Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1991 11 12 PC
Wil(y 10/ ya 2afenla PLANNXNG COMKI3SION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California November 12, 1991 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 91-053 Beginning Minute Motion No. 91-045 CALL TC:) ®RDE R — Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ................ CONTINUED - PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 AND VARIANCE 91-018 Applicant ........... La Quinta Christian Fellowship -Pastor Mark Collins 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 0.74 acre site. A new 3,553 square foot church building is proposed. 2. Variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 23 feet; and B) To postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project. Action .............. Recommendation to continue PC/AGENDA. 1 2. Item ................ CONTINUED - 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 ................ PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 & GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-039 Applicant .......... Valley Land Development Location ............ Northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Washington Street. Request ............. A change in the boundaries for the zoning classification and a new zoning classification and land use designation for a portion of the property adjacent to Washington Street. Action .............. Recommendation to continue 4. Item ................ SPECIFIC PLAN 88-012 & TENTATIVE TRACT 23995 Applicant ........... A. G . Spans Construction Company. Location ............ Area between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street, and the Whitewater Channel. Request ............. Approval of First One Year Time Extension. Action .............. Resolution 91- , 91- Item ............... VARIANCE 91-020 Applicant ........... Jack Sobelman Location ............ 52-815 Avenida Martinez. Request ............. Approval of a Variance to the maximum building height in the SR Zone for a residence under construction. Action .............. Resolution 91- 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. PC/AGENDA BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 91-002 Applicant ........... Wilma Pacific, Inc. Location ............ Within Tract 26152. Request ............. Setting the date to consider a street name change. Action .............. Resolution 91- 2. Item ................ MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT 91-032 Applicant ........... Thunderbird Artists -Jude Combs Location ............ Southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street Request ............. Amendment to Condition of Approval regarding Fine Art Shows at Plaza La Quinta shopping center. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held October 6, 1991, and October 22, 1991. OTHER. At the request of the Planning Commission, Staff has prepared a survey regarding building height determinations within the City. ADJOURNMENT ----------------------------------------------------------- STUDY SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1991 CMCELLED Pc/AGTNDA, 3 PSI# 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM 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 0.74 ACRE SITE. A NEW 3,553 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED. THE VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW: 1) INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT TO 23 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 CHRISTIAN 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: 0.74 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. STAFFRPT.065/CS -1- DRAINAGE CONS]:DERATIONS: 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 199.1: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the above project on October 22, 1991. At this meeting approximately 5 members of the public spoke for and six against the project. A petition against the project was submitted at the meeting (attached). Letters of objection were also received and are attached to the Staff report. The Planning Commission continued the above project until November 12, 1991, to allow additional consideration of the request. B. 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. C. 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. STAFFRPT.065/CS -2- 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. 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 11to 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. D. ANALYSIS: 1. Recent similar applications: Two church proposals have been approved by the City of La Quinta in recent years, both located in the northern area of La Quinta. Staff has applied similar conditions and requirements to these applications and the public use permit now under discussion. STAFFRPT.065/CS -3- 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, 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. STAFFRPT.065/CS -4- 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. 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. It should be noted that a landscaping plan was approved for the existing church in 1973 by the County of Riverside as part of the original approval for this project. This landscaping plan was never complied with. Condition of Approval #16 attached to the approval of this project requires that the applicant comply with Plot Plan 1525 and the attached landscaping plan. STAFFRPT.065/CS -5- 8. Existing School: The Applicant states that at present there are 25 children at the school and enrollment varies between 19 and 25 children. The existing facilities limits the school to 25 children. a) Licensing: State Code requires that all private schools file a private school affidavit with the appropriate county office. Staff has requested that the applicant provide a copy of the above affidavit. Staff recommends that no decision be made regarding PUP 91-008 until the above state requirements have been complied with. b) Zoning: The original approval of the church by the county in 1973 did not include the school. The school was established approximately 8 years ago, without city and apparently county approval. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance requires the submittal of a Public Use Permit Application for educational institutions. The applicant has argued that the school forms part of the church activities and therefore does not need to be dealt with as a seperate issue. However, now that an application to expand the church has been made, Staff feels the school should be made part of the Public Use Permit Application. It should be stated that in any event the impact of a 25 children school would have the same impact on a neighborhood whether it was affiliated to a church or not. Staff recommends that the City Attorney be consulted or the above zoning issue before any action is taken on Public Use Permit 91-008. 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. STAFFRPT.065/CS -6- 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 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. STAFFRPT.065/CS -7- 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 CVWD 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, Dane 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 feels that Public Use Permit 91-008 cannot be considered until the licensing and zoning issues regarding the existing school are resolved or considered concurrently. G. RECOMMENDATION Staff' recommends that the Planning Commission continue the above matter until the school licensing and zoning issues are resolved or considered concurrently. The following options are also open to the Planning Commission: - Approve the Public Use Permit and Variance application. - Approve the Public Use Permit and deny the Variance application. - Deny the Public Use Permit and Variance application. It should be noted that the City Attorney has stated that the Planning Commission can deny the Public Use Permit on the grounds that they feel that the expansion of this use is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. STAFFRPT.065/CS -8- If the Planning Commission wishes to take any action other than continuing the above matter they can direct Staff to prepare the necessary resolutions. Staff requests that the Planning Commission adopt findings for the resolutions to justify any action taken. 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 S. Letter from CVWD dated September 9, 1991 9. Letters opposing this project including petition submitted 10/22/91 10. Extract from Design Review Board meeting October, 1991 STAFFRPT.065/CS -9- '^ � o ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ` � •e.es 66 O O JJ n 4 O.d3Ae � t* •i � ins st � O 6 rod ect si f. N 46 z - 63 O7 , 1e �7t•fl� � v e 45 � 64 3 O " OIRTH Vt� ova•+e�y�te•/MY•N A►�r• �� ATTACHMENT No. 3 rA/14 W t~- N ATTACHMENT No. 4 8c- I O O [. Background ATTACHMENT No. 5 Environmental Assessment No.ij---09 Case No. P? & P 9/-CD, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM t. Name of Proponent Lak !spyt^JfiA GAtki STZ. o.4 f=r="cDw c." V 2G 1{ 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent -S3 -- Sexes C,o, tj-a S>r9=1&-%4 �. ®.max �"T•� L^y rN-11A, 53 3. Date Checklist Prepared�I 1 4. Agency Requiring Checklist �� �a ll�.s , T S. Name of Proposal, if applicable [I. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO L. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? YY 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. 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, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? YES 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. water. will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? MAYBE NO X X_. X X X x YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, & aquatic plants)? J /� 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? &.of' g w er-e. 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? 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? 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? 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 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 water 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). sec ak.++a0J-CA 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? YES 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.) Att''_' - e.d MAYBE NO X X FA1 IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature of Preparer 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 wail 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). CS/DOCGL.007 - 2 - 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. CS/DOCGL.007 - 3 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 a. This development will increase the rate of use of natural resources. The effect will however be gradual and proportionately very small. 10. Risk of Upset. No impact. No hazardous substances are proposed. 11. Population - This project does not permanently house any people. 12. Housing 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. CS/DOCGL.007 - 4 - IV. 14. 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. 15. Energy. No impact. This is a small development and will not utilize a substantial amount of fuel or energy. 15. Utilities The development will connect to existing utility services and comply with any requirements each utility agency will have. 17. Human Health. No impact. This development does not create any health hazard. No toxic chemicals, etc., are produced. 5twavit- i S 11 � f, �41k 18. 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 fe4 , 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. 19. 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 information, this project will have no great effect on the environment subject to the discussed mitigation measures. CS/DOCGL.007 - 5 - ATTACHMENT No. 6 1�-- RIVERSIDE COUNTY CO oNTY � FIRE DEPARTMENT RIVERS/DE :.. 0 1.04 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 - (714) 657-3183 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To. City of La Quinta Planning Department ATTN: Glenda Lainis August 29, 1991 k?lEce tuts. SEP Or, 10W Re: Public Use Permit 91-008 CITY ur LM VUINTK This letter supercedes Fire Department letter dated March 17;LI IC, R OEVELORU"T DEPZ 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 2}" 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 2A10BC 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 0 INDIO OFFICE ❑ TEMECUTA OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 923A1 (619) 342MM • FAX (619) 775.2072 0 RIVERSIDE OFFICE(714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 3760 I2th Strcn, Riverside, CA 92501 1114 . • _ -- ATTACHMENT No. 7 IRRIGAI 1UN U1 tR111 COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81.600 AVENUE S8 P. O. BOX 1080 • LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (619) 398.6811 FAX (619) 398-S848 PD-DDC July 5, 1991 City of La Quinta Development Review Committee 78-105 Calle Estado LIT Y►t �: ; La Quinta, Calif. 92253 1 111NTH 41 NT nrp7 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, THOMAS G. HILL Superintendent, Distribution Coachella Valley Divison LQChurch.LTR City of i.a Quim C ATTACHMENT No. 8 . btP 13 1991 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTR16VBLIC WORD POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&26r: DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER C� =� ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SLT-:'. SECRETARY DOROTHYM NICHOLS September 9, 1991 OWENMCCOOKASSISTANT GE%i�1MANAGER THEODORE J. FISH REDWINE AND SHERD __ ATTORNEYS File: 0163�.1` ce V City of La Quinta , err. Post Office Box 1504 SEP La Quinta, California 92253 �� L.N tJU'NTA 'LANN1�0 !� 0� Gentlemen: npEUlpm`W OEM 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 regulaticr.s 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 bailey Water District for sanitation service. 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 om Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:lg/e9 cc: Don Park Riverside County DepartmentTRUE CONSERVATION of Public Health USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT No. 9 LETTERS OPPOSING THE PROJECT May 17, 1991 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 meets 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. it 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 Quinta 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 La Quinta 78--105 Calle Estado La Quints, Ca 92253 Attn: Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director Dear Mr. Herman, OCT 10 1991 Y 41F .tA 0 ."M IA 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 plan 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, -Dane Hooper 78-620 Ave. Tujunga La Quinta, Ca 92253 (619) 564 1976 2 --..