AND IS 740 FEET IN DEPTH. THE SITE ELEVATION ALONG WASHINGTON STREET IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL AND +700 FEET NORTH OF CALLS TAMPICO ON -SITE PARKING: PROVIDED (134 COVERED/89 UNCOVERED) = 223* REQUIRED (109 COVERED/127 UNCOVERED) = 236 * TOTAL INCLUDES TANDEM PARKING SPACES & DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR SENIOR PARKING STANDARDS BACKGROUND: The site is partially improved with street improvements along Washington Street but the site does not have curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements at this time. A future raised median island is proposed along the property frontage pursuant to the City''s adopted General Plan Circulation Element. The site will be allowed left -turn access onto Washington Street from the southerly side of the site pursuant to the past review/approval of the Ralph's Shopping Center project. This common driveway will be signalized. SITE DESIGN: The design concept uses a clustering of single story residential units around a private courtyard and attached covered parking. The clusters range from a grouping of 6 to 12 units. The units are primarily three bedroom (1,150 square feet) but smaller units are proposed (two bedroom/2 bath at 900 square feet, one bedroom/1 bath at 650 square feet and one bedroom/1 bath at 550 square feet). Each building group has a pool area and/or private courtyard. The pools are approximately 500 square feet in area and all have concrete decking areas for lounging. STAF RPT:Q5a/CS -2- Also a community building has been proposed at the main gated entry. A concrete tennis court and 5 concrete shuffle board courts are proposed in the retention basin at the southwest corner of the site. MARKETING CONCEPT: Approximately 30% of the units will be for seniors of very low to lower income based on Riverside County Housing Authority demographic information. The units will remain affordable and the Developer is presently working with the City's Redevelopment Agency on this matter as of the writing of this report. The preliminary rental rates will range from $400 to $900 per month. CIRCULATION/PARKING: As mentioned above, the site has two points of access proposed alone Washington Street which is a divided major arterial (120--foot right-of-way). The main entry into the site is located at the center of the property. The other entry is located along the shared boundary of the site to the south with the Ralph's Shopping Center project (Koenig Development). The entry is to be signalized. The project will be a gated community. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING: The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately 20 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. This sidewalk should be eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. Landscape planters are interspersed throughout the site and a six foot wall will be installed around the perimeter of the site for security purposes. Decorative wall features are located at the main gated entry. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The proposed single story Mediterranean design is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, and consistent with the design standards of a low density condominium project, etc.) Planters are also interspersed along the pedestrian areas to add additional character to the entry into the proposed facility. A two story clubhouse for the residents is also proposed. The design is consistent with the overall design theme for the project. STAFFRPT.057/CS -3- VARIANCE REQUEST: A. Parking Program The Developer has requested that the Planning Commission and City Council allow tandem covered parking spaces and, further, a reduction in the number of required on -site parking spaces. The Zoning Code presently requires 1.5 spaces per unit for one bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces per unit for the multiple bedroom units, and 2 spaces per unit for seniors. The Developer would like to provide 141 covered spaces and +89 uncovered spaces. Most of the proposed spaces seem to meet the minimum size requirements. A revised project ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit versus 2.16. The open parallel parking spaces should be discouraged or enlarged to a minimum size of 9-feet x 30-feet. Staff: has researched the request of the Developer to have a smaller number of parking spaces than required for the proposed senior residents. Our research has shown that many of the Southern California cities have a ratio of between .5 to 1.5 spaces per unit as a general requirement, plus additional space requirements if communal eating facilities are proposed (e.g. convalescent care, etc.). With regard to the tandem space issue, the City has never had this type of request before concerning residential or commercial type project. Usually tandem spaces are permitted if they are over and above the minimum number of spaces allowed by the Off -Street Parking Code. The architect has indicated that he has used this type of design before in the Los Angeles area and he feels it is an acceptable program for multiple family developments. B. Unit Sizes: The Developer has proposed units (approximately 30%) which are less than the minimum size allowed of 750 square feet. The Developer's smallest unit is a one bedroom unit of approximately 550 square feet. The Developer has indicated that if he is allowed the smaller unit size, he will be able to expand the projects marketability by reducing the rental rates. This size unit is consistent with the normal size of a standard urban rental unit for either a studio unit or one bedroom unit, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City Council to permit this code deviation. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board met on October 2, 1991. Various issues were discussed, one of which was the tandem parking request. The Applicant has stated that the three bedroom units will have two tandem spaces and the one and two bedroom units will have one regular space each. Their assumption was that a married couple would occupy the 3 bedroom units and have two vehicles and that they would use whatever vehicle was parked closest to the garage door at that moment. STAFFRPT.057/CS -4- Another issue discussed was the closeness of the access driveway on Washington Street just to the south of the bridge. However, the project engineer stated it was 400 feet south of the bridge and designed pursuant to both City and Caltrans sight standards. Mr. Rowe stated that the bridge is only 2 lanes at this time, and their project will widen Washington Street to three lanes west of the street centerline. Therefore, an additional travel lane will be available in front of their project for deceleration purposes. Mr. Rowe of The Keith Companies stated traffic safety will not be hindered by a right turn/'left turn access driveway. In conclusion, the Design Review Board felt the project representatives had proposed a well designed project which would be appropriate for this area of the City. The following conditions were recommended by the Design Review Board: 1. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, such as: palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during plan check. 2. The proposed on -site retention areas shall be landscaped with material which will support growth even though the areas are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 3. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street along the frontage of the site. 4. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 10 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should try to reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. The developer shall contribute to the landscaping and/or hardscape program of the proposed traffic median on Washington Street. 6. The perimeter wall shall be six feet high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be stuccoed to match the building complex. 7. Pedestrian access shall be provided between this project and the future shopping center to the south. A pedestrian gate should be installed along the south property line where appropriate. STAF]?RPT. 057/CS -5- 8. The recreation facilities in the rear portion of the site shall be designed to account for periodic stormwater flows since the area will be used for water retention purposes. Passive outdoor equipment should be examined and the on -site recreational facilities should be approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission during final plan review. 9. All units shall be designed for handicap accessibility and include provisions for hardware installation at a later time when the unit is rented to a handicap individual. The California State Statutes shall apply. 10. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum of 30 feet from the property line. The measurement should be to the edge of any building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs. 11. An on -site manager's unit shall be provided to assist the residents in their day-to-day management needs. 12. The open parking spaces shall be 9-feet by 18-feet. 13. The pools should be handicap accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building Department and the State of California. 14. The distance between independent building clusters shall be a minimum 10-feet as required in Chapter 9.44.100 (R2 Code). 15. All end parallel parking spaces shall be 9-feet x 30-feet and the interior spaces should be 9-feet x 24-feet. The spaces shall not be used if they are abutting 90-degree parking spaces or it they might interfere with on -site traffic movement (e.g. the recreation building). BONUS DENSITY: The Developer has requested additional apartment units over and above: the R-2 Zone District standards and General Plan density. The maximum yield under the R-2 provisions would be 72 units, but the Applicant is desirous to have 35 extra units for this project because the project will have affordable units. State Government Code (Section 65915) requires local governments to exceed the Zone Code standards if the project is restricted to persons for families with incomes below the median for this area and the units shall remain affordable for a specified time frame (e.g. 30 years). If these provisions can be met, the City must grant a density increase, which shall not exceed 25%. The Applicant is requesting the maximum allowed. The stipulation that these units be rented to seniors has been required by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. STAFFRPT.057/CS -6- PROJECT UPDATE: As of the writing of this report, the -La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and the Developer had not reached an agreement regarding the development of the property nor the City's participation in project (i.e. off -site improvements) through an Owners Participation Agreement or whether the project would be strictly a senior project or a senior/market rate project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission only allow a variance for the dwelling unit sizes for the senior units but not for any other non -senior units. We believe this because unit size reduction would give the Developer an unfair market advantage over other builders who might choose to construct market rate apartment units in the City. The justification for the variance can be made as required by the Municipal Zoning Code. The parking issue is another matter because seniors need facilities which are convenient and close to where they reside. The proposed tandem parking arrangement is something which, would lend itself to senior needs because the covered spaces abut the unit or complex it serves. And some units could, be designed to have pedestrian access from the garage into the unit. Generally, garage access is allowed into a residential unit if the entry enters into a non -sleeping area (e.g. kitchen) and the access door is both fire rated and includes a self -closing hardware. Staff would encourage the designer to examine unit access from inside the garage, if possible, provided building safety standards can be met. CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST: The Change of Zone request from R-1 to R-2 is consistent with the City's long range General Plan document which depicts this area as an area Medium Density (4-8 Dwelling Units/Acre). Another reason to approve the change is: 1) the development is in the downtown area and medium density projects should be encouraged to provide housing for this future employment area, 2) the property is serviced by public transportation, and 3) the coals of the City's General Plan Housing Element will be met (in part) . CONCLUSION: The project has been designed to encourage tenant interaction at the courtyards internal to each building cluster. The spaces are inviting but yet sheltered from vehicular traffic. Passive recreation has also been encouraged. The only negative comment our Department would have is that it would have been nice to have limited the amount of paving used for parking areas to a perimeter scheme which would have allowed a larger centralizing greenbelt in the center of the project, abutting the Recreation Building. However, in order to do this the Developer would have had to involve a two story plan as well, which is not conducive to senior living standards. STAFFRPT.057/CS -7- RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- recommending to City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066, from R-1 Single Family Residential and R-2 (*8,000) Multiple Family Residential to R-2 Multiple Family Residential. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- , approving Variance 91-017, subject to the conditions contained herein. 3. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot Plan 91-467, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Senior Survey 3. Environmental Assessment 91-212 4. Agency comments 5. Plan Exhibits 6. Draft PC Resolution regarding CZ 91-066 7. Draft PC Resolution regarding VAR 91-017 8. Draft Conditions of approval regarding PP 91-467 STAFFRPT.057/CS -8- I V/ �j Li Ell] 11 FRITZ BURNS ILI]o�coo�o�PARN n NUE FnIFF] LA OUINTA COVE u- CALLE ENSEf InFIFT nFIFIF CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION MAP: DESERT VILLAS, PLOT PLAN 91-467, CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 AND VARIANCE 91-017 ORTH s C*A L E: j os l 000' SENIOR HOUSING SURVEY October 11, 1991 A. Parking Standards Local Cities 1. City of La Quinta 2. City of Palm Desert 3. City of Palm Springs 4. County of Riverside 5. Cathedral City 6. City of Rancho Mirage Regional 7. Bellevue, Wash. 8. Gainesville, Fla. 9. Long Beach, Calif. 10. Plano, Tex. 11. Lake Co., 1ll. 12. Aurora, Colo. 13. Scottsdale, Ariz. 14. Santa Monica, Calif. 15. County of L.A. Average parking stnd. 2/unit; seniors 1.00/studio (non -senior) 1.50/lbdrm " 2.50/2bdrm " 1.25/unit (age 55+) 1.00/unit (age 62+) .75/unit + 1 guest/5 units 1.00/unit (covered) .75/unit + 2 manager's sp. (75% covered) 1.00 cov./l uncovered = lbdrm 2.00 cov./l uncovered = 2bdrm B. Minimum Dwelling Unit Sizes 0.80/unit (min.) 1.50/unit (max.) 1.00/3 units 1.00/unit 0.60/unit; owner occupied, 1.1/unit 0.75/unit 1.00/lbdrm, 1.5/2bdrm (40% compact) 1.25/unit 0.50/unit + lguest/5 units (low income senior) 1.00/unit + 1guest/5 units 1.50/lbdrm, 2/2bdrm 1/unit 1. La Quinta 750 sq.ft. 2. Palm Desert 600 sq.ft./lbdrm, 800 sq.ft./2bdrm 3. Palm Springs Uniform Building Code 4. Riv. County 550 sq.ft./lbdrm, 700 sq.ft./2bdrm 5. Cathedral City 400 sq.ft./lbdrm + 100 sq.ft. for each additional bedroom 6. Rancho Mirage 600 sq.ft./lbdrm, 800 sq.ft./2bdrm 1,000 sq.ft./3bdrm. Average Size = 580 square feet Note: Rancho Mirage did not have a separate category for active seniors vs. a market apartment complex for either section. q4 % o`S� ENVIRONMENTTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: ec, p}9J_4 c // 3. Date of Checklist: 16 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Cam' IT11 5( 1-4 S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: lys Eo.T V,�d^% I I. ENV I RON'MENTAL IMPACTS pi 1*3 — '45 2- — b (1(. CExplanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? lr b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?— c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ ���> d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? —— e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ — f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure c.f people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- hazards? �0 slides, ground failure, or similar ____ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorgtion of ambient air quality? —— b. The creation of objectionable odors? — 1/ — c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, 1� either locally or regionally? — — 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? — c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding 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- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, bentric organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration o, or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an f area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural ��. resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? — ✓�~/ 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event , of an accident or upset conditions? — l� 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, istri ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ V� 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) 14. 15. 16. 19. 20. 21. Yes Maybe No 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? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection?— b. Police protection?— c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? L- e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? — ✓'��_ Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks?— e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? L - b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ L% - Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ — c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; _ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. _ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: /-V " /'" r/ r�i CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NOS. CZ 91-065, PP91-467, VAR 91-017 (EA91-212) DESERT VILLAS, INC. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The applicant has proposed a single story apartment (109 units) complex on 9 acres on property Zoned R1 Single Family and R2 (*8,000) Multiple Family Residential. The property is located on the west side of Washington Street, just south of the La Quinta Evacuation Storm Channel. The applicant has requested that the City redesignate the site to R2 verses the existing R1 Zone category. Also proposed, is a variance request by the developer to deviate from the required on - site parking and unit sizing provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as Myoma Fine Sand and Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid permeability and it can be used for crop production or homesite development. The site has been vacant (never developed) but the applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban services (i.e. an apartment complex). The site is protected from seasonal storm water by an earthen levee (to the north). Earth moving to support the project will be done as part of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of the site. The general elevation of the site is approximately 40 to 60 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic Hazard area as noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect. on people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) . Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities have not been submitted, it is assumed that most of the earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and limited importation will occur. 2). The: site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone 4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 3). Levee improvements (i.e. concrete) shall be required if deemed necessary by the Coachella Valley Water District. 2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from On -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed project. there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission releasers because the medical complex would provide a convenient service! to local residents of this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust. 2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run-off:. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run- off and, special measures will be needed to assure the earthen levee to the north is adequate to protect the property from storm water flows. This area might be subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate; building structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, which identifies the increased water run-off quantities which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the development proposal. Based on this study the project engineer shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins (retention/detention) which will contain storm water run-off from the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the ground. A draft hydrology study has not been prepared. However, the developer's concept. grading plan is attached. The project engineer has designed a retention pond on the west side of the site for flood water retention. The area is about 27,600 square feet and 10 feet deep. The City Engineer is reviewing the plan as of the writing of this report, and specific recommendations will be made at the public hearing scheduled for October 22nd. Further, the project. engineer should also insure that earthen levee to the north of the site is adequate to assure the safety of the future occupants of the complex. Measures which might be warranted are: a concrete levee, elevated building pads, etc. 2. Very low flow (1.6 gallon) toilets shall be installed if building permits are acquired after January 1, 1992 pursuant to Public Health Code Section 17921.3. 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant plant life. No impact is anticipated by the development of this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 5. Animal Life: The subject site is not located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species) and it has been therefore determined that mitigation fees shall not be required of the applicant to develop this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the apartment complex, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from the site. MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. A comprehensive study shall be submitted to staff for review prior to the issuance of any building permit. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or parking lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) . A]_1 lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. 2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking lot and the plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as identifies the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off-street Parking Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. The light poles should be less than 10 feet in overall height. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as - Medium Density Residential (4-8 units per acres) and the existing Zoning of the site is R1 and R2 Single Family and Multiple Family. The 4 acres fronting Washington Street are Zoned R2 and the rear portion. is Zone R1. The applicant has submitted a Change of Zone application to redesignate the R1 property to R2. The change will require! by the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council action is final unless the matter is appealed to the State Court System. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required. However, it is necessary that the City Council approve the land use designation change in order for the applicant to develop the project to the density, proposed. If this does not occur, the site is to remain vacant until other land use plans can be reviewed and it is determined they will meet the intent of the City's existing General Plan and Zoning Code provisions. The project density will be adjusted accordingly. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check review. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. The developer's intent is to provide housing for senior citizens, and some of the units will be for people who have income levels less than median as established by the County of Riverside and HUD (Housing and Urban Development). MITIGATION MEASURES: The developer shall be required to meet all the: HUD income level standards if the developer pursues the density bonus units as requested. The number of people per unit shall be based on the Uniform Building Code provisions. 12. HOUSING: The development of the site as an apartment complex which will include special provisions for senior with low incomes. The City is encouraging the project in order for the City to meet its fair -share regional housing needs, as required by the Southern California Association of Governments and the City's General Plan Housing Element. The SCAG plan requires both cities and counties to provide different types of housing units (i.e. single family and multiple family units) and to accommodate low/moderate income families. Cities or counties can examine either rental assisted housing, sweat equity self help housing, or grant assisted housing pursuant to their redevelopment guidelines. The City's Redevelopment Agency is examining assisting this project with their required off -site development improvements to help the developer build this project. The agreement is pending. It is assumed that only minor incremental demands on City services will be: generated by the possible development of the site with multiple family apartment units, therefore, the development of the site would have insignificant affects on the City. Further, the City has an over surplus of land designated and planned for detached single family housing thus the City is in need of rental housing units at this time, therefore, this project will help the City meet its fair -share housing requirements. The developer has also requested bonus apartment units pursuant to State statues (Bonus Density) pursuant Gov. Code Section 65915. The City is allowed to assist the developer is increasing his project: density if the project is designed and rented to low income persons and, the project remains affordable. Generally, the units are kept affordable for between 15 to 30 years depending on the type of project. MITIGATION MEASURES: The City should insure that the housing units which is for the very low or low income families (e.g. seniors) is retained for 15 to 30 years as below market units to accommodate this section of the population which is in need of proper housing. The City should examine whether or not the project warrants consideration for additional units per Government Code Section 65915. The Planning Commission and City Council will examine this issue and act accordingly on the request. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the immediate area. The City's Trip Generation book (1987, ITE Manual) indicates that apartment residents generate on the average between 8-10 vehicle trips per day, but senior apartments generate about half the amount of market rate apartment complex. The lower trip factor is indicative for this age group because many seniors live alone and most try to forgo having to drive, if possible. Car ownership is not as important for retired individuals, and many seniors rely on public transportation (bus or mini -bus) to travel within their immediate area for shopping or medical needs. The site is located along Route #4 of the Sunline Transit, therefore, public transportation is available. The developer will be required to install ultimate street improvements along Washington Street. The improvements will include: curb, gutter, street median, sidewalks, etc. The developer will also be required to assist in paying for a portion of the new traffic signal proposed for this project site and the future shopping center to the south (Ralph's Shopping Center/Koenig Development Company). The developer has request a minor reduction in the number of on - site parking spaces and in the design of the proposed on -site garages. The developer's request is to install tandem garages spaces (two spaces for each 3 bedroom unit and one space for each 1 or 2 bedroom unit). The developer's variance statement is attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The developer shall provide adequate on -site parking and dwelling unit sizes to accommodate the proposed use of the property unless the developer is granted permission to vary the design of the project through the review and approval of a Variance Application Case VAR. 91-017. 3). An eight foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on Washington Street (major arterial) for pedestrian/bike traffic. 4). A bus stop and shelter shall be install along the frontage of the site on the proposed Washington Street. The location shall be approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department. If a separate bus turn -out is required, the turn -out shall not affect traffic movement and it shall be recessed within the street parkway. 5). The level of off -site improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project. 6). A traffic signal shall be installed when warranted at the southerly -most driveway as required by the Engineering Department. The signal will service this site and the future project to the south (Ralph's Market Shopping Center). The Engineering Department shall determine the fair -share of the signal for the developer during review of the project with the Planning Commission. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc. ) . The developer might be required to improve the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. as part of the development of the site, and at this time, staff is currently waiting so see if the Water District is planning to require the developer to improve the earthen levee with concrete or other barrier materials. The District's initial letter is attached. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. The site is approximately 1/2 mile from Fire Station #32. Response times to the facility should be within acceptable levels as prescribed by the fire personnel. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay the City's Infrastructure Fee. This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire Marshal and the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The School District's mitigation fees shall be paid ($1.58/sq.ft. of living area) if required by the District. 3). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made and secured prior to securing building permits. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant, the construction of buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, in order to reduce this impact the developer has proposed single story building complexes which should not impact or affect the surrounding residential properties to the east (across Washington Street). MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the apartment building(s) should be single story. 2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to the downtown area. The developer should consider vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view "windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged. Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this are because the applicant is proposing a recreation building, small satellite pools, tennis court and five shuffleboard courts for the future residents. MITIGATION MEASURES: No major impact is anticipated because the development will have its own recreation facilities for the tenants. However, the applicant might be required to contribute the Cit:y's park fees to assist off -site development of community facilities which can benefit this development or others in the City or provide sufficient on -site facilities which exempt the project from the fee exaction. This issue will be evaluated further during the formal review of the project. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the city by qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Attached: Agency Comments Developer Statements 0 o 16 1981 LLGONIA AVENUE, REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P O. BOX 3003, REDLANDS, CALIFORNIA 92373-0306 August 20, 1991 ity of La Quinta 8-105 Calle Estado a Quinta, CA 92253 TTENTI©N: Greg Trousdell E: Plot Plan 191-467/Change of Zone 91-066 hank you for inquiring about the availability of natural gas service for your roject. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has acilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to ,he project could be provided from a 6" main on Washington Street without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with he Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Itilities Commission at the time contractural arrangements are made. Iou should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractural ommitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. 'he availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based ipon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public ttility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the !alifornia Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of .ederal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects las supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be >rovided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per deter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit Phese averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by "outhern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular Tome, apartment: or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the now development. an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract raps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Builder Services Representa- tive, 1-800-624-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information ou any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Builder Services Departmcnt, F.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306. Sincerely, X_ Kevin B. Flum Technical Supervisor KBF:blh cc: Erviron Affairs - ML209B W ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY ST6il0� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92239 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W. MCFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS August 26, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 e/- C9�� o**I;r, f,/"ON �OFP� Subject: Plot Plan 91-467, Change of Zone 91-066, Portion of Northwest Quarter, Section 6, Township 6 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 shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 1 foot, on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. We request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way. 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. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Comission City of La Quinta -2- August 26, 1991 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, ), C'-VA' om Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer R£:cb/e8b cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT COUNTYRIVERSIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST8AN JACIN7OAVENUE *PERRI8 CALIFORNIA 92370 GLEN lNBWMAN To: City of L� Ouinta Planninq -'ivision Attn: Greg Trousdell Fe: Plot Plan q1-467 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plct Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide a combination of on -site and off -site Super fice hydrants (b" x 4" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/2") on a looped system, located nut less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet fron any porti�'/ of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The water mains shalI be capable of providing � potential fire flow of 25C0 gpm and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 1500 gpm for 2 hour1 at 20 psi residual operating pressure. The requireo fire flow must be available before any combustzble material is placed on the job site. 2. Prio,- ts issuance of a building permit, applicaot/developer Shall une bIueline copy of the watt�r system r�la-is to the Fire ��par�ment for review/approval. Fla:s soaIl cooforn' to the fire hydrant types, location and sp*cing and the systeif' meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/app'uved by a regzster(=.d civil engio"er with tke follow�ng certification: "I certify th--it :.he design of water sys��� is in accordance w�th the /eq�z`emen\s prescr�be� �v the Riverside County Fire Pla.'s shall alsu be signed by the local water 3. Install a complete fire sprinkler system Per NFPA 13D.' System pl&rs must be submitted with a plan check/znspectjon fee to the Fire Department for revzew, A �tatement that the buzld�og(s) wjll be equipped with fzre sprinklers 'nust be includec� on the tit]e page of the L.uilu`ng plans. 4. All interior streets shall be designated and maintazned as fire lanes. 5. Install portable fire extinguishers oer NFPA 10, but not less than 24l0BC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company fc.r proper placement. PLANNING DIVISION �����o�� �o�mm�� 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite �Indio, oa9220/ */u02County Center Drive, Suite 225,Tardecula, CA 9239C (o19)swz4wwa°FAX (a19)rr5-zo z (7e)xv+soru^m�c(v1�*v�»w7a �mm�o���p�� 3760 /ahStreet, Riverside, Cayzao/ (71*)zrs-4Y7r°FAX (o^)a69-7*51 9§printedoorecycled n«n^ 6. Director/ d3splev bo`"S wzll bu /equzrod ad;oceot /P s` roadway access to tr.e development. These e.ali be 01 z13umznated diagramxtzc representation 3f the actuwl vhirh shows name 0" con/pley, ,!l streets, bu`iding deszg"atnrs, unit ocnbers and fi.e hyd/ent locatjo'.s`°�z��.� . Ihc� complex- Thes� O,.'ertorle; shall be " minin.uo. 4 in dimension. kddresEing of buildings and ur/UE shM conform to the Rzveclide County Add/enszng Policy., Additional informaticn and details may be obtained b' contacting the Fi-e Department Planning and Engineerj.q Staff. 7. Gates installed to reEtrict access shall be power operate� aod equIpped with a F,re Department override systev' lmu/'o^emen+ plans 4"' Ve entry street and gates s`'K L.. submitteo to th2 Firn Depa/'tmeot for rsvzew/appro"l to installation. Fin* conditions wzll c� addressed when building pian� /Ye ' vt �e paid to the Fire ,'.�P ,zm revzewed. A plan Mace+e must / at the time building pla.`s ale subo.Itted. Ail quesizoos regardinq ihe meanirg nF theie c.'.'ditoos referred to the Fire Lepa 'meM Pl*"nzny & E`'4zo^, Inc � ' 5�ncerely° PAY RESTS Chzef R.-e Lepartme:t P\a/� .` T'". `!utcx`scn MEMORANDUM a 0 C T 1 1991 CIi i OF !A Ci1IN IA pLM"-,%'13 Q p�RThlf�dt TO: Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner FROM: Tom Hartung, Director of Building and Safety / SUBJECT: Handicap requirements for Desert Villas Apartment Complex DATE: October 10, 1991 This complex with a proposed total of,109 dwelling units would be required to provide 6 fully handicapped accessible units. The requirements for those units would be found in Chapter 5, 12 and 33 of the Uniform Building Code as amended by the State of California. These six units should be evenly distributed throughout the project. In addition to these 6 units, the remainder of the units must have the following: 1. Grab bar backing (per sections 511.1(a) 9 and 1214.1(d) 5) 2. 32 inch clear door and interior opening width (section 1214.1 (a) 2, 3304(il) 2B, 3304(il) 2C, 3304(m) 2 and 3304(n) and 24" strike edge clearance exterior and 18" strike edge clearance interior. 3. Lever hardware (3304(c) 4) 4. Door buzzer, bell or chime (1214.1(b) 5) 5. Ability to install water closet with 1511 maximum height to top of seat. 6. Light switch must be installed between 3' and 4' from floor. 7. Faucet controls per 1504(c) UPC (no twisting, tight grasping, etc. required) 8. One bathroom in each dwelling unit must have the following: Clear floor space of 30" x 48" required in front of the lavatory; a space 48" parallel to 30" perpendicular to the side of the bath tub; 36" clear width at the water closet and 48" in front of the toilet; door must open out or knee space must be provided under the lavatory. 9. A path of travel must be provided from the parking facility per section 417, 3325(a), 3325(b) and 3326(a) and (b) UBC as amended by state. Greg Trousdell October 10, 1991 Page Two 10. Cabinets directly under the kitchen sink counter area must be removable to provide wheelchair clearance. 11. Path of travel from parking to all units 48" sidewalk slip resistant. 12. Cabinets directly under kitchen sinks including toe kick and shelving must be removable for wheelchair access. These items should be addressed in the design of the dwelling units. Other considerations may arise when a complete plan check of the construction drawings is completed. TH/lc MEMOTH02/TXTLYNN A r I TANDA'J BUILDERS. 'NC. tense = 477405 -ITY OF LA OUINTA Mr. Jerry Herman Planning & Development Director 78-105 Calle Estado La Qui.nta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell August 20, 1991 Associate Planner RE: PLOT PLAN 91-467 & CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 DESERT VILLAS APARTMENT COMPLEX Gentlemen: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 14, 1991 relating to the above referenced subject. We very much appreciate your prompt response to our application. A preliminary hydrology report and preliminary grading plan are currently being prepared by The Keith Companies, our consulting civil engineers and will be submitted to you shortly. Ronald Gregory & Associates, our consulting landscape archi- tect, will provide you under separate cover the streetscape eleva- tion plan requested as item #12 in your August 14, 1991 letter. With respect to your item #7, please be advised that the southerly most access driveway solution was prepared by our con- sulting traffic engineers, Barton Aschman, and I have asked them to respond directly to your concerns. I would like to point out, however, that the driveway solution presented has taken into ac- count numerous conflicting goals and engineering limitations. It was my understanding that this solution has been tentatively ac- cepted by City engineering staff, John Koenig, the shopping center developer adjacent to us on the south, as well as our own traffic engineer. Items #3 through 6, 8 through 11, 13, and 15 will be responded to by the project architect, Giorgio Dazzan & Associates. Please be advised that this is an affordable housing project and that 30% of the units will be reserved for occupancy by lower income house- holds. We have enclosed an analysis pursuant to your request (item #14) that identifies the units involved. It is expected that these units will remain at a level below current market rate for a term of not less than 15 years, and very likely 30 years. At the pre- sent time, the Developer or the Developer's property manager will manage this facility. Further, it is expected that the project 1630 17th Street . Santa Monica, California 90404 (213) 452-0196 9 Fax: (213) 392-6670 will be financed by tax exempt multi -family housing bonds. The project is subject to an Owner Participation Agreement with the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. We believe we are entitled to additional bonus units over and above the maximum R2 zone requirements pursuant to state planning law. We have agreed to construct a housing development with 20% atforuable units entitling us to a density increase of at least 25% of over the otherwise maximum allowable density. The low and mod- erate income housing element consists of 30% of the units (20% to occupants whose income is 30% of 50% of the Riverside County in- come) which we plan to offer first -to senior citizens. Addition- ally, our application contemplates the award of a 10% design bonus based on the superior design of the project. To the best of our knowledge, this project will easily be the superior residential income project (apartment house) within the City limits, and should therefore be entitled to the design bonus. Entry to the project from Washington Street leads the prospec- tive patron pass waterfall features on either side of the entrance via a tree lined divided boulevard and gated entry. The residen- tial units are arranged in clustered groupings around the community center. Each cluster has been designed to consist of a central open air landscaped patio surrounded by the residential units. The project will incorporate a careful blend of Mediterranean features adapted for desert living emphasizing pitched tile roofs, pergolas entwined with bougainvillea, and paved pedestrian walkways through- out the landscaped areas maintaining a park -like setting. Among the many development features of the project are multiple pools and spas, a fitness facility, a community center, and tennis and vol- leyball courts. We hope to have the balance of our application completed and submitted to the Planning Department within the next several weeks. Very truly yours, DESERT VILLAS, LTD. BY: Richard L. Darli Enclosure as noted cc: Giorgio Dazzan, AIA Ronald Gregory George.Parmenter, P.E. Craig Bryant Robert Wright Tom Genovese Michael Smith, P.E. Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer THE KEITH COMPANIES - INLAND EMPIRE, INC. MEMORANDUM TO: MR. GREG TROUSDELL - CITY OF LA QUINTA FROM: MR. MIKE ROWE - THE KEITH COMPANIES AAA/ RE: VARIANCE 91-017 - DESERT VILLAS DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1991 F831-002 In response to our conversation on the Desert Villas Apartment Complex the following is a response to the items we are requesting variances on: 1. Allowance of Tandam parking spaces This request is due to the aesthetics of incorporating the required parking spaces per number of units. Examples were sent showing this concept used successfully in other areas and will insure the integrity of our project's design, thus accommodating garage spaces which otherwise could not be provided. 2. Lower minimum unit square footage The current code states a minimum apartment size to be 750 square feet. We are requesting this be reduced to 550 square feet. The project is set up for a minimum of 30% senior housing and this lower unit size allows flexibility in product type to attract a varied clientele for assurance of a successful project (which is in everybody's best interest). With the units having enclosed garages, area is available for storage to offset space which might normally need to be inside the apartment. 3. Reduce parking requirement per unit The existing code creates an average of 2.16 parking spaces per unit (1.5 spaces per one bedroom unit and 2.5 spaces per multi -bedroom unit). We are requesting a parking space requirement variance to a minimum of two spaces per unit, regardless of bedroom type, due to the senior population that will incorporate at least 30% of the project. The figures we have submitted to you on other cities in the Southern California area for senior parking requirements fully justifies this request and still allows ample visitor spaces. We hope you will look favorably upon our request and if you have any questions on this, or other matters relating to this project, please give myself or Craig Bryant of Winchester Asset Management a call. 294-M-10D (619) 346.9844 FAX (619) 346-9368 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 101, Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pia^^ni Eng gee E^ti �cn Sery ce+ La^csc kz !ec Laic Szwe, Pj:: � Wale, F RPPUCGD PARKING Aug 7AND�M PWING ALLOWANCES S y'j�r SEP ARCHITECT G I O RG I O DAZZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 610 SANTA MONICA BIND., SUITE 225 SANT 2MO 3 90401 3 5055 '� 6 N ��✓ w�' A " C 1 C A 6>i E £ 0 o L s�i bL aoc+ c ait ecd aE EC �yy L � C .O' A•CC "' O.� � a A c A C dt O L Y C A �+ > C O a V p ►� L c E ca A L cs cc- '°Vy av41 C-V d+ c -0 oQ'da go 00 a z?' �a' a� v. «s vc3Lsc 4 � y�'° to o.� CE E 3 an >. at Ec o cc to o .C..CCC �: tE -v b v A O• Y RG O cc C.� C 4, Vi O'6 Cc x t,7�tE u� Spy.+Ly3 �.. 0. 0. V e0 L C ° 0. a+ to o V d Ci V. § w v. et W O 0. 0 et 1.. O y C y p C C y C- 0 Z be Ex' w 3 ¢ E av a• = �' oa �� cadEa.E I., r. a E° ec� v d V A A 0+ O c E C�j CN y C O^ C di y� CIS Cd c O °'c CIS aor ac �°,a>ii5 ovO b3v,0. aQ YV C C A G ut 6Qy O ` G OcE'E '�.