� 50-645 Calle Quito La Quinta, Ca 92253 OCT 15 1991 October 14, 1991 El 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 fact 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 eery 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, J4 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 Rice 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 needied 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. DRBMIM-10/2 3 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. DRBMIN-10/2 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 NOVEMBER 12, 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 andior 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 o California Department of Education 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. C©NAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVEMBER 12, 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. The existing school has a maximum of 25 children. 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 NOVEMBER 12, 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. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Plot Plan 1525 as approved by the Riverside County on June 20, 1972. 17. 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. CONAPRVL.038 3 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVNMB]ER 12, 1991 18. 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. 19. The Applicant shall comply with the La Quinta Outdoor Light Control Ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 20. 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) (611 x 4" x 2 1 / 2T1 x 2 1 / 211) located not less than 251 nor more than 1651 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. 21. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 22. 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. 23. Prior to issuance of grading permit applicant shall post an approved form of security in guarantee of grading and environmental control. CONAPRVL.038 4 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVEMEER .12, 1991 24. Applicant shall fully landscape and maintain all street right of way contiguous to the site. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. The parking lot and drives shall be improved in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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. CONAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVEMBER 12, 1991 33. 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. 34. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC . 35. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Callle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. 36. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. 37. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. CONAPRVL.038 6 PH#2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM 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. STAFFRPT.064/CS -1- 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. 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 include 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: 1.) An encroachment permit is required same as Condition VA. 2.) The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning or at a time stipulated by the Engineering Department. 3.) The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. STAFFRPT.064/CS -2- 4.) 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). 5.) 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. 6.) In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a minute or two, applicant shall arrange temporary detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's Deputies. 7.) We request that the procession enter Washington from the frontage road rather than attempt the 90-degree turn from Highland Palms onto Washington. 8.) 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: This Department states the following: 1. The moving contractor must be licensed by the State (C-21 Classification). STAFFRPT.064/CS -3- 2. Building permit and plan review are required. 3. The house must tie into the sewer system, both existing septic systems must be abandoned. 4. New electrical service must be underground. 5. 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. 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. STAFFRPT.064/CS -4- 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. C. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the house moving permit is acceptable with the attachment of conditions that address all the issues mentioned above. D. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1991: At the Planning Commission meeting held October 22, 1991, Staff informed the Commission that the Applicant had not yet paid the application fee for this project. The Public Hearing was therefore continued until November 12, 1991, to allow more time for the Applicant to pay the fee. As of the time of writing the Staff report for November 12, 1991, Planning Commission meeting the application fee has not yet been submitted. Staff again recommends that if the application fee is not received by the date of the meeting the Hearing for Building Moving 91-001 should be continued until November 26, 1991. E. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- approving Building Moving 91-001 subject to the attached conditions and subject to confirmation that the filing fee has been submitted for this project. 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' /Ir#s.rf M 0 2 y /9 :ATTACHMENT No. 1 a ' O Ar a'' o A,fir I of=� ACE SAND PL ACE .�., -- FLOWFR CASE MAP CASE w- BM 91--001 EXISTING LOCATION OF BUILDING 6 /9 76 ; 50 �• 52 /8 75 5/ 34 025Ac.1 WWI -'Lot �M Lol L /7 74 I 52 /•• 0 25Ac.f 16 73 /. ORTH ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CASE MAP ORTH CASE No. BM 91-001 PROPOSED LOCATION OF BUILDING ATTACHMENT No. 3 ENOQ Of NN•pAT.fG.YSNItt.tEl urtALtt rO AEuCWt* N meA%,Oe "WVIL UOVICII C•J A•GA stir fbA►A N AS'NO •+lAAJ+f N KO 0►1r t AJTCNtN Olfn Ca w.^w.•. .t D aw am" Ca OLrt LA 060M N �� M CANrIt COJtRA ti .•.w r .r j cow •t/MOW1% N _ r •y 4t+1 CRrtTAL CANYON ►f WOO NO LA OLWYA Ca • Mmum CUA N Yrtr,Dw •• t j/ NAM IROCAI CtNnA ►T r•,r Wp• : drVa^! DOA'Nty SWINA CI. M04 A LOAN ANN 6E cNf•rl •r OLAIt u MAOU NOMU N t • Lummors" IMMI'Dl n CAM C6mT1A Ca oa Df •'Y i O• LDOAADO Jaw C" .ao ILK*? tC GA D><TfDaLROAt. DEC AvcA* M"p F4G'W0%a W10frE Q%A. TAArtL CAMnAS C 1 ,la. a•r_ .. •a•t r .� GFOMI I L Fti+QA ON w "4 aped C4 RMD'S IWANAAMr ► CAnM4 M JO+w f tjNN(01- tlttAGtAI NOSMAL Wdw u 06beA ARTWIC G.ASS / MOW40 M LA *AAA t mmis kofIT• INC N t IA OuwrA O.JI®FAWrC rtALTN CUf1tR N Y u OLRWU C Laftw C•f LA000M OtDRAL f[WAM u 01mm NOn1 V DUMTJ MODIR t DEL CAnSEEN N i ;A QUIN!A M tPIV t LANDSCAPING N V Ouwri MAAMALf N LAGuw Of IA ►AT C.0 f �•.. trf L J0WA1R WAL ESTAYI COMPANY N , WILE t MMLL INC N PGA ww N 0 KATA CAII W c RAT/ LA OLWA C2 ►.ATA LA OLJwrA NAM Mt•LNO C.2 .r1 7 !°"•`AaX FAES',Gt WON CARS Ctthwww ctf SAW, AOSA COVE AS D vT• A.NESS SEAvCt N y ' c s. ' s .' LaQuinta Li vw -r•e:s• f4• 1 t € .•e' Ct' f/Ar. YG.••D D. ` ` O ITS �1 '-w • G W tf. Y \�01 _ i< �•.y 1. . F! a.t q SP-Avt -t } G4 •rf •...+rW 0. -' STREET 1P• M .: DI! f'••'» tGDf U l •.Ww.r Ct ....�. GS &.9 .• I77 f......•.» GD INDEX 't" y D•Ja.1/ .a.• s a t • ....f.-N a et Y•D.-e.s S. S✓ err D. - : j ae •w•u •.'.• •run •D7 Y•' •rf t. � - •- ►.. • to L• : . wr. f:• S..• D: � _ - u t.✓•.r .. : •l1 S-. • � • r .. SSA :... '• ww Y .•r • < •M•.•• CA V W •.r�M Ow1 •t•ff .M.✓e ••/ Y.....w CA 1.4 w .•. ..efl .! - >r t•li .94 C. l a -r. •t•ri w•M rMDY• tl •f J♦.WIM Y / •.✓a eswrw M C-- Oww to •w.a +..w 4 t...s C. N •..•w. wn t• r1 Go c Iwo a w. w •...v Ar...•l .try Cr•w•er C. N •.�,�eM M7U trot L. N •.r•a'rel• G a..•eI UN.,D G CG.•eu+to N i M✓d rMND yry We Po- Cr to A.••O.r•ID• M7y D•M CAe 0, N •+.M .•t Mt! •w v!w trvN M Ow hnr M Otf) t•or•b.w a H fA 7lf G OF INTEREST er•a. a A. t..rr+.. o a hs A." w te••. r D• .! a .w a to, t•rw• o N POINTS CMr AP•Dt AEA FNw a N CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 84 l.•r t•.•�,t N c•r C.At N /w..wey a A••,C.aj. Q~ Et•t• PI w CITY HALL � e.. Or..Aw kW wy we F.nr a w LAKE CANUILLA PART( Ei Cr• der. Aat err eo.r A1r1 r.r•••Aw M to w•+•..yD./ u to LA OUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION B4 t<"• A..•1F AN •'F'• a a' X•STOFFICE B� C.r (••r.a f• •+I..e. 94 A••ro✓S. t+77.5i'l •,• :• f. -;=tLr-- C<Z:*y J;zeG co(g(-3 TO: FROM: ®ATE: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENT No. 4 flll�ry (4"(V MEMORANDUM Glenda Lainis Associate Planner Fred R. Bouma Associate Engin er October 9, 1991 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. v The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning. a The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. v 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). • 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, 90° turns and other locations where both directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked. ® 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 90° 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 1420 MOVING BUILDINGS Sections: 1410.010 Title. 14.20.020 Permit —Required. 1420.030 Permit —Issuance. 1420.040 Application for permit —Forms. 1420.050 Separate applications, permits required. 1420.060 Filing fee. 14.20.070 Indemnity deposit. 1420.080 Prerequisites to issuance --Absence of public detriment. 1420.090 Permit upon terms --Conditions. 14.20.100 Contents of application. 1420.110 Submission of plans to planning commission— Public hearing. 1420.120 Approval of plans by the planning commission. 1410.130 Deposit or bond--Conditions--Forfeiture. 14.20.140 Clean-up bond. 14.20.150 Use of clean-up bond. 1420.160 Plot plan ---Photographs of building. 1410.170 Plans of proposed appearance of building. 1410.180 Supervision of moving. 1420.190 Inspection fee. 1420200 Damage to street or property ---Restoration— CosL 14.20110 Lights on building. 14.20120 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) 1420.030 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) 1420.040 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) 1420.050 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. (`-t d,° 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),1982) 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. Plans: 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 building 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) 1410.110 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 § I (part),1982) Z( d4AV 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 § I (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 § I (part),1982) 14.20.160 * Plot 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 all 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 structure 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 § I (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 (part),1982) 14.20.190 Inspection fee. The applicant shall 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 § I (part), 1982) 554 14.20.200 1410100 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 § I (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 § I (part),1982) 14.20.220 Hours for use of streets. 71e 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 COUNTY :OIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ms. Glenda Lainis City of La Quinta Planning Department 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 Dear Ms. Lainis: Sheriff r21-695 Dk. CARREO\ BLVD. • INDIO. CA 92201 9 (619) 342-899( October 1, 1991 RE: BM #91-001 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. Dye, Lieutenant Indio Station I,.v.. r�" , :.:: .. ! r r,.4 t OCT 0 2 1991 ----.._.__.....-taw-u.r �.r�:: rr•a•.w.= a5 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, and November 12, 1991, hold duly noticed Public Hearings 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. 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 12th day of November, 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 RES©PC.057 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-_ C019DITIONS OF APPROVAL BUILDING MOVING 91-001 - PROPOSED NOVEMBER 12, 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. CONAPRVL.023/CS -1- V 7. 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. 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- �. 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. C®NAFRVL.023/CS -3- Ir PH*3 MEMORANDUM Of TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-039 Planning has received a request from the Applicant to continue this matter to your meeting of November 26, 1991. We therefore request that you move to continue this matter to November 26, 1991. MEM©JH.147 NOU 07 191 16:29 TO 5645617 FROM VALLEY LAND DEU. CO. T-231 F.02 November 7, 1991 City of La Quinta P. 0, Fox 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman ��jj�� Planning Director JRE : 14 5 -Aire s Fred Waring & Washington Street La Quinta, CA Dear Jerry: Request for continuance of the following item: ITEM: Change of Zone slo6e General Plan Amendment 91039 APPLICANT: Valley Land Development Co. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Fred Waring and Washington street We hereby request the Public Hearing to be continued from November 12, 1991 to November 26, 1991 at the La Quinta Planning Commission. very truly yours, VALL2-Y LAND DEVELOPMENT co. Thomas A. Thornburgh President TAT/mk VA, 1* 1 A 0000ftft. LAND QEV�P� NT Cr PANY 42-600 COOK ST. / SUFF 160 / PALM DESERT. CA 92260 / (619) 568- DATE: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 12, 1991 APPROVAL OF FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION AREA BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET, MILES AVENUE, ADAMS STREET, & THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) APPLICANT: A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. OWNER: NEWCO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 88-012 & TENTATIVE TRACT 23995 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 88-099 ON THE PROPOSED TRACT AND MITIGATION MEASURES WERE ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. THE REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO THIS PROJECT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW IMPACTS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER CEQA DOCUMENTATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1506 (B). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THIS IS A COMMERCIAL (7.53 ACRES)/MULTI FAMILY (38 ACRE-S/736 UNITS) SINGLE FAMILY UNIT PROJECT (78 ACRES) ON A TOTAL OF 133 ACRES. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GENERAL COMMERCIAL; HIGH DENSITY (12-16 UNITS/ACRE) AND LOW DENSITY (4-8 UNITS/ACRE) EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL COMMERCIAL; R-3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) AND R1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING RESIDENTIAL) BACKGROUND: 1. The following applications have been submitted and approved for this site: - General Plan Amendment 88-021 introducing commercial and high density residential use to this area; STAFFRPT.066/CS -1- - Change of Zone 88-035 changing the zone from Single Family Residential to Commercial, high density residential and leaving the remainder as Single Family Residential; - Specific Plan 88-012 and; - Tentative Tract 23995. 2. All of the above applications were approved by City Council on September 6, 1989. 3. A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 26860) for this project dividing the commercial, multi -family, and single family residential areas into separate lots was approved by the Planning and Development Director on August 22, 1991. 4. This Extension of Time request is for Tentative Tract 23995. The Specific Plan for this project (SP 88-012) has a condition which states the following: "Condition #6: Specific Plan 88-012 shall expire on the same date as Tentative Tract 23995 expires. Approval of Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 23995 shall constitute Extension of Time for Specific Plan 88-012. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 8, 1991: At the Planning Commission meeting held October 8, 1991, the Planning Commission requested that changes be considered to the Conditions of Approval for the above projects. A Public Hearing is necessary if changes to the Conditions of Approval are proposed to a Tentative Tract or Specific Plan. This Public Hearing has been scheduled in response to the above. ANALYSIS: 1. The Engineering Department has stated that they do not require any Conditions of Approval revisions for Tentative Tract 23995 or Specific Plan 88-012.. 2. Comments on this Extension of Time request were received from Southern California Gas and CVWD. These were the same comments that were previously made when the Tentative Tract was originally approved. 3. The original Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract 23995 has the following requirements for open space: STAFFRPT.066/CS -2- a) Single Family Residential area The following Tentative Tract Condition of Approval addresses this issue: 11 9. 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, fee -in -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 2.63 acres in the single-family residential area, as determined in accordance with said Section." A 1.22 acre park has been provided on the Tentative Tract map in the single family residential area. b) Multi -family Residential area Condition #35 of Tentative Tract 23995 addresses this issue: "35. The residential plot plan for the R-3 (multi -family) zone shall show 6.45 acres (based on 736 proposed units) of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreation space in accordance with Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66477." The requirements of the La Quinta Municipal and Government Code Section are attached (Attachments #4 & 5). 4. It should be noted that the R3 zone and the high density residential (12-16 dwellings/acre) General Plan land use designation for this area encompasses 49 acres. The Specific Plan and Tentative Tract show that 39 acres of this area to be developed as high density residential and the balance (10 acres) to form part of the single family residential area (+38 lots). The total density of all lots located in the high density area (49 acres) multi -family (736 units) and single family (38 units) is 16 units per acre. 5. The Planning Department recommends the following new conditions be attached to both the Tentative Tract and the Specific Plan: STAFFRPT.066/CS -3- The Applicant shall provide a 20-foot bikeway easement along the south property boundary of the site and construct an 8-foot bikeway in accordance with Engineering Department standards. The 20-foot bikeway easement can, if acceptable to CVWD, be located on CVWD owned or administered property. If no agreement can be reached with the CVWD the 20-foot bikeway easement shall be provided on land within Tentative Tract 23995. The reasons for the above condition are as follows: a) The proposed La Quinta High School is located just east of the subject property. A pedestrian/bikeway link is needed on Tentative Tract 23995 to access the school from the west. b) Both the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Bikeway Plan and the Riverside County Coachella Valley Trails Map (approved by County Board of Supervisors, April 23, 1991) identify a trail in this location. 6. Staff therefore recommends that Tentative Tract 23995 and Specific Plan 88-012, First Extension of Time, be approved with the attachment of the existing Conditions of Approval, including the condition requiring the bike path as outlined above. 7. Any other Planning Commission concerns can be addressed in the form of revised or new conditions. FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of Tentative Tract 23995; First Extension of Time can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolutions 91- , and 91- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 23995, First Extension of Time subject to the attached amended conditions and Specific Plan 88-012, subject to the amended conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tentative Tract 23995 3. Letter from California Department of Transportation 4. Park dedication requirements -Municipal Code 5. Park dedication requirements -State Code 6. Planning Commission Resolution 91- including Conditions of Approval STAFFRPT.066/CS -4- 1111111111 11 i. pr ATTACHMENT No. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA QUINTA MILES AVENUE w, INDIO s� t4h/hgtt/ �tN'I'll; r I///tttttJlhf h1 I//®/t°/!I/�11t1111 t11Si11111111141 I1 $ JI /f 1°A!lltilllil11811/lltllttl\\\114� N®RTH CASE No. GPA 88-021 CZ 88-035 SP 88-012 SCALE : NTS TT 23995 f=IRS.'t- -nAAC- ��t�iS�t�fu 004 i A" TACHMENT No. 2 a w •" rz of :« Iy a �rei! r _,� -i •t•k� �a. 1� a 11 —'� i � t.: r ...:. -t r � � is � ■ t i p `. e � r I t ` S •' � t 6 • t 'u 1 1 l.' t A, j S •i l _ ,i lam:/ + 3c !w ,,•. •�/ � t � • 1 '- i �/. t i t t �/• l our. ,'a •� \� +! I• a� l'•� r// // .1d`r •r It i cf; vl CL Z ix Z = �i idol i• : 11, 291 E— n n STATE OF CALFOMIA • ASS. Tp,..J(WAT10N AND HCUSM AGENCY PEKE WRSON -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DWMICT 11. P.O. Box &%Q9, SAN MGo. 4218&SQ6 ATTACHMENT N 0 . 3 y ' (619) 688-6968 City of La Quinta Planning Division 78-105 Calle Estado P. O. Box 1504 La guinta. CA 92253 Attn: Ms. Glenda Lairis SEP 0 3 1991 CITY U� LA 14UINTA '� P., f, 0ENc1nP0,1CNT nFF1 August 29, AyyI 11-RIV- I I I Washington Street IT 23995 We have reviewed Tr 23995 First Extension of Time. We offer the following comments: A traffic study should be prepared for this development which identifles impacts and appropriate mitigation. The study should include a discussion of phasing, if appropriate, to ensure that the development does not cause congestion prior to the highway improvements being put in -place. It should be noted that Caltrans has studies currently underway to identify potential needs and improvements on State Route III (SR-111) and Interstate 10 (I-10) in this area. The proposed improvements would be funded by the local agencies. Future coordination on this project should be with Allen Kosup, Chief, Local Assistance Branch at (619) 688-3392. If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa. of our staff, at (619) 688-6968. JESUS M. GARCIA District Direct By • BELL DILLON. Chief System Planning Branch cc: CRWest AKosup JBuksa T/P File ATTACHMENT No. 4 Access rights may be restrictied when necessary where the ultimate right-of-way width is eighty-eight feet or greater, except for approved access openings. (Ord. 5 51(part), 1982: county Ordinance 460 S10.1) ARTICLE II. DEDICATION OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES 13.24.020 Authority and purpose. This article is en- acted pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 66477 for the purpose of requiring the dedication of land or payment of fees, in lieu thereof, for park and recreational purposes, as a condition to approval of a tentative map or parcel map. (Ord. 77 52(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 §10.27(A)) ••- -� 13.24.030 Requirements. A. For residential subdivisions of greater than fifty lots, the subdivider shall dedicate ]land or pay a fee, or combination thereof, in such ratio as recommended by the commission and approved by the council. For residential subdivisions containing fifty lots or less, the subdivider small pay a fee only. All fees shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand popu- lation projected to inhabit said subdivision. -------�y B. All dedications shall be equivalent to three acres per one thousand population projected to inhabit said subdi- vision. All fees shall be based on the average appraised current market value of the undeveloped land in the subdivi- sion as determined by the city assessor. Projected popu- lation shall be calculated by multiplying the numbers of units to be constructed by the average household size for the entire city as shown on the latest federal census or a census taken pursuant to Section 40200, Chapter 17 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. C. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section; provided however, that a con- dition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a res- idential structure or structures on one or more of the par- cels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. D. The provisions of this article do not apply to com- mercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment build- ing which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. (Ord. 77 §2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 §10.27(B)) 281-36 (La Quinta 6/87) 13.24.040--13.24.050 ------4 13.24.040 Use of land and/or fees. All land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes shall be found to be suitable by the commission and the appropriate recre- ation agency, subject to council approval, as to locations, parcel size and topography for the park. Park and recrea- tional purposes may include active recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playfields, gardens, pedestrian or bi- cycle paths or areas of particular natural beauty, including canyons, hilltops and wooded areas to be developed or left in their natural state. Also included are land and facil- ities for the activity of "recreational community garden- ing," which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such land, of plant material not for sale. Land to be dedicated may in- clude all or part of a proposed facility. All fees are to be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitation of existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision inhabitants. (Ord. 77 §2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 510.27(C)) -� 13.24.050 Credits. A. If the subdivider is required to provide park and recreational improvements to the ded- icated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the pay- ment of fees or dedication of land required by this article. B. Planned developments and real estate developments, as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1, respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this article, for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. (Ord. 77 S2(part), 1985: county Ordinance 460 S10.27(D)) Chapter 13.28 IMPROVEMENTS Sections: 13.28.010 Land divisions improvements. 13.28.020 Plans required. 13.28.030 Improvements for subdivisions. 13.28.040 Schedule A subdivision --Generally. 13.28.050 Schedule A subdivision --Streets. 13.28.060 Schedule A subdivision --Domestic water. 1.3.28.070 Schedule A subdivision --Fire protection. 13.28.080 Schedule A subdivision --Sewage disposal. 281-37 (La Quinta 6/87) fire Subdivision Map Act requirement which is excessive, and the mann Protest of excessive (c) A dedication requirement claimed to be ( ATTACHMENT N o 5 dedications . condition of approval of a tentative map, mad pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In such a proceeding, the petitioner must have protested in the administrative record the imposition of the dedication, or portion of the dedication, claimed to be excessive. The petition for the writ shall be filed within the time prescribed by Section 66499.37. fnvaltd dedications: (d) If the dedication requirement is determined to be excessive, in whole or in part, the court shall judicial relief order the city, county, or city and county which imposed the requirement to elect, within 45 days of the date of its order, to take one of the following actions: (1) To require amendment of the tentative subdivision map or redesign of the subdivision, taking into account the court's decision and the requirements of Sections 66473.1. 664735, 66474, and 66474.6. (2) To pay just compensation for that portion of the dedication determined to be excessive. (3) To require amendment of the tentative subdivision map by deletion or modification of the dedication found to be excessive. lust compensation (e) If the city, county, or city and county elects to pay compensation, the amount of compensation shall be determined as provided by Chapters 8 (commencing with Section 1260.010) and 9 (commencing with Section 1263.010) of Title 7 of Pan 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4d&atton of map (f) If the city, county, or city and county elects to require redesign of the map or to delete or modify or dedication the excessive dedication requirement, the court shall order the action to be taken within 120 days or such longer period of time as determined by the court upon application of either party. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its order. 'nacdon (g) If, within 45 days after the date of the court's order, the city, county, or city and county does not elect to take one of the actions specified in paragraph (1) or (3) of subdivision (d), it shall be conclusively presumed to have elected to pay just compensation. napplicability: (h) The provisions of this section do not apply to any mitigation measures imposed by local nitigation measures agencies pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) to mitigate adverse environmental impacts identified in an environmental document prepared for the project under that act. tepealer (i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,1996, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1,1996, deletes or extends that date. (Added by Stats.1984, Ch.1722; Amended by Stats.1987. Ch. 803.) yaiver of access 66476. There may be imposed by local ordinance a requirement that dedications or offers of dedication ights of streets include a waiver of direct access rights to any such street from any property shown on a final or parcel map as abutting thereon and if the dedication is accepted, any such waiver shall become effective in accordance with its provisions. (Added by Stats.1974, Ch.1536. Effective March 1,1975.) .ocal requirements 66477. The legislative body of a city or county may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or or park and recre- impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or lion dedications recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or parcel map, provided that Quimby Act) (a) The ordinance has been in effect for a period of 30 days prior to the filing of the tentative map of the subdivision or parcel map. (b) The ordinance includes definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof. The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or condi tionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. However, the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area, as calculated pursuant to this subdivision, exceeds that limit, in which case the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision subject to this section. 