- E p 3 d c 2 o v v. yr � c d � ILa�'C �j�•`-�� yA Q" ago r�9AC y a eC y C 6+ O •C ccAJ2 �••i' {Y,� � i C 3+ bt_`� N � •LC C; �►Y A 6 yi �« .^. � 47 -•� a CIS H .'� « .•n ..� C C C '� v v M Vi 4, rjp e"a `n Sao `' d a y C G -C . v^_• � ` ., v, y C ?! C V .. — - = t. � L d iC � � - ti A - i .0. e L .. >, ►°. ':r c rs a e A r _ �. , E_ c i?= f AE E r� A` C i. •G C L -- .� C V t«LL 7 S L y c toc.c A„ r yc _ 3 y ,� ° E c = 5c�caxis.Lc, ..31 fit i Q.-C L _ - to L v_ N d= 4L. ^.i a c a v ecc°s°t A, 0..' «E-ct,y i 1 C cG '• •fir• ram'" _ w= .^ 1 ` Z i• M o c. o C -10 5• ? C � � ^' -• y C �• � � Y eax �L yCIS Itz,,ai,E`vk3i:`htAG���Ew�L<�— yE��c"yrvse`�"- r^. yy CC do etccac c In ad. 0�4' A c°C 7p '4p� L ( d .L .i .6ia •� N .-•• S et E L d .!) C >� 'r L C 1 0 •:, > .�. f ._ W N W CA .0 Q1 .� :3 S. 6� `r 61 = h CISd Q� O 'c ,c c �r L V• v R °C E A�cdac�q�,R�n c o w E u A<.� o Take Holly- W,di4. . ly one 0 feet mobile l9AK other mobile Ing or Jon of dale - Action to and t auto- t Plan ;e, and Mg the umber aly be it used es are Pd. No. a and , other oce on Ined in rwever, tern to i estab- welling 11 be at Lt feast t 8 feet rovided Ined on ►r11Uon, n Is to- l along ,creased at least WIF 28 feet :et long. of each parking Section. parking age con - required dwelling ate com- L.A. Qrr Noe S4c 1211AYd fCoW--1221AMM ARTICLE 2 i21 pact cars Every stall designed to accommodate compact cars shall be clearly marked as a compact stall. The minimum bay widths required by Paragraph (b) of this Subdivislon may be reduced for bays or portions of bays containing compact stall$, provided that the net aisle width to not reduced. (d) Atteaded Commercial Parking Lott. A public parking area containing no required parking stalls and providing atten- dants to park the vehicles at all times when sald area to open for use shall be designed in compliance with Parsg-aphs (e), M. (g), (1) and (kl of this Subdivision, but shall not be subject to the requirements set forth in any other paragraph of this Sub- division. (e) Driveway Location. Access driveways to every parking area and garage shall be designed in accordance with Sections 02.2O5.1. 82.105 2, 62 205.3 and 02105 4 of this Code, and in a manner to provide the minimum practical interference with the use of adjacent property and with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Such driveways shall be located In accordance with a plan approved by the Department of Building and Safety in the fol- lowing Instances: (1) On a lot in a "P" (including any combinatlon with an "A" or "R" Zone) or "PB" Zone. (2) For every parking area and garage having a capacity of more than 25 automobiles or trucks. The Department of Building and Safety shall disapprove any plan which It determines falls to meet the standards estab- lished by this Paragraph. (fi Driliewa) Width. Every access driveway shall be at least nine feet In width in the "A", "RE", "RS", "RI'% "R2" and "RW" Zones, and 10 feet In width to "RD", "R3". "R4", "115", P "PB" "C' and "U" Zones, provided however. every access driveway serving a parking area or garage having a capacity of more than 25 automobiles or trucks shall be at lest 19 feet In width, or In lieu thereof there shall be two access driveways at least 10 feet in width; provided further, however, that an access driveway serving an apartment house erected in the "R2" Zone shall be at least 10 feet In width (Amended by Ord No. 144,082, Eff. 12/11/72.) (g) Driveway and Ramp Slopes. The slope of everydrive- way or ramp shall not exceed 20 percent; except that where ar. existing driveway being used for access is required to be modified because of a public improvement project such grade may exceed 20 percent, provided the design Is approved by the City Engineer. Transition slopes In driveways and ramps shall be designed to the standards established by the Superintendent of Building and the City Engineer. (4 Tandem Parking. Each required parking stall within a parks shall be Individually and easily ac- cessible, except that automobiles may be parking is tandem In the following instances: (1) In a public garage or public parking area providing attendants to park vehicles at ail times said garage or area 1s open for use. w-41b(2) In a private garage or private parking area serving an apartment house, apartment hotel, hotel, two-family dwelling In an "RW" zone, two-family dwelling In an "RD", "R3", "RV or "R5" zone on a lot with a frontage of less than 40 feet, or mul- tiple or group dwelling, where said tandem parking is not more than two cars in depth, and provided that at least one parking stall per dwelling unit and all of the parking stalls required for 0 Hotels, Motels 1 space per guest room plus 401 1 space for each 200 sq.ft. used for meetings and banquets. Other uses such as bare and restaurants shall provide parking in conformance with the requirements for Commercial Uses listed below. Senior group housing 1 space per unit 40� ace per 5 units Senior group housing 0.5 space per unit 40 that is deed restricted 1 guest space per 5 units for low -moderate income - levels. - 190 - {���r �-� " may'+ .��-�_,_.,�.---�_ -..��`"'•' Y-A fbL �'"'tIIUY t Ix� 1 _`fix .'may^ ! - -� `•14 - tw ' ri • �y Ya�i� fxf � jL _ ` Y 41 -r a —72 i 1 L a � A . gig MIS �! 9 Big ttrrJ e!e e11!! g �a8]� 1 iiiiiii iliiiii I�1r11�1�� ..!ob:t;tit ill .... .....li g t e 161'lilt Gil II Illlilio� i1�t I% i%el �i1'tll�� 1 I I II( II � is Ililt III 1 I11�9�ill v 0 Pi X i \ / WAN is A / X :n J® _=CC \LLI �. <�| | | | § ( k | � � - � . y� • . 2A !||�| �� I| 5 �tiN 4 f F i; i• ig i i i i i i P. IC r X W a 0 0 i,llil� IT . �L I I I I I li • _ Qz W.WWAO A, } .� ; .`+.,, `• � S is � � j°. � , � �� l _ '-� ',, • w o . - won, yw �...-�-.'�.�"'�...s- . � � � � (LB��J 44 do -19 tug ,�✓', � -'i-- 1 � 1 � � sari i � LL 74 `b too OUR. , low moo a ''\I � i a • 0 5 I� i a . �t • O u u e p 4T xG I L i COL ?E015TAL Z COYERE-D (MEDIUM SAND F1Nt COL• l8"o TAL c 1 TiiICAL TRELL15 IL aU IN (A DE5EF-,I, VILLA 5 .r ARCNITEC7 G I O RG I O DAZZ0 & ASSOCIATES, INC. W SANTA MONICA BLVD., SUITE SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 (213) 393-5055 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91- 06E CASE NO. CZ 91-066 - DESERT VILLAS, LTD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly notice Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Villas, Ltd. for a Change of Zone from R-1 Single Family Residential and R-2* 8,000 Multiple Family Residential +9 acres, located on the west side of Washington Street, 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, more particularly described. as: APN: 769-030-032 (NORTH PORTION) SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Change of Zone 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 an Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. 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 Change of Zone. 1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning designations. 4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration. 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; RESOPC. 0419 1 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration by the La Quinta Planning Commission pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC. 049 2 \ R-2 \ ZONING ,qACANl PROPOSED ZONING: R2 ULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0 a EXISTING ZONING: R1 SINGLE FAMILY VACA14 T RESIDENTIAL R-3 / ZONING �, 7. C-P ZONING (CZ 91-063) PORTION OF APN: 769-030-032 CASE Nm EXHIBIT A CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066, DESERT VILLAS f a PROPOSED ZONING: R2 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING ZONING: R2* (8,000) MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I i 9 JASHINGTON ;TREET 3R I DGE S-R ZONING SINGLE FAMILY SCALE: 1"= 200' PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND OFF-STREET PARKING PROVISIONS CASE NO. VAR 91-017 - DESERT VILLAS, LTD. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Villas, Ltd. for a Variance to Section 9.160 (Off -Street Parking) La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), to permit a parking ratio reduction, tandem parking garages, and a Variance to Section 9.156.040 to permit dwelling unit sizes less than the 750 square feet minimum or any other items deemed necessary by the Planning Commission, more particularly described as: SOUTH 1/2 NORTHWEST SECTION 6, T.6.S., R.7.E. S.B.B.M. APN: 769-030-032 (PORTION) WHEREAS, said Variance request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" ( County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance 5) , in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the granting of said Variance: 1. The strict application of the off-street parking requirements and design standards to the subject property will deprive the Applicant of providing an innovative design solution (tandem parking spaces) for their senior project. The tandem spaces will help the developer achieve their on -site parking needs for this single story development request without having to pursue a two story development plan. 2. In order to maintain the affordability of the project for low and moderate income seniors, it is necessary to reduce the unit sizes of some of the units to about 200 square less than the minimum requirement of 750 square feet to reduce the construction cost. S. There are no physical constraints which prohibit development of the site. 4. The mitigation measures of the Environmental Assessment will insure long- term environmental impacts will not affect the community or abutting properties. 5. The Conditions of Approval will assure that the project is designed in an orderly fashion. RESOPC.054 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91-212 which indicated that approval of the Variance would not constitute a significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby grant said Variance 91-017 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions ( Exhibit "A") . PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.054 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED VARIANCE 91-017 - DESERT VILLAS, LTD. EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS: 1. Senior apartment units within the project will be allowed to have dwelling unit sizes less than 750 square feet but in no case less than 550 square feet. The units shall be rented to low and very low income seniors for permanent housing. The units shall not be rented as second homes. A deed restriction shall be recorded against the property describing this requirement. 2. The approval shall remain active as long as Plot Plan 91-467 is in effect. 3. The tandem parking garages shall have internal access provided from inside the garage to the inside of the dwelling unit without having to go outside, provided the Uniform Building Code provisions can be maintained. 4. All senior apartment units required by the City shall maintain a parking ratio of one on -site covered garage space per unit plus 0.5 space per unit open guest parking. 5. Approval of the Variance is subject to approval of Change of Zone 91-066 and Plot Plan 91-467. RESOPC.054 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN 91-467 - PROPOSED OCTOBER 22, 1991 DESERT `VILLAS, LTD. GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91-467, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of Change of Zone 91-066 and Variance 91-017. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage of boats, trailers, or RV's without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 5. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off-street parking requirements. 6. Adequate decorative trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures designed with pedestrian access that does not require opening the doors, and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure size and location is adequate. 7. If a phasing plan is proposed, the phasing plan shall be approved by the Planning and Development Director. 8. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 9. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by qualified engineer prior to issuance of grading permit, to determine impacts on surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of the site. CONAPRVL.036 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 10. Landscaping planters along the perimeter of the site shall be provided at maximum width possible with all unusable areas adjacent to property lines provided in landscaping. 11. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance. 12. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant (s) / representative (s) , shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of -the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: CONAPRVL . 03 6 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o United States Postal Service Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 14. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 15. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District. 16. A bus waiting shelter and bus turn -out shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on the Washington Street when street improvements are installed. 17. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b. ) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted. in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to :reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 18. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 19. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating CONAPRVL.036 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 20. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting material such as Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt) . The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during plan check. B . The proposed retention areas on -site shall be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run- off from paved surfaces. C . A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk shall be installed on Washington Street along the frontage of the site. D. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study shall be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking) . The height of the light poles shall not exceed 10 feet in height. E. The Developer shall contribute to the landscape and/or hardscape program of the future median island on Washington Street. F. The perimeter wall shall be six feet high as measured from adjoining grade height and the wall shall be stuccoed to match the building complex. G. Pedestrian access shall be provided between this project and the future shopping center to the south. A pedestrian gate shall be installed along the south property line where appropriate. CONAPRVL.036 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 H . The recreation facilities in the rear portion of the site shall be designed to account for periodic stormwater flows since the area will be used for water retention purposes. Passive outdoor equipment shall be examined and the on -site recreational facilities shall be approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission during final plan review. I. All units shall be designed for handicap accessibility and include provisions for hardware installation at a later time when the unit is rented to a handicap individual. The California State and Federal statutes shall apply. J. All dwelling units along Washington Street shall be a minimum 30 feet from the property line. The measurement shall be to the edge of any building exclusive of building patios or eave overhangs. K. An on -site manager's unit shall be provided to assist the residents in their day-to-day management needs. L. The perpendicular open parking spaces shall be 9-feet by 18-feet. M. The pools shall be handicap accessible and meet all the requirements of the Building Department and the State of California. N . The distance between independent building clusters shall be a minimum 10-feet as required in Chapter 9.44.100 (R2 Code) . O. All end space parallel parking spaces should be 9-feet X 30-feet and the interior spaces should be 9-feet X 24-feet. The parallel spaces shall not be used abutting 90-degree parking spaces or if they interfere with on -site traffic movement (e.g., the recreation building) . CITY FIRE MARSHAL 22. Provide a combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1 / 2" X 2-1 / 2") on a looped system, located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 gpm and an actual fire flow available from any one hydrant shall be 1500 gpm for a two hours at 29 psi residual operating pressure. The required fire flow must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blu.eline 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 with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance CONAPRVL.036 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Plans shall also be signed by the local water company. 24. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13D . System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklers must be included on the title page of the building plans. 25. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A].OBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 26. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4' X 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 27. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review/approval prior to installation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 28. The Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Washington Street from the site excluding the two points of access as noted on the site plan. 29. The Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to the following street right-of-way(s) : A. Washington Street, 20 feet wide. 30. Landscape and irrigation plans for the landscaped lot(s) shall be prepared in conformance with the requirements of the Planning Director, and City Engineer, and approved by same officials prior to construction. 31. Ap-plicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public improvements and on -site common area improvements before the issuance of a site grading permit. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective construction cost, for those improvements which involve fair -share responsibility that must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash in lieu of construction may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by the Applicant and City Engineer, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. CONAPRVL.036 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 32. The on -site grading plan shall be prepared by a register civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 33. The Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during grading of the site and construction of the improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant and charged with the compliance responsibility shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: A. All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 34. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100 year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless the Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 35. Applicant shall install a nuisance water percolation facility in the retention basin to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The facility shall be sized to percolate 160 gallons per day per 5000 s . f . of landscaping. 36. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 37. The Applicant shall participate in the cost of the designing and installing off - site improvements as defined in the Owner Participation Agreement that the Applicant enters into with the City. CONAPRVL.036 Conditions of Approval Plat Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 38. The Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk. 39. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley 'Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 40. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 41. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 42. The site shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity, caused by a storm event greater than the 100 year 24 hour event, to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow for those occasions when a storm greater than the 100 year 24 hour event occurs. 43. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. SPECIAL 44. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 45. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall include building, landscaping, irrigations, signing, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, utility plans, perimeter masonry walls, and materials. 46. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed development . 47. At least 30 percent of the apartment units shall be for seniors. The minimum age shall be 55 years or older. Prior to issuance of a building permit program per State and local requirements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City. CONAPRVL . 03 6 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-467 October 22, 1991 48. The requirements of the Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be met as defined in Chapter 9.160 of the La Quinta Municipal Code unless modified by Variance 91-017. 49. No roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be permitted unless screened from view by a building parapet wall or other architectural material. 50. Reciprocal access agreements shall be prepared and approved by the City Engineering and Director of Planning and Development which secures common on -site access systems between the property and the abutting property to the south. 51. Ten or twenty percent of the apartment units shall be used by either very low or :low income families respectively as required by Government Code Section 65915. The units shall be guaranteed to remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, pursuant to contractual arrangements approved by either the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency or City Council, prior to issuance of a building permit. 52. The minimum apartment unit size shall be 750 square feet as required by Chapter 9.156.040 of the La Quinta Municipal Code unless modified by Variance 91-017. 53. The requirements of the Building and Safety Department as addressed in their October 10, 1991, memo shall be met. 54. An on -site permanent restroom shall be provided and open during daylight hours for use by gardeners and other maintenance workers. 55. Approval of this Plot Plan subject to an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) being signed by the Developer and the City of La Quinta. 56. A lot merger application shall be completed prior to building permit issuance. 57. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-212 shall be met. CONAPRVL.036 9 PH-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 CASE NOS.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-038 CHANGE OF ZONE 91-067 TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 REQUEST: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-038 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S LAND USE ELEMENT FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-2 DU/ACRE) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/ACRE) 2. CHANGE OF ZONE AMENDMENT 91-067 - REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FROM R-1 20,000 TO R-1 8,000 3. TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 - THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE +39 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS APPLICANT: SEASTAR INC., C/O JOHN MUSIAL OWNER: ELLIOT FAMILY TRUST & POLIAK FAMILY TRUST ENGINEER: COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERING, C/O DAVID TURNER LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF MADISON STREET, 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF 54TH AVENUE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 767-320-002 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING - VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-2 DU/ACRE) PROPOSED - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/ACRE) ZONING: EXISTING - R1-20,000 PROPOSED - R1-8,000 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-216 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNON BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED. STAFFRPT.062/CS -1- SURROUNDING EXISTING LAND USES: CIRCULATION: NORTH: VACANT SOUTH: VACANT WEST: PGA WEST EAST: SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE (MERV GRIFFIN) MADISON STREET - PRIMARY ARTERIAL 100 TO 110 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY RELATED PAST ACTIONS: The property was annexed to the City of La Quinta in 1990/91. The property was part of Annexation #5 which consists of 2,540 acres. BACKGROUND: The site is vacant and surrounded on the north, east and south by mature Tamarisk trees along the property lines. The existing site has partially developed improvements along its frontage. The street improvements and median were installed by PGA West. The site lacks curbs, gutter and sidewalk improvements. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a redesignation of the property to support the division of this property into 98 new single family lots. The developer has stated that he would like to develop estate lots (minimum 9,500 square feet and maximum 13,000 square feet) and build 2,000 square feet to 3,500 square foot homes (excluding garages) on these lots. The plans will include three and four bedroom homes with 2 1/2 baths, and either two or three car garages. The homes will be single story (18 to 21 feet) in height. The developer believes his homes will be marketed primarily to retirees, second home buyers, empty nesters, but not geared toward families with children. A letter, stamped dated September 26, 1991, from the applicant is attached. A Homeowner's Association is not proposed as lots will be fee owned and yards will be maintained by each respective owner. The parkway along Madison Street will be maintained by a future Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. STAFFRPT.062/CS -2- DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: A. School Fees: The Coachella Valley Unified School District has requested that the City deny the application unless the developer is willing to contribute additional school mitigation funds beyond the required $1.58 per square foot of building area to their district. A copy of the letter is attached to the Environmental Assessment. The project proponent has been in contact with the District. However, to date, Staff have not received any further correspondence from the developer or District which would modify their request. This issue surfaced when the Planning Commission examined Specific Plans 91-015, 016 and 017 (Landmark Land) in September. This additional mitigation fee is a new issue for the City to address beyond the requirements of AB 1600. AB 1600 went into effect in 1986 and requires cities and counties in California to collect fees ($1.58 per square foot for single family homes) as part of the building permit issuance. New court cases however, have ruled that cities and counties can require additional impact fees if a general plan or zone change amendment is being examined. The City has not yet implemented or addressed this issue with the School District as court cases are recent legal interpretations. Therefore, a policy has not been drafted by the City Council to implement the District's request. The developer has stated that his project will not generate additional school age children due to the price range of his homes. B. Circulation: The site will be served by two points of access on Madison Street. Both driveways will support two-way traffic. The main southerly -most driveway is designed for left turns in and out and will align with a street in PGA West. The project streets are typically 60 foot wide streets which include a curb to curb measurements of 40 feet with the outer areas devoted to parkway easements. The streets internal to the project will be public streets. Initially, cul-de-sac streets within the project were also considered, however, the proposed through streets are desired by the developer and the Fire Marshal. In conclusion, the attached plan meets the requirements of the City. Staff is not recommending any modification to that which is attached. The extension of 55th Avenue easterly of Madison Street has not been included as a Condition of Approval for this case because the City is presently examining the vacation (SV 91-016) of the street concurrently with the review of Specific Plan 90-015 (Landmark Land property to the south). STAFFRPT.062/CS -3- The City has deemed the east/west connection not necessary due to the other streets in the area (54th Avenue, Airport Boulevard, & 58th Avenue) which are at one mile intervals and the fact that most projects in the area have on -site streets which feed properly spaced access driveways onto Madison (e.g. PGA West, etc.). The City Council will review the Street Vacation issue at the November 5, 1991 meeting. The project will not be gated but the applicant will be required to contribute to the installation of a traffic signal at their main entry point on Madison. The traffic signal will also service the PGA West development. The developer will be asked to contribute 50% of the signal cost or their fair share. C. On -site Water Retention: A retention basin is proposed at the southwest corner of the project site (Lot 99) by Madison Street. The basin is approximately five feet deep and is 468 feet by +150 feet (70,200 square feet) in overall size. The basin will be used for flood control purposes. The applicant has not indicated whether the basin will be used for recreational needs of the future residents, but our conclusion is that it will not be used for recreational purposes. A hydrology study, prepared by the project engineer, is attached to the Environmental Assessment. The Engineering Department has reviewed the document and will comment on the proposal at the Planning Commission meeting. Project conditions have been drafted. D. Lot Size The applicant has proposed lots which vary in size for +9,500 square feet to +13,000 square feet. The lots are rectangular in size and average +10,000 to 11,000 square feet. The developer's proposal meets the requirements of the R1-8,000 Zoning Code provisions if the property is allowed to be converted from R-1 20,000. A discussion on land use in this immediate area is discussed below. E. Land Use Change As previously mentioned, the applicant has requested a change in the General Plan Land Use designation for this property. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine the surrounding area of the site: North: Vacant land (40 acres) - presently General Planned for 0-2 dwelling units per acre and Zoned for R-1 20,0.00 square foot lots. There are no plans at this time to develop the property. STAFFRPT.062/CS -4- South: Vacant land - presently involved in Specific Plan 91-015 (Landmark Land) pending review by the City Council. On September 24, 1991, the Planning Commission approved 265 acre plan which includes the ultimate development of 1,060 homes and a golf course (4 DU/Acre). West: Being developed (PGA West) as outlined by Specific Plan 83-002. Specific Plan. 83-002/PGA West - approval of a 1665 acre project oriented around 4-18 hole golf courses with 5,000 residential units, 20 acre retail/office commercial complex, and 65 acre resort village with 400 hotel and 250 apartment units. This project was approved in 1984. East: Developed with a single family residential estate (Mery Griffin). The estate is on 160 acres and presently Zoned R-1 20,000 square feet. Presently, there are many areas of the City slated for low density residential development (detached housing) at a density of 2-4 units per acre. Approximately 11 percent of the City, however, is devoted to rural (Very Low Density) residential development. This general area (defined by property south of 50th Avenue and north of 54th Avenue) is approximately one square mile in size and devoted to areas with and without the Equestrian Overlay (north of 52nd Avenue). STAFF COMMENTS: Historically, this area was designated to provide property for rural housing development. The properties in the immediate area are Zoned R-1 20,000 (square feet) or one home per 1/2 acre. The lots surrounding the site at this time are greater than this size (i.e. 40 acres) and are used for rural purposes. Although the property is not designated with the Equestrian Overlay, there are areas north of the subject site which are used for equestrian purposes. The developer stated that this tract will not provide for the keeping of horses with the division of the property to R-1 8,000. The market demand for housing is varied, and there are requests by developers to provide housing in the $200,000 plus range for this area of the city. This same discussion came up during the review of Tract 26972 (Dr. Darr) and Tract 27187 (Mr. Pudney) since many realtors believe estate developments similar to the Green Acre Estates project (approximately 1 acre) are not marketable. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission allow a change from R-1 20,000 to R-1 10,000. This will require some redesign of the Tentative Tract Map and probably a reduction in the number of lots. STAFFRPT.062/CS -5- FINDINGS: The proposed change will not adversely affect the ultimate development of this area since the proposal is designed for detached single family residential housing. Additional findings can be made and are contained in the draft resolutions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 91-038, and confirmation of the Environmental Determination. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-067, from R-1 20,000 Single Family Residential to R-1 10,000. 3. That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- recommending to City Council approval of TT 27224, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan Exhibits 3. Environmental Assessment 91-216 4. Agency comments 5. Letters from applicant (June 28th, Sept. 26th & Oct. 8th) 6. Draft PC Resolution; General Plan Amendment 91-038 7. Draft PC Resolution; Change of Zone 91-067 8. Draft PC Resolution; Tentative Tract 27224 STAFFRPT.062/CS -6- AV9NW 29 i No. kNORTH CASE Madison Estates/Seastar General Plan Amendment 91-038, Change of Zone 91-067 SCALE: Tentative Tract Map 27224 1 /Q73;. • i `,• i� •• r', • .yt .�•F �4� �� .�j • � •. .; :e;r. ,. ..' ; '� fsat m'•q,,. �cw. • '•�6•'aS:F*.. `-�`R`•a'ii'i+'•�`•�� •� ...:t44��� .�. ..�, �•: �.�•,•^� ...�' '�' � r. /• fir.'; X� � a�f.� �.�r,+'< '^k Xs V it . �y, '4y� ??.i �. rh� ' ..'�.•9 �, �(�i`�.�1NKt ..•R �3� "� [� ,v- ..:^''.c'•'..y-_ f`4%1t�f! • . i' � .l ''� ys •�.�•. - 'r" `'"�y�pl:(s. :-•v,v�Jf, -9 _ :��_� p �'ti.•�`- is `.. v-a 4. ,� 'tic j � i� ...� 11 - sA.s.. • l'?F i ��_ • a; r 'c ��� ate!' ,,ry�� _: e:� .t v� ON �-. •_. ,r Property in Question �y << ". ' � .;�;�'`' - sue►; ' :;•�;4� r7'� tS�%" .' � -� `� F"r _ "•.� .;."•' ^••rLt,_-:•fir _ "_'` _ � try . _ ?'� • .(,• i '� •. j :,4 "s" I 'Y: ' �' _ i . ►•r s�y Wit.. • �r • r� 1 Madison -Estates Application Tract Map 27224, General Plan Amendment 91-038, CZ 91-067 I n SP 84-004 ',THE PYRAIWD 32; ti A, L SP 84-0 5 OAK TREE WEST N SP 90-01116 J, SP 90-020 (TENTATIVE) SP 90-019 (TENTATIVE) 0 /EST 'w 0 N 2 L AM AMIILLA CASE M A P AVE NUL W OFT 500 1000 200( 0 m 1/4 ;!AV) N1 11 AVE NUL 53 SP 90-018 AVENUE 54 Property LSP 90115 6 SP 90-017 CASE No. Specific Plan Map (Reference Exhibit) 'A11I MA 1,3 NORTH 7 SCALE: See Inset Legend LANDMARK n Hal D W IGHT ' STUART DWIGHT STUART I :ib Ul OICNES ORPORA TION w IAI. I i ` LANDMARK FOWLER PACKING/ GWENDOLYN laaaAC IA.G. SPANOSI TUBACH PUBLIC OWNERSHIP 1414AG i94Ac FOWLER Ixnu• PACKING ! MADISON COMPANY ROLAND WEST loa,u MARONEY PARTNER- / I 1 uAc SNIP / I 401AC 00R ZTNY DENNIS AOIAN LANDMARK �. ..,. � �!, v�:::,:.,m::o:, :.::............ • j' M IN . . ,' ; _ ............ UIN ER a OAC F Ib7 IAC CMS N LAND `iBUNRISE I � kk I �Ib4x 11A1. PUBLIC OWNERSHIP •'� :`G' •'p: ` ` ` 1 'J%—� '� 1 �,��, LANOMARX �� ACWAN ( 20 I �.. a` 20 erslAr. i Al% r ' GAI ILLA jL i DWIGHT PUBLIC OWNERSHIP,, STUART + """. .....� ' w 4,kL NORTH SCALE: -4--3 R-2 N a) z. a -on 5-. +1 N 0 0 A-1-10 � 4- aJ R-1-20000 � ,EQUESTRIAN FOUFSTRIAN OVERLAY R-1-20000 0 F9.61 R-1 C-p-s— exr .• — R�2 R ' 20,000 R-t-t4000 R•I 20{i D _ R-1 R-1 . R: oar J 20,000 PGA WEST � ON20 00O DEVELOPMENT N R o .~ -� a) i - - - -' -2 cn cz. e..00r R-.1-10ac. o R-1-10ac. 1 a u-eo r a /� cx.e.-aor '• - - � - - CITY Of LA QMFfA `Mop pE5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: / ! t7p l St o rx rt 'uar 2. Ad ress and Pho a Number of Proponent: TTT L 3. Date of Checklist: A0 • /- �y 4. Agency Requiring Checklist:i;7'"P 00 Qut✓3'►d►v- S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIROATIENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? _ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface 1 relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of, any unique geologic or physical features? — e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? —Aefl — 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 hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? —— 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorgtion of ambient air quality? — — b. The creation of objectionable odors?— c. Alteraticn of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, P s either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, ✓ or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? — c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow g. of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — — (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? �,- i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ toe d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural r,r crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _ ✓ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife r habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an , area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? — 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk oT an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, istd ribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? — Ae 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional ,,- vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) Yes Maybe No c. Substantial 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. In .ease in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?- 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection?'" b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities?— e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 1S. Energy Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. 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? 1.- 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? lr' 18. 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? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? _ 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? ✓ _ 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? — (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRO'ENTAL EVALUATION IV, DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant _ effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. j,,.�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: /6 — / - V AS i gn a t Lrr _L j riri CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NO. TTM 27224, GPA 91-038, CZ 91-067 (EA91-216) Madison Estates GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed site is located on the east side of Madison Street, approximately 1/4 mile south of 54 Avenue. The 40 acre site is vacant and the developer has applied to subdivide the property into 98 single family residential lots pursuant to the R1-8,000 Zoning District provisions. The property is presently designated Very Low Density by the General Plan and Zoned R1-20,000. The applicant is requesting a change to a higher density or R1-8,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as Gilman Loam or Myoma Fine Sands This type of soil has rapid permeability and it can be used for crop production or homesite development. The site has been vacant and is not used for agricultural purposes. The applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban services (single family detached housing). The contouring of the earth to support the project will be done as part of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of the site. The general elevation of the site is above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic Hazard area as noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." Although earthquake damage should not be a major problem at the site, it is important that the Civil Engineer and a Geologist examine the natural forms of the site to determine if seismically problems could exist at this location. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) . Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities have not been submitted, but it is assumed that most of the earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises, however, sand importation might occur in order to create the finished building pads. 2. The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone 4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission releases because of related automobile trips which will be generated by the future residents of the subdivision. It is assumed that 98 homes will only generate 10 vehicle trips per day per home. This increase in vehicles trips and/or emissions should not have a significant impact on the City's air quality. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust. 2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run- off. This area is not noted to be an area subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing failure and other adverse side - effects. If the geotechnique study shows that this is a problem at the site, measures shall be taken to mitigate this problem. Note: Recent geotechnical reporting in the area (Buena Engineers - Specific Plan Case 90-015/Landmark Land Company) indicated that free groundwater is not present in this area. This document was used as a reference guide for this project. The project engineer has provided a preliminary retention basin for the development, and the water retention area is located on the west side of the site, abutting Madison Street. The basin is about 1 1/2 acres in size and five feet in depth. The proposed basin has been designed to accommodate a 100 year storm (on -site) pursuant to City standards. A copy of the preliminary study is attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer has completed a draft hydrology study which identifies the increased water run-off quantities which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the development proposal. Based on this study the project engineer has designed a on -site drainage basins (retention) which will maintain storm water run-off from the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the ground. The basin slope should not be greater than 3:1 and the depth should not exceed five feet. The plan is presently being reviewed by the City's Engineering Department and specific recommendations will be made at the public hearing. 2. Very low flow 1.6 gallon toilets shall be installed in all homes built after January 1, 1992 pursuant to Public Health Code Section 17921.3. 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of any unique plant life. It is assumed that no major impacts are anticipated by the development of this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 5. Animal Life: The subject site is not located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species) , therefore, no impact mitigation fee is required of the developer if development occurs on the site. It is highly unlikely that the Flat tailed horned Lizard exists at this site also. MITIGATION MEASURES: None anticipated. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the single family subdivision, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from the site but this type of noise is typical for this type of development. Noise levels along surface roadways adjacent to the site are expected to be 67 CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline (based on future traffic demands within the City) and, it is assumed that all proposed dwellings within 300 feet of Madison will require noise mitigation to reduce the exterior noise levels to 60 CNEL. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). As required by the General Plan, this project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. An acoustical study should be prepared which analyzes the impact of road noise from Madison Street on the future homesite(s) and the impacts of the site on abutting residents. Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to: landscape barriers, walls, building wall upgrades, or other measures deemed necessary to meet the City's guidelines. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the building(s) will include lighting. However, at this time, this material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as Very Low Density Residential (0-2 units per acres), however, the owner has requested a density of (2.5 units per acre). It is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to examine the developers request and determine if the request has merit for approval. The property will remain vacant until a determination is made concerning the project density limits. MITIGATION MEASURES: The City Council will be the final government body to review the above -mentioned applications, and to determine whether or not the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are warranted for this development application. Denial of the case will mean that the site will retain the R1-20,000 Single Family Residential lot size requirement versus R1-8,000 requested by the applicant. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check review. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. The developer is marketing the project toward retired people or second home clients, therefore, it is assumed that the future population of this area will be small in comparison to a normal tract development. The density of the project will be determined by the Planning Commission and City Council based on the number of units per acre which is approved. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional employment areas to provide jobs for these new residents. The size of the homes will vary between 2,000 to 3,000 square feet excluding a required two and three car garages. The homes will range in price from $200,000 to $350,000 and be geared to second home retired buyers. Therefore, due to the size of the project, it is assumed that these new homes will have an insignificant impact on employment demand. The housing prices are consistent with homes in the PGA West development. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Additional traffic will be generated by the development of this project. The project is fronting on an existing partially developed major arterial of the City which is planned to have divided north/south traffic on it which provides both access to Interstate 10 and Highway 111 (State roadway systems). It is assumed that the site will generate approximately 980 vehicle trips per day which is consistent with residential development projections (i.e. 10 trips per home) as noted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and, although this level is twice the level of traffic if the lots were developed based on the R1-20, 000 Zoning provisions, the City has accounted for fact in the City's adopted Master General Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The project shall provide accommodate the proposed use of the spaces per unit shall be required. adequate on -site parking to property. Two covered garage 3). A six foot wide public sidewalk and additional equestrian trail shall be provided on Madison Street (major arterial) as determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. No direct access will be permitted onto Madison Street from for any, of the proposed single family lots. 5. A developer shall contribute to the installation of a traffic signal a their site (50%) and toward the future signal at 54th Avenue pursuant to the development of this site. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements as mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area. The site will also generate additional school age children which will go to the Coachella Valley School District. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a be required to pay the City's help mitigate impacts as noted building permit the applicant will Infrastructure Fee. This fee will above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and Riverside County Sheriffs Departments. However, the fee exaction request by the County Fire Department shall be examined by the City Council. since they are the appropriate final action legislative authority. 3). The developer will be required to pay the Coachella Valley School District's impact fees prior to acquiring a building permit. The current fee is approximately $1.58 per square foot of living area per single family home. The fee excludes patios and garages. 4. Water, sewer and electric service provisions shall be made and secured prior to securing building permits. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is vacant but surrounded along its property lines with mature Tamarisk trees to buffer blowsand problems in this area or for on -site privacy of the abutting neighbors. It is assumed that the trees will remain until on -site grading commences. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Single story buildings should be encouraged. 2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to abutting properties. The developer should be encouraged to retaining some of the Tamarisk trees during on -site construction to prevent blowsand problems from occurring. However, ultimate removal of the trees is encouraged because they can become a fire hazard if not maintained correctly. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in -this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: The applicant will be required to contribute to the City's park in -lieu fund which is used to develop City parks for both residents and visitors to this area. The fee is based on a ratio of the assumed population of the future housing tract (1-5 acres of park land for each 1,000 residents) as it relates to the entire City, dwelling unit population, and finally land costs of the property. The park fee will be determined prior to final map consideration. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey by a qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Therefore based on the above information, this project will not have a major or significant environmental impact on the City provided the discussed mitigation measures are met. Attached: Agency Comments Applicant's prepared Hydrology Study Letter's from the Applicant (Oct. 8th, Sept. 26th, June 28th) Reference Document: Draft EIR, Specific Plan 90-015 (Geotechnical Engineering Report/Buena Engineers) - On File 0 ,0 umpleb ein COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 847 THERMAL, CALIFORNIA 92274 (619) 399-5137 September 12, 1991 Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta Planning and Development Division 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: GPA 91-038; ZC 91-067; TTM 27224 Dear Mr. Trousdell: 11-1;;U!IV OOEP 1 6 .nr. CITY Ur LA 14UINTA PLANNING & DEucLOPMEM DEPI We have completed our review of the above referenced project. The proposed scope of the project would significantly impact our school district. The statutory fee of $1.58 per square foot on residential construction does not mitigate the impacts generated by this project. The School District faces a substantial student overcrowding condition. The district's facility capacity consists of 7,704 students. The current student enrollment is 9,432. The number of students enrolled above the district's school facility capacity is 1,723. This represents a 22% over facility capacity in the School District. The School District's overall student generation factor is 2.82. This figure was determined by dividing the total number of students by the total number of existing residential units. Based on the student generation factor and the projected number of housing units to be developed, the proposed projects will generate 276 students into our School District. As you may be aware, there has been considerable controversy in the last several years as to whether a city may legally require school impact mitigation in excess of $1.58 per square foot statutory fees. Several recent appellate decisions have confirmed that, when (as here) general plan amendments and zoning changes are involved, the City is not limited to the statutorily required fees. Under current law, the city must either require that developers fully mitigate their school impacts, or declare that there are "overriding concerns" that justify their failure to do so. Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) does not believe that the proposed'project will produce benefits to the community that override the interest of this community in providing quality education to its children. Page 2 Wherefore, CVUSD respectfully requests that the City of La Quinta recognize the importance of quality education by not approving additional residential projects in the City unless those projects are required to fully mitigate all school impacts that they generate. Specifically, CVUSD requests that a condition of approval be attached to this proposed development requiring that the developer enter into school mitigation agreements with CVUSD that provide for joint use agreements, dedications, Mello -Roos Districts and/or additional school fees such that this development fully mitigate its school impact. Because of the adverse impact to schools, CVUSD would have no choice but to protest the approval of any development projects which do not provide for full mitigation of the impact on schools and will pursue such avenues as may be most appropriate under the circumstances. CVUSD thanks you for your thoughtful consideration of this urgent request. Sincerely, Exec tive Director Faci ities and Operations JBG/ee GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RI . EIZS�E COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN IACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 ��EIVku SEP 0 9 100' ulNTA T0: City of La Quint a C►1y or E pEPVATE: September J, 1991 10 Planning Division PLWING&DEV EM Attn: Greg Trousdell RE: General Plan Amendment 91-038 Change of Zone 91-067 Fire Department personnel have completed a review of the above referenced cases and have the fallowing comments; 1.- A fire station is located at 54-001 Madison Avenue, City of La Ouinta, which is apporoimately 1/2 mile from the project site. The current level of service provided to the site is adequate for Category II -Urban land uses. 2. The proposed project will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls generated by additional buildings and human population. 3. This project will contribute to the need for additional fire equipment, personnel, and/or a fire station. A funding source should be identified for the portion of the impacts associated with capitol improvements or one-time casts such as land, buildings and equipment. If the annual casts necessary for increased level of service are not off -set by the additional County structural tax, an increase in the Fire Department's annual operating budget will be required. 4. Adequate water facilities do not exist that will meet the fire flaw demands of residential uses. Commitments for providing water for fire protection should be confirmed from the existing water district. Infrastructure improvements will be required prior to the construction of any buildings. PLANNING DIVISION lJ(M)IO OFFICE ❑ TB ECU A OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Centcr Drive, Suite 225, Temeculs, CA 9231 (619) 342MM Y FAX (619) 7752072 ❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 9250I (714) 275-4777 • FAX (714) 369.7451 printed on recycled ps1 Planning Department Re: GPA No. 91-032 09/05/91 Page 2 All questions regarding the meaning of these comments should be addressed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By YOGA-_0 Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist th cc: $-! GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To: Planning Department City of La Quinta Attn: Greg Trousdell RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 ECF-Iftu September 6, 1991 SEP C 9 On' CIl Y Ur err qu1NTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT- Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 27224 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 recognized fire protection standards: 1. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2j" x 2j") 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 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." 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. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review 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) 342-8886. wla eR INDIO OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 3428M o FAX (619) 775.2072 Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist PLANNING DIVISION O TEMECUTA OFFICE 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 9235 (714) 694-5070 s FAX (714) 694.5076 ❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 0 FAX (714) 369.7451 printed on recycled pa; �1 ATE Q ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY A!STRICt COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 . COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNAIST NE BUTTON, SECRETARY OWENMc JOHN W. MCFADDEN September 10, 1991 RREDWINEAND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS DOROTHY M.NiCHOLS p THEODORE J. FISH SEP!or CITY Ut. LA gU'NTA Planning Commission ItANN1V�G R, DF!EtOPME"T Dw City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Genlemen: File: 0163.1 Subject: General Plan Amendment 91-038, Change of Zone 91-067, Tentative Tract Map 27224, Portion of Northwest Quarter, Section 15, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area lies on the sandy area in the eastern portion of La Quinta and is considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area. is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells, reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such purpose. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission City of La Quinta -2- September 10, 1991 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, t $,� A/C- om Levy 1 General Manager -Chief Engineer R]F: sv/e9 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT August 12, 1991 Job # 91301 Tract * 27224 Coachella Valley Engineers TENTATIVE TRACT NU. 27224 STORM WATER CONTROL Tr►e intent or thie. pro )ect is to control the storm water runoff by means of Sul-tace f low into an on -site drainage retention basin (Lot 4 S9). The attacl,ea prei ingii&l* drainage study slows the tipproximate an;ourit UI r unut t in the pro Sect to be 73.4 cis. The unit hyarograph 41idicates the required bcu6in volume to be approximately 5.b a(.re-feet, or 9,40U cubic yards. With the basin dimensions Shown on the "fe,itative Trace Map (approx. 1.4 acres), the required bdSin depth would be 4.7 feet. Tne proposed retention basin as shown on the Tentative Tract Map wouicj ue approximately 6 feet deep, allowing for one toot of ireeboard, with side slopes _graded at a 3:1 slope, as preferred by the laity of La l"luinta. The actual dimensions of the basin will be determined upon compljetion of a final hydrology study. 1281 N. GENE AUTRY TRAIL, SUITE G PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 TELEPHONE (619) 322-0088 FAX (619) 322-3888 .verside County Rational ; rology Program CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN Engineering Software, (c) 1990 Version 2. Rational Hydrology Study Date: 8/12/91 -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 100 YEAR STORM FILE: PRLM3 ********* Hydrology Study Control ------------------------------- Information ****** --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rational Method Hydrology Program based on Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 1978 hydrology manual Storm event (year) = 100.00 Antecedent Moisture Condition = 2 Standard intensity -duration curves data (Plate D-4.1) For the E Cathedral City 3 area used. 10 year storm 10 minute intensity = 2.770 (in./hr.) 10 year storm 60 minute intensity = 0.980 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 10 minute intensity = 4.520 (in./hr.) 100 year storm 60 minute intensity = 1.600 (in./hr.) Storm event year = 100.0 Calculated rainfall intensity data: 1 hour intensity = 1.600 (in./hr.) Slope of intensity duration curve = 0.5800 ....-F-1-+-Fi•^F.........ttt+t#....l-i•....+ttt+t.... -.........ttt+t+.....t4 Process from Paint/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.00 **** INITIAL AREA EVALUATION **** Initial area flow distance = 770.000(Ft.) Top (cif initial area) elevation = 5.020(Ft.) Bottom (of initial area) elevation = 1.940(Ft.) Difference in elevation = 3.080(Ft.) Slope = 0.00400 s(percent)= 0.40 TC = k(0.390)*E(length•^3)/(elevation change)3^0.2 Initial area time of concentration = 16.798 min. Rainfall intensity = 3.348(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot) Runoff Coefficient = 0.793 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00 Initial subarea runoff = 20.703(C:FS) Total initial stream area = 7.800(Ac.) Pervious area fraction = 0.500 ++-o-++++++++++++ •-++++++++++++++++++++++++. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Po :/Station 3.000 to jint/Station 2.001 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of street segment elevation = 6.780(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 1.940(Ft.) Length of street segment = 1230.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowline = 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) = 20.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) - 0.020 Street flow is on [23 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line = 10.000(Ft.) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.) Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150 Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 30.789(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.618(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.444(Ft/s) Warning: depth of flow exceeds top of curb Note: depth of flow exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = 5.89(Ft.) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 20.000(Ft.) Flow velocity = 2.44(Ft/s) Travel time = 8.39 min. TC = 25.18 min. Adding area flow to street SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot) Runoff Coefficient = 0.772 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D— 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC 2) = 56.00 Rainfall intensity = 2.647(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 15.540(CFS) for 7.600(Ac.) Total runoff = 36.243(CFS) Total area = 15.400(Ac.) Street flow at end of street = 36.243(CFS) Half street flow at end of street = 18.122(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.646(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.573(Ft/s) Warning: depth of flow exceeds top of curb Note: depth of flow exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = 7.30(Ft.) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 20.000(Ft.) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++a-+++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 2.00 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 15.400(Ac.) Runoff from this stream 36.243(CFS) Time of concentration = 25.18 min. Rainfall intensi',, = 2.647(In/Hr) Summary of stre data: Stream Flow rate TC No. (CFS) (min) 1 36.243 25.18 Largest stream flow has longer Qp = 36.243 + sum of Qp = 36.243 Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 2.647 time of concentration Total of 1 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 36.243 Area of streams before confluence: 15.400 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 36.243(CFS) Time of concentration = 25.184 min. Effective stream area after confluence = 15.400(Ac.) ++++-F•++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++f Process from Point/Station 2.000 to Point/Station 4.00 **** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **** Top of street segment elevation = 1.940(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 0.000(Ft.) Length of street segment = 510.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowline = 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) = 20.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfall grade break = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz ) = 0.020 Slope from grade breakto crown (v/hz) - 0.020 Street flaw is on [23 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line = 10.000(Ft.) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.) Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150 Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150 Estimated mean flaw rate at midpoint of street = Depth of flew = 0.698(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.756(Ft/s) Warning: depth of flow exceeds top of curb Note: depth of flow exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flaw width = 20.000(Ft.) Flow velocity = 2.76(Ft/s) Travel time = 3.08 min. TC = 28.27 min. Adding area flow to street SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot) Runoff Coefficient = 0.766 Decimal fraction soil group A = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group P = 1.000 47.069(CFS) 9.91(Ft.) Decimal fraction -il group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction •il group D = 0.000 RI index for soillAMC 2) = 56.00 Rainfall intensity = 2.476(In/Hr) for a 100.0 year storm Subarea runoff = 17.451(CFS) for 9.200(Ac.) Total runoff = 53.694(CFS) Total area = 24.600(Ac.) Street f 1 ow at end of street = 53.694 ( CFS ) Half street flow at end of street = 26.847(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.723(Ft.) Average velocity = 2.890(Ft/s) Warning: depth of flow exceeds top of curb Nate: depth of flaw exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = 11.16(Ft.) Flaw width (from curb towards crown)= 20.000(Ft.) .++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 #** STREET FLOW TRAVEL TIME + SUBAREA FLOW ADDITION **## Top of street segment elevation = 6.780(Ft.) End of street segment elevation = 0.000(Ft.) Length of street segment = 1695.000(Ft.) Height of curb above gutter flowline = 6.0(In.) Width of half street (curb to crown) = 20.000(Ft.) Distance from crown to crossfall grade bread. = 18.000(Ft.) Slope from gutter to grade break (v/hz) = 0.020 Slope from grade break to crown (v/hz) = 0.020 Street flow is on [23 side(s) of the street Distance from curb to property line = 10.000(Ft. ) Slope from curb to property line (v/hz) = 0.020 Gutter width = 2.000(Ft.) Gutter hike from flowline = 2.000(In.) Manning's N in gutter = 0.0150 Manning's N from gutter to grade break = 0.0150 Manning's N from grade break to crown = 0.0150 Estimated mean flow rate at midpoint of street = 67.227(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.764(Ft.) Average velocity = 3.193(Ft/s) Warning: depth of flow exceeds top of curb Nate: depth of flow exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = 13.22(Ft.) Streetflow hydraulics at midpoint of street travel: Halfstreet flow width = 20.000(Ft.) Flow velocity = 3.19(Ft/s) Travel time = 8.85 min. TC = 37.12 min. Adding area flaw to street SINGLE FAMILY (1/4 Acre Lot) Runoff f Coefficient = 0.751 Dec i mcr l fraction soil group A= 0.000 Decimal fraction sail group B = 1.000 Decimal fraction soil group C = 0.000 Decimal fraction soil group D = 0.000 RI index for soil(AMC: 2) = 56.00 Rainfall intensity = 2.114(In/Hr) for a 100.4 year storm Subarea runoff = 19.683(CFS) for 12.400(Ac.) Total runoff = 73.377 ( CFS ) Total area = 37.000 (Ac . ) Street flow at end of street = 73.377(CFS) Half street flow at end of street = 36.689(CFS) Depth of flow = 0.784(Ft. ) Average velocity - 3.300(Ft/s) Warning: depth o ilow exceeds top of curb Note: depth of tiow exceeds top of street crown. Distance that curb overflow reaches into property = 14.21(Ft.) Flow width (from curb towards crown)= 20.000(Ft.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.+++++++++. Process from Point/Station 3.000 to Point/Station 4.000 **** CONFLUENCE OF MAIN STREAMS **** The following data inside Main Stream is listed: In Main Stream number: 1 Stream flow area = 37.000(Ac.) Runoff from this stream = 73.377(CFS) Time of concentration = 37.12 min. Rainfall intensity = 2.114(In/Hr) Summary of stream data: Stream Flow rate TC No. (CFS) (min) i 73.377 37.12 Largest stream flaw has longer Qp = 73.377 ¢ sum of Qp = 73.377 Rainfall Intensity (In/Hr) 2.114 time of concentration Total of 1 main streams to confluence: Flow rates before confluence point: 73.377 Area of streams before confluence: 37.000 Results of confluence: Total flow rate = 73.377(CFS) Time of concentration = 37.116 min. Effective stream area after confluence = 37.000(Ac.) End of computations, total study area = 37.00 (Ac.) The following figures may be used for a unit hydrograph study of the same area. Area averaged pervious area fraction(Ap) = 0.500 Area averaged RI index number = 56.0 U n i t H y d r o g r a p h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CivilCadd/Civil Design, 1990, Version 2.1 Study date 8/12/91 ..........+++++.++++++.....++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.....t++++� --------------------------------------------------------------------- Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIT HYDROGRAPH TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 100 YEAR STORM, 24 HOUR DURATION FILE: PRUNIT --------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainage Area = 37.00 Acres - 0.058 Sq. Mi. Length along longest watercourse = 1800.00 Ft. Length along longest watercourse measured to centraid = 960.00 F1 Length along longest watercourse = 0.341 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centraid = 0.182 M Difference in elevation = 6.78 Ft. Slope along watercourse = 19.8880 Ft./Mi. Average Manning's 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.071 Hr. Lag time = 4.25 Min. 25% of lag time = 1.06 Min. 40% of lag time = 1.70 Min. Unit time = 60.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) Area rainfall data: Area(Acres)E13 Rainfall(In.)E23 WeightingE1*23 37.00 5.50 203.50 Paint rain (area averaged) = 5.500 (In.) Areal adjustment factor = 99.99 Adjusted average point rain = 5.500 (In.) RI Infil. rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate (In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) 56.0 0.511 0.500 0.281 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) Minimum soil lass rate (In/Hr) _ (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil law loss rate (decimal) _ -------------------------------- Sum (In/Hr) = 0.281 0.140 Ar ea% F (Dec.) (In/Hr) 1.000 0.281 (F) = 0.281 0.900 ----------------------------------- U n i t H y d r a g r a p h Valley S-Curve -------------------------------------------------------- Unit Hydrograph Data ------------------------------------------------------ Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph Qrs) Graph % cfs-hrs/in ----------------- 1 1.000 -------------------------- 1410.474 ------------------------ 100.000 37.3 ------------ --------------------------------------------------------- Sum = 100.00 Sum= 37.3 Jnit Time Pattern Storm Pain Loss rate(In./Hr) Effective (Hr.) Percent (in./hr.) Max Law (in./hr.) 1 1.00 1.20 0.066 0.487 0.059 0.01 2 2.00 1.30 0.071 0.465 0.064 0.01 3 3.00 1.80 0.099 0.443 0.089 0.01 4 4.00 2.10 0.115 0.421 0.104 0.01 5 5.00 2.80 0.154 0.400 0.139 0.02 6 6.00 2.90 0.159 0.390 0.144 0.02 7 7.00 3.80 0.209 0.360 0.188 0.02 8 8.00 4.60 0.253 0.341 0.228 0.03 9 9.00 6.30 0.346 0.323 --- 0.02 10 10.00 8.20 0.451 0.305 --- 0.15 11 11.00 7.00 0.385 0.287 --- 0.10 12 12.00 7.30 0.401 0.271 --- 0.13 13 13.00 10.80 0.594 0.255 --- 0.34 14 14.00 11.40 0.627 0.240 --- 0.39 15 15.00 10.40 0.572 0.226 --- 0.35 16 16.00 8.50 0.467 0.212 --- 0.26 17 17.00 1.40 0.077 0.200 0.069 0.01 18 18.00 1.90 0.104 0.188 0.094 0.01 19 19.00 1.30 0.071 0.177 0.064 0.01 20 20.00 1.20 0.066 0.167 0.059 0.01 21 21.00 1.10 0.060 0.159 0.054 0.01 22 22.00 1.00 0.055 0.151 0.049 0.01 23 23.00 0.90 0.049 0.145 0.045 0.00 24 24.00 0.80 0.044 0.141 0.040 0.00 Sum = 100.0 Sum = 1.9 Flood volume = Effective rainfall 1.89 (in.) times area 37.0 (Ac.)