60 • The Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws The Subdiritioe Map Act (1) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears tonne total population of the city, county, or local public agency as shown in the most recent available federal census. 'Ilse amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census. (2) For cities incorporated after the date of the most recent available federal census, the park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shown on the records, maps, or reports of the county in which the newly incorporated city is located bears to the total population of the new city as determined pursuant to Section 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. In making any subsequent calculations pursuant to this section, the county in which the newly incorporated city is located shall not include the figures pertaining to the new city which were calculated pursuant to this paragraph. Fees shall be payable at the time of the recording of the final map or parcel map or at a later time as may be prescribed by local ordinance. (c) The land, fees, or combination thereof are to be used only for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. (d) The legislative body has adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreation facilities, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards. (e) The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. (f) The city, county, or other local public agency to which the land or fees are conveyed or paid shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they, without any deductions, shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. (g) Only the payment of fees may be required in subdivisions containing 50 parcels or less, except that when a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land may be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50. (h) Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements of this section. However a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. (i) If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by the ordinance. Laird or fees required under this section shall be conveyed or paid directly to the local public agency which provides park and recreational services on a communitywide level and to the area within which the proposed development will be located, if such agency elects to accept the land or fee. The local agency accepting such land or funds shall develop the land or use the funds in the manner provided in this section. If park and recreational services and facilities are provided by a public agency other than a city or a county, the amount and location of land to be dedicated or fees to be paid shall, subject to subdivision (b), be jointly determined by the city or county having jurisdiction and such public agency. This section does not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. The Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws • I The Subdivision Map Act Planned developments, real estate developments, stock cooperatives, and community apartment projects, as defined in Sections 11003,11003.1,11003.2,11003.4, and 11004, respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, and condominiums, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the legislative body, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section, for the value of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. Park and recreation purposes shall include land and facilities for the activity of "recreational community gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such land, of plant material not for sale. (Amended by Stars.1984, Ch.1009; Amended by Stars.1985, Ch. 286; Amended by Stats.1986, Ch. 291.) Acceptance/rejection 66477.1. (a) At the time the legislative body approves a final map, it shall also accept, accept subject of dedications to improvement, or reject any offer of dedication. The clerk of the legislative body shall certify or state on the map the action by the legislative body. (b) The legislative body of a county, or a county officer designated by the legislative body, may accept into the county road system, pursuant to Section 941 of the Streets and Highways Code, any road for which an offer of dedication has been accepted or accepted subject to improvements. (Added by Stars. 1974, Ch. 1536. Effective March 1, 1975; Amended by Stars.1985, Ch.114. Effective June 28,1985; Amended by Stars.1987, Ch. 982; Amended by Stars.1988, Ch.132.) Rescission of 66477.2. (a) If at the time the final map is approved, any streets, paths, alleys, public utility easements, rejection, termination rights -of -way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and and abandonment of similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements are dedication offer rejected, subject to Section 771.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the offer of dedication shall remain open and the legislative body may by resolution at any later date, and without further action by the subdivider, rescind its action and accept and open the streets, paths, alleys, rights -of -way for local transit facilities such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters, landing pads, and similar items, which directly benefit the residents of a subdivision, or storm drainage easements for public use, which acceptance shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder. (b) In the case of any subdivision fronting upon the ocean coastline or bay shoreline, the offer of dedication of public access route or routes from public highways to land below the ordinary high watermark shall be accepted within three years after the approval of the final map; in the case of any subdivision fronting upon any public waterway, river, or stream, the offer of dedication of public access route or routes from public highways to the bank of the waterway, river, or stream and the public easement along a portion of the bank of the waterway, river, or stream shall be accepted within three years after the approval of the final map; in the case of any subdivision fronting upon any lake or reservoir which is owned in part or entirely by any public agency, including the state, the offer of dedication of public access route or routes from public highways to any water of such lake or reservoir shall be accepted within five years after the approval of the final map; all other offers of dedication may be accepted at any time. (c) Offers of dedication which are covered by subdivision (a) may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as prescribed for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3 (commencing with Section 8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code. (d) Offers of dedication which are not accepted within the time limits specified in subdivision (b) shall be deemed abandoned. (e) Except as provided in Sections 66499.I6, 66499.17, and 66499.18, if a resubdivision or reversion to acreage of the tract is subsequently filed for approval, any offer of dedication previously rejected shall be deemed to be terminated upon the approval of the map by the legislative body. (Amended by Srars.1982, Ch. 87. Effective March 1.1982.) Dedication accep- 66477.3. Acceptance of offers of dedication on a final map shall not be effective until the final map once ineffective until is filed in the office of the county recorder or a resolution of acceptance by the legislative body is nap filed filed in such office. (Added by Stars.1974. Ch.1536. Effective March 1.1975.) eecon veyance of 66477.5. (a) The local agency to which property is dedicated in fee for public purposes, or for making tedications public improvements or constructing public facilities, other than for open space, parks, or schools, shall record a certificate with the county recorder in the county in which the property is located. The certificate shall be attached to the map and shall contain all of the following information: 162 • The Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23995 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME CASE NO. TT 23995, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICANT: A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. to subdivide 132.5 acres into one commercial lot, three high density residential lots, and 300 single-family development lots, generally located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6th day of September 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract 23995 and made 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 has 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 incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 23995, First Extension of Time thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, the applicant, A.G. Spanos Construction Inc. have applied for this first extension of time for Tract 23995, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extension on tentative maps First Extension of Time; and, RESOPC.025/CS -1- WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did consider the above request at a Public Hearing held on the 12th day of November, 1991. WHEREAS, at said Public meeting, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map, First Extension of Time: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 23995, 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, C-P, R3, and R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall slope going from the north to the south of the property. The proposed circulation design and lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23995, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23995, 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. RESOPC.025/CS -2- WHEREAS, in the review of this 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 No. 88-099 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 No. 23995, First Extension of Time for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached amended conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.025/CS -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 23995, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME NOVEMBER 12, 1991 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 23995 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 paying all costs. The archaeologist retained shall prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for site CA-RIV-2200 such as MF-1027 and UCRARU#970, as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 1 - 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 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: BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 2 - a. Washington Street shall be constructed to City standards for a 120-foot right-of-way width (Major Arterial), with a curb -to -curb width of 96 feet, with a 12-foot bike/ sidewalk, and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. b. 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. C. The street identified as Lot S on Exhibit A (Tentative Tract Map) shall be designed for a 72-foot right-of-way. d. The Applicant shall construct all private street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code. e. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (tract map) for TT 23995. The cul-de-sac streets shall be designed for a 50-foot right-of-way with 36-foot width curb -to -curb. A five-foot utility easement shall be granted on each side of the 50-foot right-of-way. All other streets shall have a 60-foot right-of-way, a six-foot sidewalk, and two -percent slope. 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., County of Riverside). B. The Applicant shall participate in the construction or bond for the construction of Adams Street low water crossing of the Whitewater Channel, subject to the requirements of the City Engineer. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 3 - B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 9. 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, fee -in -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 2.63 acres in the single-family residential area, as determined in accordance with said Section. 10. The Applicant shall provide sufficient parkland in the multi -family residential area in accordance with Government Code Section 66477 and Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 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 and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. A wall shall be provided around the multi -family residential area in accordance with the above study. 12. 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. 13. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water easements 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 BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 4 - 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 easements. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Washington Street (3) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Miles Avenue. 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 Applicant shall coordinate with Sunline Transit and the City to provide a future bus turnout and shelter location on Washington Street. A bus turnout shall be provided for in the approved street improvement plans, and shall either be constructed with those improvements for bonded for. Appropriate bonding shall be provided in lieu of a completed bus stop shelter, until such time as service is provided by Sunline. 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. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 5 - 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 requires a written authorization from the owner(s) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer. 20. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. All drainage easements must be shown on the Final Tract Map. 21. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of TT 23995 and EA 88-099, which must be satisfied prior the 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 Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this TT 23995 and EA 88-099, 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 Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures of this TT 23995 and EA 88-099. The Planning Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 6 - Traffic and Circulation 22. 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. 23. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Washington Street, Miles Avenue, and Adams Street for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of -way. Tract Design 24. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be required along Washington Street and Miles Avenue. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or 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. 13, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 25. The tract layout shall comply with all the C-P, R-3 as specified in Specific Plan No. 88-012, and R-1 zoning requirements, including for the R-1 zone minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum R-1 lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 7 - Walls, Fencina, Screening, 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 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 the 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. 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. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 8 - 29. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all single-family individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees 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 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. The Applicant shall comply with the following: a. No buildings in the multi -family area within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be higher than one story. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 9 - b. Seventy-five percent of R-1 zone 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 approval a drawing showing the location of any single-family units higher than one story located along Miles Avenue frontage. 33. 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. 34. In the R-1 zone, if a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/ Builder shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission will review and approve these as a Business Item. The basic architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. & Rs. 35. The residential plot plan for the R-3 (multi -family) zone shall show 6.45 acres (based on 736 proposed units) of private open space within the development which is usable for active recreation space in accordance with Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66477. Traffic and Circulation 36. The Applicant shall pay a 25 percent share of all fees necessary for signalization costs at the corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, and 50 percent of signalization costs at the multi-family/commercial area access point onto Miles Avenue and 25 percent of the signalization costs at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Adams Street. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 10 - Public Services and Utilities 37. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 38. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District, including those related to the storm water channel. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Miscellaneous 39. The Applicant shall provide a 20-foot bikeway easement on final map along the south property boundary of the site and construct an 8-foot bikeway in accordance with Engineering Department standards. The 20-foot bikeway easement can, if acceptable to CVWD, be located on CVWD owned or administered property. If no agreement can be reached with the CVWD the 20-foot bikeway easement shall be provided on land within Tentative Tract 23995. The applicant shall comply with the above condition prior to issuance of occupancy permit for the first unit. BJ/CONAPRVL.010 - 11 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 88-099 AND APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 88-012, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME CASE NO. SP 88-012, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICANT: A.G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 27th day of June, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of A.G. Spanos Construction, Inc. for a commercial, multi -family residential, and single family residential development for a 132.5 acre site located between Washington Street, Miles Avenue, Adams Street and the Coachella Valley Water District Wash, La Quinta, excluding the small triangular area just north of the Wash and just south of the east/west Avenue 46 alignment (Westward Ho Drive), more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6th day of September 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning Specific Plan 88-012 and made 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 has conducted an initial study and has determined that, although the project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Conditions of Approval will mitigate those project impacts to levels of insignificance; and, Whereas, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Specific Plan 88-012 thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, RESOPC.028/CS -1- WHEREAS, the applicant, A.G. Spanos Construction Inc. have applied for this first extension of time for Specific Plan 88-012, in accordance with Condition of Approval #6 for Specific Plan 88-012; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did consider the above request at a Public Hearing held on the 12th day of November, 1991. 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 Specific Plan, First Extension of Time: 1. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development. 3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 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 No. 88-099 relative to the proposed Specific Plan, First Extension of Time will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Specific Plan, First Extension of Time request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached amended Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: RESOPC.028/CS -2- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.028/CS -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-012, AMENDMENT #1 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME NOVEMBER 12, 1991 1. The development shall comply with Exhibit 1, the Specific Plan for Specific Plan 88-012, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. a. The project shall be limited to access points as illustrated on the Specific Plan, Exhibit 1. b. The following access points will be right-in/right-out only: o Access point off Washington Street; o The minor access point off Miles Avenue into the commercial area; o The northern access into the single-family residential area. C. In the following cases, access points in this project must line up with access points identified by approved tentative tracts located opposite this project: o The most northerly access point on Adams Street; o The commercial/multi-family area access point onto Miles Avenue. 3. The following conditions apply to the commercial area: a. The commercial area should be broken up into at least three commercial buildings, and not become one linear structure. b. Only the following uses shall be allowed in this neighborhood center, provided that they are small in nature, and no outside storage is allowed: o Art supply shops and studios. o Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. o Banks and financial institutions. o Barber and beauty shops. o Book stores. o Clothing stores. o Confectionery or candy stores. BJ/CONAPRVL.032 - 1 - o Delicatessens o Drug stores, including sales of liquor. o Employment agencies. o Florist shops. o Food markets, including sales of liquor. o Gift shops. o Hobby shops. o Ice cream shops. o Jewelry stores, including incidental repairs. o Laundries and laundromats, and drycleaners. o Locksmith shops. o Music stores. o News stores. o Offices, including business, law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, community planning, real estate. o Photography shops and studios. o Refreshment stands. o Restaurants and other eating establishments (non -drive -through). o Shoe stores and repair shops. o Stationery stores. o Tobacco shops. o Travel agencies. o Other similar uses as approved by the La Quinta Planning Commission. C. The following uses shall not be allowed on the site: o Automobile repair garages, including body and fender shops or spray painting. o Automobile parts and supply stores. o Bakery goods distributors. o Bars and cocktail lounges. o Billiard and pool halls. o Department stores. o Hotels, resort hotels and motels. o Liquor stores, except when ancillary to a drug or food store. o Theaters, including drive-in. o Tire sales and service, including recapping. o Automobile sales and rental agencies. o Boat and other marine sales. o Equipment rental services, including rototillers, power mowers, sanders, power saws, cement and plaster mixers, and other similar equipment. o Golf cart sales and service. o Mobilehome sales and storage, trailer sales and rental of house trailers. o Trailer and boat storage. o Truck sales and service, and rental of trucks. o Outdoor advertising structures BJ/CONAPRVL.032 - 2 - d. The Developer shall submit and receive approval for a commercial plot plan for the above -proposed development prior to any development taking place. e. Only 30 percent of the commercial buildings can be two stories. The balance should be one story only. 4. The following conditions apply to the multi -family residential area: a. The Developer shall submit and receive approval for a residential plot plan for the above development prior to any development taking place. b. One parking space provided per multi -family unit must be covered. C. A height limit of two stories will apply to the multi -family residential area. However, any proposed residential three story unit will be subject to detailed review by the Planning Commission at the plot plan review stage. d. Buildings in the multi -family area must be set back 50 feet from the multi-family/single-family residential area boundary. If two story dwellings are located alongside this boundary, they must be oriented away from the single-family residential area. e. Only emergency access shall be taken off Miles Avenue. f. Maximum of 736 dwelling units shall be allowed. g. Adjacent to commercially zoned areas, parking areas shall be utilized. h. All non-residential uses noted as permitted uses in the R-3 zone shall not be allowed.in the area designated as having a R-3 zone in this project. 5. The Applicant shall provide, within the multi -family housing area, a total of five percent affordable housing, subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. 6. Specific Plan 88-012 shall expire on the same date Tentative Tract 23995 expires. Approval of extension of time for TT 23995 shall constitute extension of time for SP 88-012. BJ/CONAPRVL.032 - 3 - 7. The Applicant shall provide a 20-foot bikeway easement along the south property boundary of the site and construct an 8-foot bikeway in accordance with Engineering Department standards. The 20-foot bikeway easement can, if acceptable to CVWD, be located on CVWD owned or administered property. If no agreement can be reached with the CVWD the 20-foot bikeway easement shall be provided on land within Tentative Tract 23995. The applicant shall comply with the above condition prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first unit. BJ/CONAPRVL.032 - 4 - PH#5 DATE: CASE: APPLICANT: BUILDER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 12, 1991 VARIANCE 91-020 JACK SOBELMAN LARRY SHIELDS, SUN CROWN CORPORATION APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN THE SR ZONE FOR A RESIDENCE UNDER CONSTRUCTION 52-815 AVENIDA MARTINEZ SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA QUALITY ACT. THEREFORE NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. The subject property is located on the west side of Avenida Martinez, approximately 100 feet south of Calle Nogales in the Cove area. The subject property consists of two 50' X 100' lots which have been combined into a 100' X 100' lot. The Applicants are in the process of constructing a residence on the property. The house is presently being framed. During an inspection, the building inspector found that the residence exceeds the 17' maximum foot height limit for the SR Zone. The maximum building height is measured from the finish grade of the property to the highest point of the residence. Based on the construction that has occurred, the building height would be approximately 17' 5"+, exceeding the height limit by a little less than 1/2 foot. Due to the amount of construction that has taken place, the Applicant feels that it would be financial unfeasible to alter the construction in order to comply with the 17 foot high maximum. Therefore, the Applicant has filed this Variance request. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: In order to approve a variance it must be found that three findings can be justified. Those findings and the Applicants response are as follows: PCST.028 1 1. State the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances including shape, size, location, and surroundings that apply to this property that do not apply to other property owners in the same zone. The Applicant' response is: "By the merger of the (two) lots we believe that the design and construction enhances the neighborhood." 2. State why the Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The Applicant's response is: "The enforcement of this chapter would involve practical difficulties and would create undue hardship unnecessarily." 3. State why the granting of this variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or zone in which such property is situated." The Applicant's response is: "We believe the five inch over on the ridge peak is not inconsistent with the topography of the general area." The Applicant has further stated verbally that they feel that due to the construction being on two lots, the additional width of the house tends to lower the overall appearance of the height. ANALYSIS: The Building and Safety Department has reviewed this variance request and indicated they have no objections. This item has been advertised as required by Municipal Code. To date of this writing no written or verbal responses regarding the variance has been received from surrounding property owners. Due to the configuration of the house, only the rear two-thirds of the house exceeds the 17' high maximum. The front portion of the house which would contain the garages and one of the bedrooms is approximately 1316" high. FINDINGS: Findings to approve this request can be made and are attached to the draft Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- approving Variance 91-020, subject to conditions contained in the draft Resolution. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Site plan, floor plan, section view, and elevation plans 3. Photograph of front of house 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 91- PCST.028 J. /B s 1 /00, ---+ CALL E .e, 26Oy ® / 26© o so s" ee 30 7e ii 252@ 2 25 O 24 ® 5 � 24 10 23 © 4 23 ® 1 W 22 ® S . .420 k 0 O C C�� ' `ORTH LOCATION MAP SCALE: NTS Ns Ae'. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS CASE NO. VAR 91-020 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of November, 1991, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of JACK SOBELMAN for approval of a Variance to the building height restriction in the SR Zone for a residence under construction located at 52- 815 Avenida Martinez, more particularly described as: Lots 3 & 4, Block 145, Santa Carmelita at Vale La Quinta Unit #15 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 has determined that the project is categorically exempt and no further documentation is deemed necessary; 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 subject height requirements to the subject property will deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned property in the area, since the purpose and intent of the height requirements may be reasonably attained. 2. Approval of the Variance as conditioned will not constitute the granting of any special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property in the area. 3. The purpose and intent of the height requirements are satisfied without adversely affecting adjacent parcels. 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 grant said Variance 91-020 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 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: RESOPC.061 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.061 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED VARIANCE 91-020 NOVEMBER 12, 1991 1. That the height of the building shall be kept as low as feasible. 2. That all special drainage requirements of the Building and Safety Department shall be complied with. 3. That the minimum 3-24" box size trees shall be provided in the front yard planter in between the driveways to help alleviate the apparent height of the residence. RESOPC.061 3 01 4 MEMORANDUM OF Yl' TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: STREET NAME CHANGE 91-002 - WILMA PACIFIC, INC. BACKGROUND: Wilma Pacific has made a request to change Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive located in Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta) . As part of the street name procedure as identified in Chapter 14.08 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (attached), the Planning Commission has to, upon determination of the sufficiency of the petition, adopt a Resolution of Intention to change the name and set a date for Public Hearing not less than thirty days from the adopt of the adoption of the Resolution. SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION: Staff states that the Applicant has submitted all required documents and fees for this proposed street name change. The owner of the properties adjacent to the street in question, A. G. Spanos, does not object to the above name change. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- indicating the intent of the Planning Commission to consider changing the street name Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive and to set December 10, 1991, as a date for a Public Hearing on this matter. Attachments: 1. Locality plan 2. Tract map 3. Chapter 14.08 of La Quinta Municipal Code MEMOGL.022 Sill t ,: tom,:•,--. �.��,� ,-{ ��- ' 4 k rr www J - �• oar.r OLA QUINTA R. \ saw • '•' j�C 0• Mwm am 1 ATTACHMENT No. 2 g"a�� g gaga till � Via• �t��g!a�g WY�l filla Q ;•iaof f�ar• ettisi��il II i II .ru .no II � U j m d sill .w.s. •u.e ago f -leg aY1.Mrl un�y� YONf7 q��a�ri0 �j t1 � �7.K�1 �uYM } 1 :LZ— LAke Lek- ;5paW& 14.08.010 Sections: 14.08.010 14.08.020 14.08.030 14.08.040 14.08.050 14.08.060 14.08.070 14.08.080 14.08.090 14.08.100 14.08.110 ATTACHMENT No. 3 Chapter 14.08 STREET NAME CHANGES Petition for initiation of street name change. Initiation of petition. Application fee. Manager's examination. Adoption of resolution of intention. Publication. Posting. Commission hearing. Commission recommendation. Council action. Commission recommendation without petition and hearing. 14.08.010 • Petition for initiation of street name change. Any person may initiate a street name change for any reason consistent with law, by complying with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.08.020 Initiation of petition. A proposed change of street name may be initiated by filing with the planning commission an application in the form prescribed by the city manager and signed by the owners of at least sixty percent of the lineal frontage abutting the street to be affected. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.08,030 Application fee. The application shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council, in order to defray the costs of publishing, post ing and processing, as hereinafter prescribed. (Ord. 10 § I (part),1982) 14.08.040 Manager's examination. The city manager shall examine the application and determine the sufficiency of same as to the percentage requirement of Section 14.08.020. (Ord. 10 § I (part),1982) 14.08.050 Adoption of resolution of intention. Upon determination of the sufficiency of the petition, the commission shall adopt a resolution of intention to change name and set a date for public hearing not less than thirty days from the date of adoption of the resolution. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.08.060 Publication. The city manager shall provide for at least one publication of the resolution of intention in a newspaper of general circulation within the city at least fifteen days prior to the hearing date. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.08.070 Posting. The city manager shall provide for posting copies of the resolution of intention in at least three public places along the street proposed to be affected. The posting shall be completed at least ten days prior to the hearing date. (Ord. 10 § I (part),1982) 14.08.080 Commission hearing. At the time set for hearing, or at any time to which the hearing may be continued, the commission 536 14.08.080 shall hear and consider proposals to adjust, alter or change the name(s) of the street(s) mentioned in the resolution, and objections to the proposals. (Ord.10 § 1(part),1982) 14.08.090 Commission recommendation. At or after the conclusion of the hearing, the commission may make any recommendation to the city council which the commission deems appropriate. In its deliberations the commission shall consider any applicable specific plans in effect. (Ord.10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.08.100 Council action. The city council may, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34091.1, take such action as it deems appropriate upon the recommendation of the commission, and failure to take action within sixty days after submission of the commission's recommendation shall be deemed denial of the application. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 14.08.110 Commission recommendation without petition and hearing. Notwithstanding any other parts of this code, the commission may, for any reason it deems in the public interest and necessity, recommend to the city council that a street name be changed. The recommendation may be made without complying with the requirements of Sections 14.08.020 through 14.08.080. The recommendation shall be in the form of a resolution of the commission directed to the city council. Thereafter the city council shall take such action as it deems appropriate. (Ord.10 § 1(part), 1982) 537 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, INDICATING THEIR INTENT TO CONSIDER A CHANGE IN THE STREET NAME VIA MARQUESSA TO LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE AND TO SET DECEMBER 10, 1991, AS A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. CASE NO. STREET NAME CHANGE 91-002 - WILMA PACIFIC, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 12th day of November, 1991, in accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code did state, at the request of Wilma Pacific, Inc. , their intent to consider a change in the street name Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive located in Tract 26152, as shown by Map on file in Book 214, Pages 69 through 82, of Maps, Records of Riverside County Recorder, being a portion of the southeast 1/ 4 of Section 30, Township 5 south, Range 7 east, San Bernardino Base Meridian; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California at the same meeting did set December 10, 1991, as a Public Hearing date on the above matter, in accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta as follows: 1. That the Planning Commission has followed the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code, Chapter 14.08 pertaining to Street Name Changes. 2. That the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Resolution of Intention to consider changing the street name Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive. 3. That December 10, 1991, is hereby set as a Public Hearing for Street Name Change 91-002. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held this 12th day of November, 1991, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.060 1 KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.060 BI#2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 CASE NO.: MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT (MTOE) 91-032, AMENDMENT #1 APPLICANT: THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS (JUDI COMBS) REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING FINE ART SHOWS AT PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET. BACKGROUND: Thunderbird Artists was granted approval of this application in August, 1991. One of the Conditions of Approval requires that there be a minimum of two portable restrooms on the site during the shows. The Applicant has requested approval to have only one restroom on the site. The Applicant has indicated that due to the relatively small nature of the show, the restroom is only used by the artists that are there all day and adjacent bus stop customers. The Applicant indicates that the average customer stays 20-25 minutes. The Applicant feels that one portable restroom would be adequate for show use. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the request and believes it is acceptable. Staff has attended the Art Show and feels that the average customer stay is very short. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 91- approve Amendment to Condition #7 to require one portable restroom on site during the shows. Attachments: 1. Site and booth plans 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Letter from Applicant received November 4, 1991. PCST.029 1 PAD� �_. ._.— i SHOis a ♦ti \\ r I mga a �a '�, 1'• � z m / .r. Sr,rf ti3ON \ V A yi SECONO LEVEL F10011 KA\ OFFICE Usti PROJhCT: Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center is located in La Quinta, in the Coachella Valley near Palm Springs, California. The Coachella Valley has a population of over 190,000 permanent residents. Because of the large seasonable population estimated at over 230,000, employment is greatest in restaurant and resort oriented businesses. The beauty of the surrounding Santa Rosa Mountains makes La Quinta a place of peaceful serenity, beauty and charm. PLAZA LA QUINTA La Quinta, California TRAFFIC: Highway 111 — 18,500 Washington St. — 9,300 TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHICS: Population-3-Mile Radius— 17.200 Seasonal—230,000 Average Household Income— 533,817 %lalors: Vnns' 36J Thrittv IN �hups A I; Shops B: 225 Office: 13.J Qnd floor) Roger Dunn: '.0 Beef anc Brew: 6.8 Sub -Total Pad F• 10.3 (not built) Pad H: 5,0 (not built) Sub -Total Total Building Area: Downev S&L/Retail: 7,5 PARKING PROVIDE ;95 stalls i 3/ 10OQ sf I Information contained herein has been obtained from sources deemed rehabir but no uarranties are made. erpressed or Implied with respect to accuracv. Site Plan is -hiect In.hange n•ithout notice. NIT), HER EXHIBIT A /()c,fr. I'o coo Isp-Irr. E--.-.. - -- /DD FT /)/ //- T /o? ' X /lZ ' THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS 602-437-9608 m CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MTOE NO. 91-032 - ADOPTED AUGUST 13, 1991 1. The event shall be conducted per the information submitted on the plans (Exhibit A-l) and the following conditions: 2. This approval shall be valid for the period between November 9, 1991, to March 31, 1992, with the exception of November 2, 1991, March 21th & 22th, 1992; the show may operate between 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. 3. Proof of $1,000,000 liability insurance policy naming the City as a co-insured shall be in force during the shows. 4. Food will not be sold as part of the event. 5. Electricity will not be available to the site. 6. No art displays shall be located within the first 20 feet behind the Highway 111 sidewalk. 7. Applicant shall provide a minimum of two portable restrooms on the site during shows. The restrooms shall be on the site from only immediately proceeding the show on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday. 8. Artists shall park their vehicles in areas crosshatched, shown on Exhibit B-1, except for loading and unloading. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for cleaning trash and debris on and around the site during show times and at the end of each day's show. 10. Two portable 2-foot x 3-foot high "Art Show & Sale" signs shall be allowed during art show hours. One sign to be adjacent to Washington Street entrance and one sign to be adjacent to westerly Highway ill entrance. Signs to be placed far enough back from roadway so as to not obstruct traffic visibility. 11. During hours of show operation, Applicant shall provide "no parking" signs adjacent to access road to Highway Ill next to Downey Savings and along Highway 111 in area of the art show. Approval of signs shall be obtained per City Code and Cal Trans requirements. 12. There shall be no sale of clothing or other cloth products unless they are hand made or hand decorated. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - l - 13. Violation of any of these Conditions of Approval or unresolved problems arising from operation of shows, shall be cause for immediate closure by Sheriff's Department. Thereafter, Planning Commission and/or City Council shall review the violation or problem to ensure that it is resolved prior to shows being allowed to continue. 14. Use of open flame devises and smoking within booths is prohibited per Fire Marshal. 15. A minimum width of 44 inches in aisles for exiting shall be maintained. 16. A type 2A10BC fire extinguisher with a conspicuous sign shall be available within 75-feet of display. 17. Booth material and any decorative material shall be flame retardant. This does not apply to merchandise on exhibit. 19. Art exhibits shall be screened from view of Highway Ill. Temporary screening methods to be approved by Director of Planning and Development prior to first show. The screening shall be made of a decorative multi -pastel color shade screen, and 5 feet in height, or any other mechanism for screening that is acceptable to the Planning and Development Director. 19. All the artists, within the show, must obtain from the Sales Tax Division, State of California, a temporary sales permit, to report said sales in the City of La Quinta. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 2 - Planning & Zoning Commission Board CITY OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca 92253 Dear Mr. Ilerman & Board Members, j("j Iva A iv ���• i'" . Thank you for your approval of my permit for minor temporary outdoor fine art shows (90-023) to be held at the Plaza La Quinta (Highway 111 & Washington). I would like to amend Condition #7 which reads: Applicant shall provide a minimum of two portable restrooms on the site during shows. The restrooms shall be on the site from only immediately proceeding the show on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday. In reviewing the permit conditions the other day, I carefully thought about the show size (number of artists) and traffic flow then came to the conclusion that one portable restroom should be more than adequate. I observed seeing only the artists and the bus stop customers using the portables. I would, also, like to mention this is not a festival, as a matter of fact, it's a very low traffic show, there are no food or beverages served and the average customer stay is approximately 20 to 25 minutes. If your ordinance requires portables, please understand, I certainly want to comply. I feel that my particular circumstances require only one portable per show. Thank you for your time and consideration. For any questions, please feel free to call me at 602-43 7 -9608. Thank you very kindly, i'7 iX / Judi Combs r/ T'HUNDERBIRD ARTISTS OTHER MEMORANDUM F �y� Of TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 SUBJECT: BUILDING HEIGHT SURVEY Pursuant to the Planning Commission request, Staff has compiled a quick reference guide for the Commission concerning building heights within many areas of the City. The guide is attached. The City projects are located on the first few pages, and the map attachment identifies where the projects are in the City. The guide is by no means a conclusive document, but it has identified a majority of the projects within the City which have building height restrictions. In conclusion, the one story building height provisions range from 17 feet (SR areas) to 25 feet. However, the norm has been to permit 20' high buildings within 150 t0 200 feet of either a major public street or tract boundary. The only difference is the northerly portion of the City which allows two story homes less than 200 feet provided only 25% of the homes are greater than one story along a particular street frontage. Attachment MEMOGT.010 BUILDING HEIGHT SUMMARY November 1991 1. Tract 23773, Starlight Dune (1990), 75% of the dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring Drive shall be limited to one story (20 feet). Along the north property line of the tract all units shall be one story (201) except lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story. 2. Tract 18915, Palm Royale (1983) - Approved by the County of Riverside in 1983. Two story buildings were allowed, however, only a few units are located within 150 feet of Washington Street. 3. Tract 23971, Deane Homes (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No two story buildings are allowed within 150 feet of Washington Street. 4. Tract 23269, La Quinta Highland (1988), All dwelling units within 100 feet of Fred Waring and Adam Street shall be limited to one story. All dwelling units within 100 to 150 feet shall be limited to one story (20 feet) as approved by the Planning Commission. 5. Tract 23268, Acacia (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 6. Tract 24517, Waring/Adams Venture (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 7. Tract 23913, Quinterra (1988), 80% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 8. Tract 25290, Rancho Ocotillo (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 9. Tract 19903, La Quinta Palms (1984), One story single family homes were built. 10. Tract 25953, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 11. Tract 22982, Cactus Flower (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring and Dune Palms Road shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 12. Tract 24208, LQ Association/Williams (1989), The R1 Zoning Standards apply. 13. Tract 24950, Chong Lee (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 14. Tract 25691, Deman (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 15. Tract 24197, Triad (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue, Jefferson Street and Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 16. Tract 23995, Spanos, (1989), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story for the multiple family area. 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet) for the R-1 area. 17. Specific Plan 88-014, Transpacific, Per CPS Zoning standards with plot plan review required. Plot plan 91-468 (Auto Club) is presently being processed at the intersection of Washingston and Highway 111 for a one story building (21 feet). 18. Tract 23519, Santa Rosa (1990) Amend. 1, 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No two story units shall be constructed next to each other along Miles Avenue, and the two story units shall be on the lowest building pads. 19. Tract 25363, Santa Rosa (1990), The R1 Zoning standards will apply. 20. Tract 26188, Santa Rosa (1991), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 21. Tract 23935, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 22. Specific Plan 88-011, Washington Square, Per CPS Zoning standards. No development plans have been processed. 23. Tract 24230 and Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Adams shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No dwelling units within 150 feet of 48th Avenue shall be higher than one story (201) in height. Commercial development is subject to a conditional use permit. Building heights will be determined by the Planning Commission. No development applications have been submitted. 24. Plot Plan 91-466, Simon Plaza (1991), A two story building (281) has been proposed at the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 (SE). However, the plan has not been reviewed by the Commission or the City Council at this time. 25. Specific Plan 84-004, Pyramids, All dwelling units within 75 feet of the property line shall be limited to one story. 26. Tracts 13640 and 20052, Conditional Use Permit 2262E, Laguna De La Paz (1979), Single story buildings were constructed. 27. Tract 3448, etc., La Quinta Golf Estates, All dwelling units are limited to one story. 28. Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta (1986 and 88), All dwelling units on Washington Street were limited to one story (21 feet) and have been constructed. 29. Tract 25154, Valley Land (1989), The R1 standards will apply. The two story units will be approved by the Commission but this site does not abut an arterial street. 30. Tract 26148, Amcor (1990), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (17 feet) per the SR Zoning Code provisions. 31. Specific Plan 83-001, Duna La Quinta (1985) , All dwelling units within 200 feet of the tract boundary shall be limited to one story (20 feet). This provision did not apply to the LQ Stormwater channel which allowed building 29 feet in overall height. Two story units were allowed (35 feet max.). 32. Plot Plan 91-467, Desert Villas LTD. (1991), All dwelling units within the 109 unit apartment complex are single story. The City Council has not reviewed the applicant's Change of Zone request. 33. Tract 25389, Duna La Quinta/Brock (1990), All dwelling units on lots 1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 204, 207- 211 and 238-255 shall be limited to one story (25 feet). See Specific Plan 83-001 for other requirements. 34. Tract 25429, Chateau (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet). 35. Tract 26524, Strothers (1990), 75% of all dwelling units on 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet max.) within 150 feet. All lots on the southerly portion of the tract shall have homes not greater than 22 feet in height (lots 15-21). 36. Specific Plan 84-003, Orchard (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 37. Specific Plan 85-006, Oak Tree West, All dwelling units within 200 feet of the property line or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet) within a limited, defined area. 38. Tract 21880, Time Valley Land (ext. 3, 1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of 52nd Avenue, Avenida Bermudas, and the tract boundaries shall be limited to one story. Other related cases are: Specific Plan 85- 005A and B; 52nd Avenue realignment, 1985, and the Washington Specific Plan (SP 86-007, 1989). 39. Tract 26855, Kanlian (1991), Unapproved; No action at this time. 40. Tract 26718, Hansch (1991), Unapproved; No action at this time. 41. Specific Plan 90-016, Landmark Land (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of boundary of the site or public street shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units are limited to two story (30 feet) . The City Council has not reviewed this case at this time. 42. Tract 24507, Steven Brummel (1990), Building heights were not addressed in this development approval. Existing R- 1 Zone requirements would apply. 43. Tract 26972, Dr. Darr (1991) , All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). The City Council has not approved this case at this time. 44. Tract 27187, Pudney (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). This case has not been approved by the City Council. 45. Tract 24774, Vista Development (1989/90), Building heights were not addressed in the tract map approval. 46. Specific Plan 90-020/Tract 26472/Tract 26473, 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 52 Avenue shall be limited to one story (18 feet), whereas, two story homes shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height. 47. Specific Plan 90-018, Tracts 26008 and 26009, Vista Development (1989/90), The specific plan addressed 20 foot high buildings for this area. 48. Specific Plan 83-002, PGA West (1989), Amend. 1, A - The portion of the area designated for six story (72 feet) height south of the Airport Blvd. alignment shall be deleted. B - All residential units shall be limited to a max. of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C - The hotel shall be limited to a max. height of six stories; and the other related buildings, not attached to the hotel, within the Village Core shall be limited to two stories. The original Specific Plan applies and allows one story buildings (28 feet) within 300 feet or more of a public arterial. 49. Tract 25500 (Madison Street, south of 54th), Sunrise Desert Partners (1990), Amendment 1, Single story homes were approved. Note: Numerous Tracts have been approved within the PGA West development per SP 83-002, however, the only two story units in the project are west of PGA Boulevard. 50. Tract 26769, Qualico (1991), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Monroe Street shall be one story (22 feet). 51. Tract 27224, Madison Estates/Seastar (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (21 feet). This case has not been reviewed by the City Council. 52. Specific Plan 90-015, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units shall not exceed 30 feet. The plan has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). 53. Specific Plan 90-017, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units shall not to exceed 30 feet. This case has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 22, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows . The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ladner, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. Commissioner Ladner moved to excuse Commissioners Mosher and Ellson. Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Glenda Lainis, Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 91-008 and Variance 91-018; a request of La Quinta Christian Church Fellowship for approval of an expansion to an existing church plus associated parking area on a 0.74 acre site and a variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 23 feet, and B) to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall on the south side of the project. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff to explain the wording in paragraph #14 in reference to fire wall. 3. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff to explain how the parking requirement was determined. Planning Director Jerry Herman read the Municipal Code as it relates to parking. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked for clarification on the height being requested. Staff stated the request was for 23 feet. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 5. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project addressed the Commission and explained the purpose for their requests. He went on to explain that the costs of the recommended upgrades for the existing building would make the project cost prohibitive for the church. 6. Commissioner Marrs inquired if the other churches that had been approved were restricted on their height limitation. Staff stated they had not as they were located in a different zone. 7. Mr. Jack Clark, builder and member of the church, addressed the Commission regarding the request and addressed some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He further requested that the variance be changed from a request for 23 feet to 19 feet. 8. Mr. Dane Hooper, 78-620 Tujunga, spoke in opposition to the project stating his objection to the height, traffic, and presented the Commission with a petition signed by those in the neighborhood objecting to the expansion. He noted that the church was offered financial help in relocating. 9. Commissioner Marrs asked how many families were represented on the petition. Mr. Hooper stated 23 of the 27 families in the neighborhood. 10. Pastor Mark Collins, applicant, spoke on behalf of the church. He pointed out that the church had been in existence for ten years and the purpose of the expansion was to give the members a better facility to worship in. He further stated the school would remain in the existing building until funds were available to build another facility. Their plans were to demolish the existing building in three to five years. 11. Commissioner Marrs asked Pastor Collins if the church had been offered any assistance in relocating as was stated by Mr. Hooper. Pastor Collins stated he, and no one in his congregation that he knew of, had received any such offer. 12. Commissioner Ladner inquired if the site would be used by other groups. Pastor Collins stated the church functions and uses would continue as they are now and they would allow other groups to continue using their facilities. 13. Ms. Roselyn Davis, 50-925 Calle Paloma spoke in opposition to the project, in particular the roof height, traffic from the school, and the unsightly appearance of the existing building. PCMINOCT22 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 14. Mr. John Sessums, 50-645 Calle Quito, spoke in opposition to the request based on the building codes. 15. Mr. Peter Rodholm, P. O. Box 176, spoke in opposition to the location of the church. He felt the expansion would cause greater impacts on the community. 