/12 = 5.8 Acre Feet Total soil loss = 3.61 (In.) Total sail loss = 11.126 Acre Feet Total -------------------------------------------------------------------- rainfall = 5.50(In.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- - Q-+++++++++++++++i-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H y d r o g r a p h --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 60 Minute intervals (CFS) Time(h+m) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume(AF) Q(C:FS) 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1+ 0 0.0203 0.25 Q 2+ 0 0.0424 0.27 Q ' 3+ 0 0.0729 0.37 Q , 4+ 0 0.1085 0.43 Q 5+ 0 0.1559 0.57 Q 6+ 0 0.2051 0.59 90 7+ 0 0.2695 0.78 !Q _ 8+ 0 0.3474 0.94 10V 9+ 0 0.4212 0.89 !QV ' 10+ 0 0.8722 5.46 1 V 11+ 0 1.1728 3.64 1 QV ' 12+ 0 1.5751 4.87 1 QV 1 13+ 0 2.6194 12.64 1 i V 14+ 0 3.8119 14.43 1 i V Q i i 15+ 0 4.8789 12.91 1 i i Q V i 16+ 0 5.6655 9.52 1 i all i V Is 17+ 0 5.6892 0.29 Q i Is i Vi 18+ 0 5.7214 0.39 Q i i i Vi 19+ 0 5.7435 0.27 0 i i i V 1 20+ 0 5.7638 0.25 Q i i i Vi 21 + 0 5.7825 0.23 Q i i Is V i 22+ 0 5.7994 0.21 Q i i It Vi 23+ 0 5.8147 0.18 Q i i i V i 24+ 0 5.8282 0.16 Q i 1 1 V I lti(. June 28, 1991 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 REWYtu JUL 01 1991 CITY O1 LA VuiNTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RE: 40 Acres M/L South of 54th, east side of Madison Dear Mr. Herman, This letter is confirming the basic points of our meeting and conversations on June 12th with respect to the above referenced property, which we have given the project name "Madison Estates". The overall design concept is for a fee simple subdivision of approximately 100 10,000 sq. ft. lots M/L. The street scene and character is exemplified by an existing project in Indian Wells called the Estates at Indian Wells. There will be diminimus open space, basically along Madison in the set back area, including frontal linear retention areas, and a landscaped entry and center entry median. The only other open spaces would be the additional area required for retention. This diminimus area would be included in a tax bill financed LMD, and maintained by the City. Thus, there would be no project homeowners association. Other pcints of our discussion were as follows: 1. Park - Fees in lieu. 2. Retention - Linear to the extent possible/feasible, subject to other departments input. 3. Main Entry - Matched to PGA West, approximately center of the Madison frontage. 4. All street and other related improvements to be public. 5. Horse overlay zone adjacent to the East not objected to. 6. GPA applied for concurrent with map, zoning to be 2-4 units to the acre. Expected submission in August, likely approval in December 1991. 15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 105, San Diego, California 92128 0 (610) 487-8989 Mr. Jerry Herman June 28, 1991 Page 2 7. 55th Street not be built on southern boundary. 8. Tamarisk trees to be removed. 9. Center median on Madison to be replanted with drought tolerant plants by developer. 10. Future architecture of homes subject to City design review. 11. The city will route the proposed subdivision plan to all departments and affected agencies for comment. 12. 6' noise attenuation wall on 2'-3' berm to be required on Madison frontage only. 13. No street lights per se - subject to dark sky ordinance provisions. 14. Probable studies required: a. Archeological b. Air quality C. Traffic d. Noise e. Biological f. Storm Water Drainage Could you please take a minute to reflect on our plan, a copy of which was left with you, and see if there are any additional design or planning issues we may have overlooked. These points and any other you may raise will serve as our planning criteria for T-Map engineering which is now getting underway. Also if your understanding of any of the above points differs, would you please advise as soon as possible so we can adjust accordingly before we get too far down the road. Thanks very much. X-ckurs Truly, J hn F. usial resident JFM:ks cc: Coachella Valley Engineers September 26, 1991 Mr. Greg Trousdell La Quinta Planning Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Madison Estates (TTM 27224 Dear Mr. Trousdell, I\( HAND DELIVERED In response to your request in your letter of September 13, Seastar is submitting this Project Description/General Design Guidlines to aid in your presentation to the Planning Commission. Madison Estates was planned and designed after careful analysis of La Quintals community goals, the site and surrounding environment, and the demands of the market. The goal has been to create an upscale community with public streets, wide lots and deep front yard setbacks, geared toward the established home buyer and permanent resident. SITE AND DESIGN PLANNING Madison Estates is a 40 acre planned residential subdivision located in a resort -estate community area within La Quinta. The physical characteristics of the project site and prepared subdivision design provide cohesiveness and a "sense of place," while still maintaining individuality within an "estate type look". Though the site is relatively flat, the goal of Madison Estates site planning is to provide a sense of community, maximize views on and offsite, and honor the present development character of the area. The following objectives were the basis for planning Madison Estates: To encourage site planning sensitive to the topography, drainage and views. ° To respond to the governmental standards and respect the privacy of offsite property owners. ° To create a cohesive community while allowing individual identity. ° To provide single family residences responding to the resort -estate character of the area and allowing for flexibility to respond to changes in market demand. ° Provide a sense of community through the use of walls, landscaping and monumentations. 11 I,. i' : n,i. iC ( CML-r A % < tr +l �i man l it,,;u. ( ,ilitornio 921'_8 • Ir,l,a) 4S77 u�0 • i .i\' "I Mr. Greg Trousdell La Quinta Planning Dept. Page 2 The subdivision layout was designed to allow the long axis of building envelopes to parallel the streets. Together with the large landscaped front yard setbacks, Madison Estates intends to create a wide and open estate image similar to the Estates at Indian Wells. The individual residences, walls and landscape treatments will serve to create the image of Madison Estates. The Community will consist of single story residences not exceeding a height of 21 feet. Most likely, homes will have an average height of 18 feet from finish grade (excepting chimneys). Architecture style is planned to be a mixture of contemporary Spanish/Mediterranean and Ranch. Rooflines can be varied to break up the squareness of a plan, creating a variety of elevations. This helps to avoid repetiveness of adjacent lots when identical floor plans are used, Roofs will be sloped and roof tiles are indigenous to the architectural style desired. Residential designs will have shadow reliefs such as offsets, popouts, overhangs, and recesses. Recessed and projected openings, such as doors and windows, add articulation to wall surfaces. Combinations of roof overhangs, porch enclosures, and recesses produce interest and respond to the desert's climate conditions. While the specific size range will be determined on the basis of market conditions in the future, the range of potential residential floorplans will fall within 2,100 to 3,300 sq. ft. At this time we envision a range of 2,800 to 3,300 sq.ft. with the average home at approromately 3,000 sq. ft. Again, buildout of individual floorplans will be based on future marketing conditions. All homes are planned to have 3 or 4 bedrooms, with 2J or more baths, and 3-car or 2-car/golf cart type garages. Madison Estates will construct rear and sideyard walls of a style, material and color compatible with the community character and the architectural design of comparable residential units. MARKET Prior tc designing the proposed project and designating a product mix, Seastar commissioned a market study by Great Western's Marketing Research Department. That study recommended against a project geared toward young families with school -age children, based upon that groups negative perception of the School District. Rather, the Great Western Marketing Study recommended a project and product type geared toward mature adults, "pre -retirees" and "move down" buyers. Because of the high land costs, proximity of the project to resorts, and the problems associated with the "move -up" market for this site, our project is based upon the following *projected buyer profile: Mr. Greg Trousdell, La Quinta Planning Dept. Page 3 1--Empty Nesters (Pre -Retirees) from all areas of 30% Southern California, as well as Palm Springs 2--Retirees (From All Markets) 3--Second Home Buyers 4--Families with Children 20% 35% 15% *Conservatively based on market models; 1) The Highlands La Quinta : Second home buyers 90% 2) Laguna De La Paz : Semi -Retired 35%, Permanent Retired 65% 3) Park Mirage, only 10% Families The projected sales prices at over $300,000 will exclude younger families. The family profile is expected to be business owners and professionals in their 40's and 50's with perhaps one (1) child in the school system. However, even discounting this profile and the factor that a large percentage of these older children will be in private schools, utilizing a high (2.3) rate for families with children, this project will probably generate no more than 34 school age children or .35 students per household. At an average of 2,800 sq. ft. per home, which is lower than presently planned, Ifadison Estates will generate $433,552 in school impact fees or $4,424 per building permit. This breaks down to approximately twice the district average, while residents in the project will generate less that 15% of the district's average student age children per house. Additionally, upon buildout, Madison Estates will generate approximately $114,000 per year in property tax revenues to Cochella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) plus additional taxes for general county school administration and capital funds. The project will prove to be highly advantageous for the local school district with low demand for services and high generation of fee and tax income. The "upscale" and mature residential project will add strength and balance to the school district and will create a community that the City of La Quinta can take pride in. I hope this outline of our business plan assists in evaluating our project. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these matters further or if you have any particular questions regarding the Madison Estates project. A Trul Jhn F. usi 1 esident and General Partner, Madison Estates A California Joint Venture MADISON ESTATES DESIGN CRITERIA 1.) Entry with landscape feature/Entry statement w/island. 2.) Curvy Streets with Cul-de-sacs. 3.) Different sizes and shapes of lots. 4.) Landscape medians and wide parkway look. 5.) Linear drainage Retention basins - I.L.O. bulk acreage. 6.) Integration of walking trails and retention open spaces. 7.) Maximize East/West streets orientation - passive solar. 8.) Walking pathways where appropriate to connect between cul-de-sacs. 9.) 2nd entrance is 2nd, not alternate 1st. 10.) Traffic control thru street design. 11.) Footprint on pie shapes - a problem? 12.) Wide and shallow ranch estate footprint. 13.) Houses bordering parkway backup to street. 14.) Subdivision design as an amenity itself - create the estate feeling. 15.) Sewer pump station in S/E corner. 16.) Well site in S/W corner. 17.) City maintenance of parkway landscaping and retention basin areas via LMD (Tax bill'd landscape maintenance district) - No H.O.A. 18.) Public streets, standard criteria. OCT 0 9 1991 October 8, 1991 Mr. Jorge B. Gutierrez Executive Director, Facilities and Operations Coachella Valley Unified School District P.O. Box 847 Thermal, CA 92274 Re: GPA 91-038: ZC 91-067; TTM_27224 Dear Mr. Gutierrez, We have received copies of your correspondence related to the above referenced applications in the City of La Quinta, California, and want to take this opportunity to communicate to -you the facts and figures as we see them related to our proposed development. To begin with, our present plan for the project calls for a density of 2.5 units to the acre, with minimum 10,000 square foot lots. This is a very nominal increase from the present 2 units to the acre zoning, and considerably less than the maximum density that could be achieved for the property. While the specific size range of the houses planned for the site will be determined on the basis of future market conditions, we envision the range of potential residential floor plans as falling within 2,100 to 3,300 sq.ft. At this time, we plan to build a range of 2,800 to 3,300 sq.ft. with an average size of approximately 3,000 sq.ft. All homes are planned to have 3 or 4 bedrooms, with 2-1/2 or more baths, and 3-car or 2-car/golf cart type garages. Again however, selection of individual floor plans will be based on future market conditions. In the fall of 1990, prior to designing the proposed project and designating a product mix, Seastar commissioned a market study to aid in determining the best project plan. The market study recommended against a project geared toward young families with school -age children. Rather, the Great Western Real Estate Marketing Group recommended a project and product type geared toward mature adults, "pre -retirees" and "move down" buyers. Due to high land costs, proximity of the project to resorts, and the other considerations associated with putting a "move -up" product on this site, our project is based upon the following projected buyer profile:* 1--Empty Nesters (Pre -Retirees) from all areas of Southern California, as well as Palm Springs 30% 2--Retirees (From All Markets) 20% 3--Second Home Buyers 35% 4--Families with Children 15% 1h_,•� Bernardo Center Dri%%. Suite �It'. San Die,o, Californtz '=12� 9 t619, Fay rl,n t,7? YS -i Jorge Gutierrez October 8, 1991 Page 2 *Conservatively based on actual local market models; 1) The Highlands La Quinta : Second home buyers 90% 2) Laguna De La Paz : Semi -Retired 35%, Permanent Retired 65% 3) Park Mirage, only 10% Families The projected sales prices of over $300,000 will likely exclude younger families. As indicated above, the buyer profile is expected to be business owners and professionals in their 40's and 50's, having perhaps one (1) child in the school system. However, even discounting this profile and the factor that a larger percentage of these older children will be in private schools, if we utilize a higher (2.3) rate for home buyer families with children, this project will probably generate no more than 34 school age children or .35 students per household. At a conservative average of 2,800 sq.ft. per home, which is lower than presently planned, Madison Estates will generate $433,552 in school impact fees or $4,424 per building permit. This breaks down to more than twice the district average, while residents in the project will generate less than 15% of the district's average student age children per house. The $/student ratio ends up being nearly 17.5 times better at Madison Estates, than for the district at large. Additionally, upon buildout, Madison Estates will generate approximately $114,000 per year in property tax revenues to Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) plus additional taxes for general county school administration and capital funds. If you will take a few minutes to review the additional data in the attached exhibit, I think you will conclude, as we have, that the project will prove to be highly advantageous for the local school district with low demand for services and high generation of fee and tax income. I hope this outline of our business plan and attached additional data assist you in better understanding and evaluating the Madison Estates project and provide you with a basis for supporting our applications. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these matters further, or to answer any particular questions you may have. Yours Truly, ?ohn F. Musialanaging General Partner Madison Estates, A California Joint Venture MADISON ESTATES (Area Statistics) Median Age Data -Median Age CVUSD -Median Age of Largest City Wholely in District (Coachella 17,500) -Median Age La Quinta -Median Age of La Quinta w/in CVUSD (estm.) Housing Vacancy Rates -Coachella -La Quinta Second Home Estimate October 9, 1991 26.0 23.1 37.9 51.+ 0.5 10.6 Percentage of Total Units that are used as Second Homes: -CVUSD Total 5% -Coachella 2% -La Quinta Total 24% -La Quinta Win CVUSD 54% Median _Price Range of Homes 1991 -Coachella $ 61,975 -La Quinta $ 129,993 -CVUSD (Estimate) $ 95,000 -La Quinta w/in CVUSD (Estimate) $ 320,000 Percent of Population Age 65 and Over -Coachella 6.1% -La Quinta 19.1% -CVUSD (Estimate) 10.0% -La Quinta w/in CVUSD (Estimate) 29.4% Ove.rcrowed_Households -Coachella 33.7% -La Quinta 5.7% -CVUSD (Estimate) 20.2% -La Quinta Win CVUSD (Estimate) 1.5% Mattison Estates Area Statistics Page 2 Poo ulation Per Household -Coachella -La Quinta w/in CVUSD (Estimate) Average House Size -Coachella -La Quinta w/in CVUSD (Estimate) (Figure. would be higher excepting a of vacant condos at PGA West ranging to 1,500 sq.ft.) General Remarks 4.50 2.19 1,288 2,550 large number from 1,300 Within CVUSD the City of Coachella did not collect or pay any of the school impact fees prior to 1987. In 1990, the City of Coachella approved a project, Rancho Coachella Vinyards with 1,317 units on 258.9 acres. At that time, CVUSD estimated the project would generate 1,317 to 2,634 children (1-2 students per dwelling). The district redommended a minimum of 3-4 schools Per square mile of residential land use. Because of neveloper's fees being collected, however, the District did not project any real hardships other than the normal delays of construction of new school sites. The project proposed one (1) school site for dedication. "Ultimate development of a school at this location through some combination of land dedication and payment of school fees will reduce schools impact to insignificant levels. As homes are built, the developer fees will enable the district to lease relocatable structures to house children on a temporary basis. Utilizing the same calculations for Madison Estates: 1) 3-4 schools per residential square mile 3.5 schools per mile .22 schools per 40 acres 2) Average price of land in CVUSD less than $15,000 per acre 3) Madison Estates land is approximately S100,000/acre Madison Estates Area Statistics Page 3 District would not acquire land in Madison Estates or immediate vicinity, but if they did, land requirements from Madison Estates, based upon previous CVUSD requirements would cost 122,000. While, for a district as a whole, the figure for a similar sized parcel would only be $3,300. Madison Estates will conservatively generate $433,552 in AB 1600 fees, or $4,424 per unit. The Coachella project referred to above (which required General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes) will generate $2,036 per unit for a total of $2,680,148. OTHER FACTORS: 1. EIR for Landmark Specific projected a total school generation rate of .1 students per household (we have projected .35). *2. EIR for The Grove after citing actual figures of PGA, Santa Rosa Cove and Million Hills projected 52 students from 1,208 units. *3. Santa Rosa Cove with over 500 existing units (Desert Sands Unified) has only 14 students. *Data supplied by La Quinta Planning Staff Project in Coachella vs Madison Estates Madison Coachella Estates Unit Size 1,288 2,800 Students 2.82 .35 Fees $ 2,035 $ 4,424 Fees per Student $ 722 $12,640 Annual Property Taxes to CVUSD $ 342 $ 1,254 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-216 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-038, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. CASE NO. GPA 91-038 - MADISON ESTATES/SEASTAR WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Madison Estates/Seastar to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential for a +39 acre site, east side of Madison Street and 1 /4 miles south of 54th Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 767-320-002 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 recommending the approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. Traffic impacts caused by the implementation of General Plan Amendment 91- 038 can be mitigated to a large degree. 2. The request for a Very Low Density land use is consistent with the intent of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. This General Plan Amendment application complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of the land use changes on abutting properties. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 91-038 consisting of a Land Use Map Amendment as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. RESOPC.056 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.056 R -W . ........... . LDR 0 aj 54th Ayenue VPR Mc GC .� : ryii, T,� AVENUE 52 RR 53 - IAV[ PR 11 b4 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN 7 FVLDR] VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (0-2 DU/AC) Tc LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL \Ne AIRPORT FLDR (2-4 MAC) ol�(Ij BLVD Fm—DR] MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL cu (4-8 DU/AC) 4-3 V) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R (8 ! 2 DU/AC,- LD CD 0 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DR %0 Fm- (12� 16 DUMC) VC VILLAGE COMMERCIAL TC TOURIST 2�- COMMERCIAL ScSPECIAL COMMERCIAL _� MIXED COMMERCIAL 0S FM ic� GC] GENERAL COMMERCIAL911 Ij CP COMMERCIAL PARK M r -CASE MAP CASE No. Madison Estates/Seastar NORTH General Plan Amendment 91-038 - Request to Amend the City's Land Use Element from Very Low Density Residenti SCALE: to Low Density Residential Exhibit A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91- 067 CASE NO. CZ 91-067 - MADISON ESTATES/SEASTAR WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of October, 1991, hold a duly notice Public Hearing to consider the request of Madison Estates/Seastar for a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000, Single Family Residences to R-1 8,000 Single Family Residences on +39 acres, located on the east side of Madison Street, 1 /4 mile south of 54th Avenue; more particularly described; as: APN 767-320-002 WHEREAS, said Change of Zone 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 an Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. 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 Change of Zone. 1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Land Use Plan in accordance with the recommendation of GPA 91-038. 3. The proposed R-1 10,000 Low Density Residential zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning designations. 4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration. 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; RESOPC.055 1 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration by the La Quinta Planning Commission pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-067 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY H:ERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.055 2 R-1-20000 EQUESTRIAN EOUESTRIAN OVERLAY R-1-20000 N 52nd Avenue F-52Wd-I'Avenue R-1 c R ' WOO R-1-14000 R-a 4J 4--1 � a) 4) F i S- tn 4--1 O 20,`'OQ'0 I cn O R-1 Gj N 0 S. S- A-1-10 c 1� ?N r' 54th Av - A-1-10 - - rl "' - R-1-20,000 ct.o.-**I _ _ . .� R-2 _ R-1 R-a 20,000 ' AI PGA WEST 4J DEVELOPMENT -- '-w w S. _ Nc3 - R-2 to ct...-oer R-.1-10ac."~ R-1-10ac. i . �,.R-3 Airoort Boulevard i ♦ � NORTI CASE No. Madison Estates/Seactar Change of Zone Amendment - From R.1 20,000 Single Family SCALE: Residential to R-1 10,000 Single Family Residential EXHIBIT A PLANNING CONl1WWIISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27224 TO CREATE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON A 39+ ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 27224 - MADISON ESTATES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a subdivision of approximately 39 acres into 98 lots, and other miscellaneous lots, generally located on the east side of Madison Street approximately 1 /4 mile south of 54th Avenue, more particularly described as: PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF SECTION 15, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M. (APN 769-320-002) WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of the "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) and adopted by the City Council Resolution 83-68. The Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 27224 in conjunction with this tentative tract, thereby retaining that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said tentative tract map: 1. That Tentative Tract 27224, as conditionally recommended, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1 10,000 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is undeveloped at this time. The proposed circulation design and single family lot layouts are consistent with typical R-1 10,000 subdivisions as conditioned, therefore suitable for the proposed land division. RESOPC. 047 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 27224 will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally recommended, will not impact the existing public sewers and water improvements, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract 27224 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27224, as recommended, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas and provides storm water retention. 7. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 91- 216 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the subject Tentative Tract 27224 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.047 2 KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC. 047 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 27224 OCTOBER 22, 1991 GENERAL, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map 27224, marked Exhibit "A", shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities. b . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. c. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 4. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development Departments and Public Works Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of a 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: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Coachella Valley Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District RESOPC. 047 4 Planning Commission Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. 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. 7. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: A. Temporary construction facilities. B. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 8. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant (s) / representative (s) , shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. RESOPC.047 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 9. Street name proposals shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of an portion of the final map. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the Developer in accordance with standards of the City Engineer. Signage type and design shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning and Development Department and the Public Works Department. 10. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirement as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code, by paying parkland fees in -lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section. 11. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.) , and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 12. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department and Engineering Department prior to final map approval. 13. All exterior lighting including that for signage & landscaping shall comply with "Dark Sky" ordinance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 14. 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 an 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. RESOPC.047 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 15. Prior to recordation of the final map, Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blu.eline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 16. 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. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 17. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the city's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by the City Engineer, as follows: A. Right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B . Madison Street - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width; C . "A" Street (Madison to "H") - Divided, each side shall be 37.5 feet wide; D . On -site Through Streets - Local Street, 60-foot full width; E. On -site Cul-de-sacs, 50-foot full width. 18. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to the following street right of way (s) : A. Madison Street, 20-feet wide; B . "A" Street (Madison to "H") , 7-feet wide; 19. Applicant shall provide a fully improved 11-foot wide landscaped raised median in "A" Street between Madison and "H" Street. The median shall be a lettered lot on the subdivision map. RESOPC.047 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 20. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Madison Street from all abutting lots, except the CVWD well site. Access to Madison Street from this land division shall be restricted to street intersections only. 21. Turning movements of traffic accessing the subject subdivision from adjoining public streets shall be as follows: A . Madison Street 1. "A" street: left and right turns in and out are allowed; 2. "I" Street: right turn in and out only. 22. The median island on Madison Street shall have no opening in it to permit vehicular left turn movements into or out of the subdivision where "I" street intersects Madison Street. The access locations into the subdivision shall be approximately 635 and 1155 feet north of the southerly tract boundary. 23. Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these conditions of approval. All street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC and adopted Standard Drawings,and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by city General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base. Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with city standards and practices. This includes tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract boundaries and join the widened and existing street sections. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: A. ON -SITE STREETS 1. A street (Madison to H)- divided street, 27 feet wide between curb faces for each roadway. RESOPC.047 8 Planning Commission Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 2. A street (H to B), B, C, D, E, H, and I streets - full width Local Street, 40 feet wide, refer to Std Dwg #104; 3. F, G, and J streets - full width Local Street cul-de-sac, 36 feet wide, refer to Std Dwg #800 B . OFF -SITE STREETS - The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement ordinance which is intended to distribute the improvement cost of major thoroughfare construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land at the time the land is subdivided or developed for beneficial use. If the ordinance is adopted, all land division maps within this project shall be subject to exaction by said ordinance, provided the ordinance is adopted 60 days prior to recordation of the map. If in the event, the major thoroughfare improvement ordinance is not adopted, the off -site street improvements for this project shall be as follows: 1. Madison Street (portion contiguous to tract) Install remaining portion of Primary Arterial (86' width option) improvements, refer to Std Dwg #100. 24. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the final map is recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective fair -share construction cost, for those improvements that the Applicant has partial cost responsibility and construction must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by Applicant and City, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. 25. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 26. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. RESOPC.047 9 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 27. The tract shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining existing tracts or approved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall not exceed five (5.0) feet. If Applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the city will consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the city's intent to promote and ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 28. The tract shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that has historically received flow. 29. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum waiver depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site. 30. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed in the retention basin to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per 1000 square feet of lot area per day. 31. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 32. 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. RESOPC.047 10 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 33. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as the landscaped setback lots and retention basins until accepted by the City Engineer for maintenance by the Lighting and Landscape District. 34. Applicant shall construct an six-foot wide meandering sidewalk in the easterly parkway and landscaped setback lot along Madison Street. 35. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk. 36. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 37. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 38. 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 the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 39. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 40. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A . the engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". RESOPC.047 11 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 B . prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C . provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 41. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and install a traffic signal at the following locations: A. Madison Street at Avenue 54; 6.25% fair -share responsibility. B . Madison Street at "A" Street; 50% fair -share responsibility. SPECIAL 42. All single family homes shall be single story and no higher than 20 feet as measured from building pad elevation as noted on the approved grading plan. 43. The production plans shall be approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for construction permit issuance via a plot plan application. 44. The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet. Tract map shall be revised and submitted to the Planning and Development Department prior to final map submission. 45. The provisions of the R-1 Zoning designation shall apply unless modified herein with all homes with sloped roofs having clay or concrete tile. 46. All homes shall be required to install front yard landscaping prior to final occupancy. Each lot shall have two 15 gallon shade trees (corner lots five 15- gallon trees) , ten 5-gallon shrubs and other landscaping (e. g. , turf, turf and gravel, etc.), acceptable to the Planning and Development Department. The landscaping concept shall be approved currently with the review of the model home plans by the Planning Commission. 47. The mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-216 shall be met. 48. An equestrian trail shall be provided between the east edge of the sidewalk and the property line. The trail and the sidewalk shall be divided by a split rail fence and the trail should be eight feet wide. RESOPC.047 12 Planning Commission Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval October 22, 1991 49. The Developer shall disclose to the perspective buyers of the lots that the keeping of horses or other livestock will not be allowed. The Developer shall also disclose that he keeping of horses on abutting properties is permitted if the property is zoned R-1 20,000 or larger pursuant to the City's Municipal Zoning Code. 50. Impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section 53080 and 63995 of the Government Code or the then existing legislation and/or local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto or any applicable mitigation agreement entered into by the Developer and the District. In addition, the City, Developer and the Coachella Valley Unified School District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands or facilities to the District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation. 51. Perimeter security walls shall be subject to the following standards: A. Setback from right-of-way lines along Madison Street shall average 20 feet. B . All wall designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. C . Perimeter wall designs shall incorporate noise abatement requirements. RESOPC.047 13 it C\2 ilia bb 3 .-- -- E--4 •. U ° t E-4 Y _ va bl. us v - a SNV3VA s ' a a s _ s a. �q a� s�j• ai I .j. ua,s • :a: � • M � 0 ' I it, it g E •�•j�i �- I i i= R 'tt•14a ., �. , .w. , 0 C"Iz ON S�1/M1 : ISM VU 1 B9-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991, CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 83,1991 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 APPLICANT: NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH ALLOWS SUBDIVISION OF 269± ACRES INTO 276 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the meeting of October 8, 1991, due to a concern regarding; the status of the overall project. The project Developers have had a financial problem for a while. The Developer and City signed a Development Agreement in 1985, which vests the project. The City in return receives an annual payment consideration. The payment which was due on February 2, 1991, has yet to be paid. The City has sent the Developer a letter requiring the payment by November 17, 1991. If the payment is not received by then, the City intends to terminate the Development Agreement. If the agreement is terminated, any time extensions or amendment requests could be denied or modified, as appropriate. Staff feels this request should be continued until the November 26, 1991, meeting to see whether the payment is made. RECOMMENDATION: Continue this request to the meeting of November 26, 1991. Attachments: 1. Staff report dated October 8, 1991. PCST.018 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1991 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 APPLICANT: NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH ALLOWS SUBDIVISION OF 269+ ACRES INTO 276 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT BACKGROUND: This tract is located within the Pyramids project, also known as Specific Plan 84-004. The tract creates 276 single family lots, 6 golf course lots and various other street and landscape buffer lots. The tract creates lots on the westerly half of the specific plan area. To date only the golf course that runs within this tract area has been developed . ORIGINAL APPROVAL: This tentative- tract was approved by the City Council on June 6, 1989, subject to conditions. Those conditions are attached for your review. Although some work has begun on the final map recordation, it has not been completed. Therefore, the Applicant's have requested this time extension. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: A Development Agreement has been recorded on the property. This Development Agreement allows development of the property in accordance with the provisions of Specific Plan 84-004, Parcel Map 20489 (now recorded) and Change of Zone 84-014. Any new Conditions of Approval for subsequent tract maps, etc. , must be consistent with the Conditions of Approval for the specific plan and other original approvals. In return the City receives a $40,000 per year payment consideration. ANALYSIS: Staff feels that there are no required changes necessary for this tentative tract map at this time. PCST.018 1 001 FINDINGS: Findings for justification of a recommendation for approval of the First One Year Extension of Time for this tentative tract map can be made and are found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 91- , recommend to the City Council concurrence of the First One Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract 24545. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter of request 3. Tentative Tract 24545 (reduced copy) 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 91- PCST.018 qORTH STAR CALIFORNIA . CORPORATION September 6, 1991 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Tentative Tract Map 24545 First Extension Dear Mr. Herman: RECEIVtu SEP 0 6 ioo- call v ur- ui yujNTA °CANNING & DEVELOPMENT OUT. Through our conversations of last week, it came to our attention that The Pyramids Tentative Tract Map 24545 expired June 6, 1991. Please find enclosed our application for an extension for Tentative Tract Map 24545. Mr. Tom Thornburgh applied to the City of La Quinta for a revision to his Specific Plan and Development Agreement for Tract Map 25154, to incorporate his tract into The Pyramids development. We thought that Mr. Thornburgh, at the time of his request, made application for an extension to The Pyramids tract, along with payment of the required fee. We apologize for this confusion. We trust everything is now in order. Should there be any problems, please advise. We thank the City of La Quinta in advance for its cooperation and assistance with this matter. Sincerely, NOP.TH STAR CAL'zronmu-% CC�RPCRAT:O?: Pamela L. fek�ny4 Development Coordinator enc. cc: Mr. David W. Beaver Mr. Tom Thornburgh w/o enc. Files 78371 HIGHWAY 111 - O O u to ouwTA. cAl roRMA 92253 (619) 564-25M cnv ra+o1 SRA_7r19".7 02 A S E M A F CASE Nm TT 24545 LOCATION MAP SCALE: NTS I It tit t6 q PLANNING COMMSSION RESOLUTION 91-, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 WHICH ALLOWS THE CREATION OF A 276 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A +269 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 24545, EXT. #1 - NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 23rd day of May, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended to the City Council approval of said tentative tract request of Northstar California Corporation, Inc. , to subdivide 269+ acres into 276 single family development lots, generally located east of Washington Street, north of 50th Avenue, south of 48th Avenue, and west of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, AND PORTIONS OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6th day of June, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map 24545 and approved said application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of October, 1991, recommend approval of a One Year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 24545, to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5) , in that a Negative Declaration has been certified and the proposed tentative tract Time Extension will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, at said meeting, 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 tentative tract map extension: 1. That Tentative Tract 24545, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposal complies with the requirements, R-2 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. RES©PC.051 2. That the topography of the site is suitable for the proposed land division, circulation design, and single-family lot layouts. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 24545 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will mitigate this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 24545 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the Tentative Tract 24545, as conditioned, provided for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the Tentative Tract 24545, as conditioned, provided storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the tentative tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan and the prior EIR with addendum. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map Extension, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources. 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 Planning Commission in this matter; 2. That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination relative to the environmental concerns for this Tentative Tract Time Extension; and, 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract 24545 Time Extension subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: REsoPC.051 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.051 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 OCTOBER 8, 1991 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with Exhibit "B", the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 84-004, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedent in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the Specific Plan conditions. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 24545 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. 3. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 4. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land 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 the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 6. Per Condition No. 11 of the Specific Plan Conditions, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the following improvements as requested by Sunline Transit: o A bus turnout and passenger waiting shelter shall be provided on Washington Street. The shelter could be built by the Developer or the Developer may make arrangements with Frank Jones and Sunrise Media to install a shelter with advertising. Maintenance is the responsibility of the Developer. o Sunline has suggested standards for bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters and are willing to work with the City and the Developer to create a mutually -acceptable design. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -1- Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 24545-Extension #1 October 8, 1991 7. Per Condition No. 15 of the Specific Plan, the Applicant/ Developer shall construct road lots A, F, I, L, and R with a minimum 36-foot pavement width, the rest of the private roads shall be constructed gith a minimum 32-foot pavement. 8. Per Condition No. 34 of the Specific Plan, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Fire Marshal's requirements: a. Schedule A fire -protection -approved Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") shall be located one 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 1,000 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI. b. 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. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." C. 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. d. Lots "N", "O", and "S" exceed the maximum allowable length for dead-end roads and shall be provided with a connecting through road so that cul-de-sac does not exceed 1,320 feet; or require fire sprinkler systems on those houses along the cul-de-sacs, subject to final approval by the Fire Marshal. e. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum 45-foot curb -to -curb radius turnaround. f. Entry streets constructed with gates and without 24-hour guard staffing shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system. Gates shall be operable during power failures by human hands without special knowledge or force. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -2- Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 24545-Extension #1 October 8, 1991 g. Medians constructed at entry streets shall have a minimum setback of 30 feet from the curb face of the connecting streets. h. Driveways for lots 68, 90, 92, and 127 shall be improved to withstand the loads of fire apparatus, and provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. I. A permanently mounted, illuminated address monument shall be installed adjacent to the driveway entrances for Lots 68, 90, 92 and 127. J. Requirements during phasing: The road improvements shall be constructed as required with each phase so that dead-end streets do not exceed 1,320 feet in length. k. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicant/Developer shall deposit a sum of $100,000 as prepayment of fire mitigation fees. 1. An emergency vehicle control override system shall be installed on each traffic signal that the Applicant/Developer is required to install or alter. Installation shall meet the specifications and approval of the Road and Fire Departments. M. If public -use -type building(s) are to be constructed, additional fire protection may be required. The fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Department. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -3- Bi-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 91-157 APPLICANT: OUTDOOR MEDIA GROUP; MR. WARREN HALE (FOR QUINTERRA) LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND LOS MANOS DRIVE REQUEST: TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY MODEL HOME DIRECTIONAL SIGN (4 FEET TALL X 8 FEET WIDE X 10 FEET HIGH) FOR THE QUINTERRA TRACT. THE SIGN EXCEEDS THE CITY'S HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. BACKGROUND: Tract 23913 was approved in November, 15, 1988. The model homes are presently on display and open to the public. The Developer is constructing homes ranging in size from 2,100 to 2,600 square feet. The homes range from $189,000 to $240,000. The production homes are under construction. The Applicant has installed a double-faced sign without a permit. The existing flags were approved under a separate permit (SAD 91-015). TEMPORARY SIGN ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: "Model Home Complex Identification Sign. Said signs may be displayed only after a building permit is obtained and must be removed after new home sales are completed. Said sign may have a maximum of fifty square feet of sign area, a maximum height of five feet for freestanding signs and must be located below the roofline when attached to wall. Two signs may be permitted; one at the major access street, and the other adjacent to the model complex." SIGN ADJUSTMENT: The :sign contractor is requesting a Sign Adjustment to permit the sign to remain at ten feet in height versus five feet, as stated above. The :Location, size.and colors of the sign are not an issue, however, the height of the sign is. The Planning Commission can grant this type of request if it is determined that the adjustment is needed to: A. To overcome a disadvantage as a result of an exceptional setback between the street and the sign or orientation of the sign location; STAFFRPT.061/CS -1- B. To achieve an effect which is essentially architectural, sculptural, or graphic art; C. To permit more sign area in a single sign than is allowed, but less than the total allowed the site, where a more orderly and concise pattern of signing will result; D. To allow a sign to be in proper scale with its building or use; E. To allow a sign compatible with other conforming signs in the vicinity; and F. To establish the allowable amount and location of signing when no street frontage exists or when, due to an unusual lot shape (e.g. flag lot), the street frontage is excessively narrow in proportion to the average width of the lot. LOCATION DISCUSSION: The sign is located on the southerly portion of the project site abutting the storm water retention area. The landscaped retention basin is presently in place and the basin is fenced with a six foot high enclosure. The sign is located between the fence and the existing five foot wide meandering sidewalk. SURROUNDING TEMPORARY SIGNS: The Planning Commission has permitted size and height adjustments on a case -by -case basis. The Planning Commission has allowed temporary signs to approximately eight to ten feet in overall height to assist the Developers in advertising their product line. STAFF' COMMENTS: Staff' is not opposed to the proposal of the Developer. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Planning Commission approve the temporary model home sign subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit A). Attachments: 1. Sign Application 2. Sign Graphics STAFFRPT.061/CS -2- SIGN APPLICATION 91-157 OCTOBER 22, 1991 CONDITIONS: EXHIBIT A 1. The sign shall be a minimum of 17 feet from each respective street. 2. The applicant shall remove the sign within one year or at such time as the Model complex is converted and/or sold. 3. The applicant shall pay $90.00 to finalize the permit process. STAFF'RPT.061/CS -3- r VIOLC-T M tAAV E TEA t- VIOL&T A P �Ut- A1�V-A]II A. LANI - m �j co r U OL N ..„ v w it N N � � -- N N � Ln rn Nt o o�. QD A coco 'a37 `r) ��� � br1F1W Q rR,`o A N � Cif � CD Ck vi oc J _ o CO d ti ti'1Ve Q (� r r co N O � CO J m GO 14CD Q rIQ c o co 1 4 d' ` Ao J Py�SE ! r 80 1 JJ Model r _ I � Home E3) ° Model Home Qio=� a 0Model r-j Q.. �? .q Ho e Q/00=43.2 1a•-� .ST ,vr�Q Landscaped Parkway Street Centerline.- -Tract Boundary Nor- BI-3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 91-155 (TT 23935) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS APPLICANT: GWR DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (TOPAZ) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: APPLICATIONS FOR SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA (SECTION 15311, CLASS 11) BACKGROUND: 1. Tentative Tract 23953 was approved by the City Council on February 7, 1991. The First One Year Extension of Time was approved April 16, 1991. 2. The Applicant has made an application for two temporary model home complex signs on their site. The requested signs are approximately 40 square feet in area and 9-feet high (including a 1-foot stand). The Ordinance allows signs 50 square feet in size and 5-feet high. 3. These signs, already in existence, were originally utilized as "future facility" construction signs. 4. The Sign Ordinance allows for approval of a sign adjustment by the Planning Commission for additional height "to permit additional height to overcome a visibility disadvantage". ANALYSIS: 1. An application for a higher model home complex sign than that allowed by the Sign Ordinance has been approved in the past. This sign was for the Cactus Flower project on the southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Fred Waring Drive. It should be noted that only one sign higher than 5-feet (10-feet) was approved by the City Council for the above project (TT 23982 - Cactus Flower). STAFFRPT.063/CS -1- 2. The Applicant has requested two signs with additional height. Staff recommends that one sign with additional height (9-feet) be approved. The second sign (the Sign Ordinance allows 2 signs in total for model home complex signage) should conform to the size and height requirement of the ordinance. 3. In accordance with the Sign Ordinance one sign can be located at the major access street (Dune Palms Road) and the other sign adjacent to the model home complex. Staff recommends that the Applicant choose which location the 9-foot sign be placed. The other sign will then conform with the Sign Ordinance of 5-feet height limit. 4. Staff feels that the approval of one 9-foot high sign will not constitute a traffic hazard or nuisance to the adjacent surrounding properties or to the public at large. The higher sign will also allow better visibility for traffic traveling along Dune Palms Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve by Minute Motion Sign Application 91-155 as recommended in the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachment: 1. Locality Plan 2. Proposed sign STAFFRFT.063/cS -2- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SIGN APPLICATION 91-155 OCTOBER 22, 1991 1. Two signs are approved, each a maximum of 50-square feet, one a maximum of 9-feet high, the other a maximum of 5-feet high. 2. Both of these signs must be removed once all new home sales have been completed in Tentative Tract 23935. 3. One sign shall be located on Dune Palms Road or at the corner of Dune Palms Road and Miles Avenue. The other sign shall be located adjacent to the model complex. 4. The signs shall not be located less than 5-feet from a public or private street right-of-way (i.e. 17 feet from curb on Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road) or located within the corner cutback area. 5. The 9-foot high sign shall be in accordance with Exhibit "A" as shown in the Planning & Development Department file. The wording and design of the 5-foot high sign shall be approved by the Planning & Development Department. 6. Building permits shall be obtained for the signs from the Building and Safety Department prior to installation. STAFFRPT.063/CS -3- ATTACHMENT No.1 W" A . • so s • • >K ■ • . IS • 1 11 It 1 IT • / ORIS 1 • i ;; I16 e 1 n ts _. 0 a ,• =1 ■ • � ! u to » a. 14 » >N A``("a 1 » is 17 1 00 IN a 0» s 0 n I v _ 1 /1 1. toI e Ie q 1 • 1. P Ie 1 • f • • IS 11 ----- I 1 1 13If t. to d t. _ r 1 e a = 1 • . 1 �� _ r. - —sinew- 1 _►p0 0 Iw cvffi S+" j-ATTiCHMENT No.2 bs ` a %+ a 1 4 �-�7.-H•�• BI-4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1991 OWNER: CHONG B. LEE ENGINEER/ APPLICANT: FERGUSON ENGINEERING PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 24950, AMENDMENT #1; REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 24950; REQUEST FOR FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXPANSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT WHICH SUBDIVIDES +9 ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE-FAMILY SALES LOTS. LOCATION: NORTH EAST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1). GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY (2-4 DU/AC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89-138 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR TT 24950. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MAY OCCUR DUE TO THE PROPOSAL, AND MITIGATION MEASURES MADE A PART OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL WILL REDUCE THESE IMPACTS TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS ADOPTED. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST, THEREFORE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED. NET DENSITY: 4.29 UNITS PER ACRE (NET ACREAGE=8.63 ACRES) LOT SIZES: MINIMUM LOT SIZE _ + 7,200 SQUARE FEET (7200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED - SEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) AVERAGE LOT SIZE _ + 7,525 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM LOT SIZE _ +10,000 SQUARE FEET DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: ON -SITE RETENTION OF 100-YEAR STORM FLOW REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED CS/S'PAFFRPT.058 - 1 - ON -SITE CIRCULATION: PUBLIC STREETS PROPOSED. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE FROM DUNE PALMS. THE ROAD SYSTEM ALLOWS FOR ACCESS LINKS TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NORTH AND EAST OF THIS PROJECT. INTERNAL CIRCULATION CONSISTS OF A CUL-DE-SAC SERVED BY A COLLECTOR STREET. OFF -SITE CIRCULATION: MILES AVENUE - DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL AT 110 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH AN 18-FOOT-WIDE RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN. DUNE PALMS - DESIGNATED AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL AT 88 FEET TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. BACKGROUND: 1. Tentative Tract 24950 was approved by the City Council on October 3, 1989. Tentative Tract 24950, Amendment #1, was approved by City Council on April 17, 1990. 2. To date no final map activity has been completed on this site. 3. The Applicant has made a request for a First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 24950, for a period of one year. ANALYSIS: 1. Comments on this Extension of Time request were received from the United States Postal Service, CVWD and the Fire Department. Both CVWD and the Fire Department letters contained comments already stated and taken into account at the time of original approval of this subdivision. Comments by the United States Postal Service were not considered at time of tentative tract approval. The centralized mail delivery units required by the United States Postal Service can be accommodated in the parkway provided on the subdivision map. 2. Staff has no required changes to the existing Conditions of Approval for TT 24950. It is therefore felt that the Conditions of Approval for TT 24950 are acceptable and should be attached to the approval of this First Time Extension. 3. If this First Extension of Time is approved for the subject tract the new expiration date will be October 3, 1992. CS/STAFFRPT.058 - 2 - FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of TT 24950 Amendment #1, First Extension of Time can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution 91- _, recommend to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract Map 24950 Amendment #1, First Extension of Time subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tentative Tract 24950 3. Comments from United States Postal Service 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ CS/S96'AFFRPT.058 - 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 24950 AMENDMENT #1, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME CASE NO. TT 24950 AMENDMENT #1 - CHONG B. LEE WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th day of September, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Chong B. Lee to subdivide +9 acres into single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 3rd day of October, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and reconnnendation of the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract. 24950 and make findings to justify the approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of March 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Chong B. Lee concerning Tentative Tract 24950 Amendment #1; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 17th day of April 1990, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract: 24950 Amendment #1, and make findings to justify the approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, CS/RESOPC.027 - 1 - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of October, 1991, considered a request of the Applicant for the first one year extension of time; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map, First Extension of Time: 1. That Tentative Tract 24950, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes with the west/central area being the lowest part of the site. The proposed circulation design and single-family lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 24950 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 24950 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 24950, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 24950, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. CS/RESOPC.027 - 2 - WHEREAS, in the review of this amended Tentative Tract, Map, First Extension of Time, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 89-138 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative Tract Map 24950 Amendment #1, First Extension of Time, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California CS/RESOPC.027 - 3 - U11fl I RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA QUINTA W W cc H N co 2 IK MILES AVENUE FR ATTACHMENT No. 1 INDIO i /,////////!� Ir/////rrD/ltlflil{111181111Ulilllllt141 r q/fir/fir/r"if rill ualln►t11111,1114` MAP LOCATION • 24950 CZ 89-138 O LO d- NWG 3 a F� Z Z O Q LL o O m m In LL LL I O= W Of I.a ►- Z V' Q J U W W Yl = LL W ~ a F x \ a 00 F / m Z N Z N W U Q Q W II N H 0 a z Z Q t.j W O F— s t a� ATTACHMENT No. d 1 1• C E .�� i oQTESPOST,_ ATTACHMENT No. 3 ui m F � Z tl�&RWL m United States Postal Service Case NO: tt 24950 7-23-7,1 The United States Postal Service requests that the final map shall show easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department. Z/S- R S &&OT(A AAnsge, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 24950 AMENDMENT #1, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME OCT013ER 22, 1991 A.. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 24950 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -1- A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/ representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land 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 the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 6. The Applicant shall construct or bond for half street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: a. Miles Avenue shall be constructed to City standards for a 110-foot right-of-way width (Primary Arterial), with an 18-foot raised median island, six-foot sidewalk, and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -2- b. Dune Palms Road shall be constructed to City standards for an 88-foot right-of-way width (Secondary Arterial), with a curb -to -curb width of 64 feet, with a five-foot sidewalk and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. Dune Palms Road shall be designed for ultimate grade from Fred Waring Drive to Miles Avenue, and constructed adjacent to Tract 24950, and as necessary for reasonable transitions and surface drainage requirements. C. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (tract map) for TT 24950, with a six-foot sidewalk and two -percent slope. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed for a 50-foot right-of-way with 36-foot width curb -to -curb and a five-foot utility easement on both sides of the street. The cul-de-sac turnaround shall be per City standards. Lot "A" shall be designed for a 60-foot right-of-way, with a curb -to -curb width of 40 feet. Any variations to the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 7. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements (i.e., City of Indio). B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 8. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall submit a proposal to the Planning Commission, for recommendation to the City Council, for meeting parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code. The proposal for dedication shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 0.32 acres, as determined in accordance with said Section. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and CS/CONAPRVL.003 -3- other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 10. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Development Department. 11. Owner shall execute and record a "Declaration of Dedication" in a form acceptable to the City and offering the dedication of drainage retention basin(s) and hardscape buffer areas to the City for future acceptance and maintenance. In the interim, the owners shall maintain the basin(s) and perimeter landscaping and provide bond assurance accordingly. 12. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water retention areas via one of the following methods prior to final map approval: a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Miles Avenue. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -4- (3) Ten -foot perimeter parkway lot along Dune Palms Road. 13. The Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the CC & Rs. 14. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 15. The approval herein contemplated by the City Council is related to Change of Zone No. 89-047, and no final map of the proposed subdivision shall be recorded prior to the effective date of an ordinance changing the official zoning classification of the subject property to R-1. Grading and Drainage 16. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 17. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. 18. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. 19. Any earthwork on contiguous properties required a written authorization from the owner(s) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -5- 20. Drainage retention basin(s) shall be designed to retain the 100-year storm (24 hour) on -site within the basin, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Retention basin size shall be adequate to provide required "storage" without use of street area for storage. Basin in excess of six-foot water depth shall be fully fenced (security) with lockable gate(s). The location of the retention basin is subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. If the Applicant is unable to retain all run-off from the 100-year storm, he shall obtain a letter from the landowner receiving the flow stating that he accepts the flow and release the Applicant from his responsibilities to retain said flow. Traffic and Circulation 21. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan), shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). C. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the Developer in accordance with City standards. 22. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of -way. 23. The Applicant shall obtain a 10-foot right-of-way easement over the property to the east of the subject site, alongside Lot "B", for street construction and emergency parking purposes unless an alternative arrangement is approved by the Engineering Department. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -6- Tract Design 24. A minimum 20-foot and 10-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road respectively. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average's if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 12, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 25. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. Walls, Fencinq, Screeninq, and Landscapin 26. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. CS/CONAPRVL.003 -7- 27. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 28. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 29. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees (five trees on a corner) and an irrigation system. C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 30. Prior to the issuance of a 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: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District CS/CONAPRVL.003 -8- Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 31. 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. 32. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150-feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20-feet in height. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for the approval a drawing showing the location of any units higher than one story located along Miles Avenue frontage. 33. The Applicant shall pay a 18.75 percent share of all fees necessary for signalization costs at the corner of Miles Aenue and Dune Palms Road. 34. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 35. The Developer shall construct landscaping and irrigation systems for drainage retention basin(s) and perimeter areas. The Developer shall maintain the drainage basin(s) and perimeter areas for one year following dedication acceptance by the City. 36. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of TT 24950 and EA 89-138, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of EA 89-138 and TT 24950 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating CS/CONAPRVL'.003 -9- compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigations measures of EA 89-138 and TT 24950. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. Traffic and Circulation 37. The termination point of the street shown as Lot "B" on Exhibit A (Tentative Tract Map), shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. If the road network for the adjoining tracts have been constructed and completed, then the above streets shall be constructed to connect with these subdivisions, in accordance with the approved street improvement plans and the requirements of the City Engineer. Public Services and Utilities 38. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 39. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. 40. All on -site and off -site utilities will be installed underground and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. CS/CCNAPRVL.003 -10-