16. Mr. Joe Garza, 50-550 Quito, spoke in opposition to any expansion of the church. 17. Mr. Travis Mastin, 51-205 Calle Paloma, memober of the church, spoke in favor of the expansion and the benefits of having a church in the community. 18. Mr. Ray Snitil, 50-925 Quito spoke in opposition to the project stating objections to the height and traffic. 19. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project, spoke in rebuttal to the objections stated. He reminded the Commission that the church was not out of compliance with the zoning and their plans called for the upgrading of the property which would only improve the neighborhood . 20. Ms. Catalina Porras, 50-071 Balboa, Coachella, spoke in favor of the project stating several functions of the church that serve to help the community. 21. Ms. Sandy Goldman, 53-245 Diaz, spoke in support of the church and stated several reasons for the added space and expansion of the church. She also stated she was a parent of three students who are and had attended the school and the positive influence it had on them. 22. Ms. Susan Collins, 53-040 Ramirez, spoke in favor of the project and stated the positive influence a church has in the community. 23. Mr. Dane Hooper, added some rebuttal comments regarding the number of members who do not live in the neighborhood. Commissioner Marrs asked Mr. Hooper to explain the offer he referred to. Mr. Hooper stated that a local realtor, Mr. Rupert Yessayian, had stated he would list and sell the property for the church at no cost to the church as well as offering to find another location for them. 24. Mr. Jack Clark, church member, answered questioned posed by the neighbors in reference to property values and stated he had looked for other property in the area and had been unsuccessful. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 25. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 26. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff if there were any reasons to deny the Public Use Permit. He felt there were reasons for denying the Variance, but did not feel there were any reasons for denying the Public Use Permit. Staff stated the Use Permit could only be denied if reasons were found to show it to be detrimental to the health, welfare, or safety of the community. 27. Chairwoman Barrows inquired about a method of allowing the postponement of the wall, such as a bond or letter of credit. Discussion followed regarding the wall requirements, the church growth, and the need for the church to have room to grow. 28. Commissioner Ladner felt that if the church was to remain and be allowed to expand there should be some compromises with the surrounding neighborhood and those compromises should be the upgrading of the existing building and the construction of the wall. Discussion followed as to the timing and phasing of the upgrading and wall. 29. Following the discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner to deny Variance 91-018. The motion died for a lack of a second. 30. Commissioner Marrs moved to approve Variance 91-018 with the height amended to 19 feet. The motion died for a lack of a second. 31. Following discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner to continue the matter to November 12, 1991, in order to have all members of the Commission present. Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. The Commission took a five minute recess. B. Building Moving Permit 91-001; a request of D & M Morgan for permission to move a 1, 200 square foot building located at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis asked that the matter be continued as the Applicant had not paid the fees (which were just established by the City Council) required to process the permit. PCMINOCT22 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 2. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 12, 1991. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. C. Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019; a request of Simon Plaza to develop a commercial center and a variance to deviate from the C-P-S Zone code setback standards. 1. Commissioner Marrs moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 26, 1991, at the request of Staff. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson . ABSTAINING: None. D. Change of Zone 91-066 and Variance 91-017, and Plot Plan 91-467; a request of Desert Villas, Limited, for a change of zone from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Multi -Family Residential and the front portion from R-2 8,000 to R-2, and a variance for a reduction of the parking and unit size standards in order to develop a 109 unit single story apartment complex on +9 acres of land. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff to clarify how the percentage of units was determined. Staff stated this was a part of the Owner Participation Agreement being worked out between the Applicant and the City Council. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff to explain how the sidewalk would be constructed in relation to the existing bridge. Staff stated the sidewalk would not be installed at the bridge until it was widened. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated the bridge was proposed to be six lanes with sidewalks on both sides. 4. Commissioner Marrs asked if the minimum unit size apartments would be for senior only. Staff stated this would be determined by the Owner Participation Agreement entered into by the Applicant and City. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 5. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing and Mr. Craig Bryant spoke on behalf of the applicant and addressed the concerns of the Commission. 6. Commissioner Ladner asked what the rent would be for these units. Mr. Bryant stated the rent would be between $378 and $900 per month. 7. Mr. Richard Darling, applicant, discussed other projects in the area that were similar to this in size and costs. 8. Ms. Linda Simpson, 51-295 Guatamala, stated her concern about the amount of traffic that would be generated and the size of the units. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 10. Commissioner Ladner and Chairwoman Barrows expressed their desire that the Applicant allow as much senior housing as possible. 11. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-047 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-066 from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 8, 000 Multiple Family Residential to R-2 Multiple Family Residential. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. 12. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-048 approving Variance 91-017 subject to the attached conditions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. 13. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-043 approving Plot Plan 91- 467 subject to the attached conditions. Unanimously approved. PCMINOCT22 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 E. General Plan Amendment 91-038, Change of Zone 91-067, and Tentative Tract 27224; a request of Seastar, Inc. and Mr. John Musial to amend the City's Land Use Element from Very Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential, a change of zone from R-1 20,000 to R-1 8000 in order to subdivide +39 acres into a 98 single family tentative tract subdivision. 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. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Musial addressed the Commission regarding his project. He requested the following changes in the Conditions of Approval: a. Condition #8 to allow the Applicant to determine the archaeologist. b . Condition #42 be changed to 21 feet excepting the chimney. c . Condition #44 be changed to 20,000 square foot lots. d . Condition #46 to allow the homeowner the variation on landscaping instead of requiring the developer to do the landscaping. e . Condition #48 be eliminated. f . Condition #51 state perimeter wall, "if required". 3. Commissioner Marrs stated his concern of allowing a zone change from 20,000 to 8,000. He did not believe there were enough mitigating reasons to allow this reduction. He further asked Staff how height regulations were determined. Staff explained that a maximum height of 35 feet was allowed in the R-1 zone. 4. Chairwoman Barrows asked that the Applicant be encouraged to use drought resistant planting materials. Discussion followed as to landscaping requirements. 5. Commissioner Ladner also felt that 20, 000 square feet lots should be required in this area. 6. Discussion followed as to the need for open space and the lot sizes of the project. 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-049 denying General Plan Amendment 91-038. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson . ABSTAINING: None. 8. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-050 denying Change of Zone 91-067. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. 9. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion adopting Planning Commission Resolution 91-051 approving Tentative Tract 27224 subject to revised conditions (Conditions #42 and #51 as requested by the Applicant and #44 [ minimum 20,000 square feet] and #46 [ native plant use]). ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson . ABSTAINING: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - None V. BUSINESS SESSION A. Tentative Tract 24545; a request of Northstar California Corporation for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 1. Commissioner Marrs moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 26, 1991, as requested by Staff. Unanimously approved. B . Sign Application 91-157; a request of Outdoor Media Group to install a temporary model home directional sign for the Quinterra tract. 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. PCMINOCT22 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91-044 approving Sign Application 91-157 subject to the attached conditions. Unanimously approved. C . Sign Application 91-155 (TT 23935) ; a request of GWR Development for approval of a sign adjustment to allow additional height for temporary signs. 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. Discussion followed among the Commissioner and Staff regarding the height of the sign. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt a precedent was being set for allowing signs to exceed the desired height set by the City. 3. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91- 045 approving Sign Application 91-155 subject to the revised conditions and with the condition that the sign would be allowed for one year only. Unanimously approved. D . It was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to reconsider Sign Application 91-157 in light of the previous discussion. Unanimously approved. E. Sign Application 91-157; a request of Outdoor Media Group. 1. It was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91-044 approving Sign Application 91-157 subject to the revised conditions and with the condition that the sign be allowed for one year only. Unanimously approved . F. Tentative Tract 24950, Amendment #1; a request of Chong Lee for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 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. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-052 approving the First One Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract 24950, Amendment #1, subject to conditions. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson. ABSTAINING: None. VI. OTHER A. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed the upcoming joint Planning Commission/ City Council meeting to be held on October 29th ( Study Session) and December 11, 1991, open meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on November 12, 1991, at 7 : 00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers . This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:57 P.M., October 22, 1991. PCMINOCT22 10 C4 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 8, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner. II. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION A. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-040 recognizing Commissioner Elly Dowd for her time and effort while serving on the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. III. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Glenda Lainis, Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 91-020; a request of the City of La Quinta for approval to establish a new office/medical zoning district which will include provisions for medical facilities, offices, limited retail, public and quasi -public uses, and other land uses deemed permissible by the Planning Commission and an Amendment to Section 9.160, Off -Street Parking Code. 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. Staff asked that the following changes be incorporated into the Ordinance: Page 22, Item 1. c. delete the word "surgeon". Page 23, Item 3.g-j, changed from Services to Retail uses. Page 25, Item E "Lot Sizes" change depth from 600 feet to 300 feet. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 26, Item I.e. changed to read, "Fifty percent of the on -site parking spaces shall be covered. Phasing of the required covered structures shall be permitted if approved by the Planning Commission." Page 27, Item M, add "and shall not exceed the height of the building it serves. " Page 27, Item N, delete last part of sentence... "unless other arrangements are made with the City Council. " 2. Chairwoman Barrows asked Staff if the parking structure would be allowed in other commercial areas of the City. Staff stated they were working toward keeping that height as low as possible and utilizing methods of hiding the structure. Discussion followed as to alternatives. 3. Commission Ladner stated she felt that retail, drugstores and banks under services, should be limited to a certain percentage of the overall development. Staff suggested that drugstore be deleted and allow pharmacy only and have an introductory paragraph to the retail and food services stating that they have to be an accessory use to the primary use. 4. Commissioners questioned the allowance of the helipad. Staff stated the use could be eliminated at this time and replaced later should the need arise or should the State or County require the hospital to construct the helipad. The consensus of the Commission was to delete the allowance of the helipad. 5. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff to explain the purpose of the last sentence on Page 27, Item #N. Following discussion, it was decided to delete the last sentence. 6. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Peter Bergmann, spoke on behalf of Desert Hospital, and stated the hospital had no objection to the deletion of the helipad in the zone. He further explained how Desert Hospital in Palm Springs was required to install their helipad. Discussion followed relative to helipad use. 7. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and Commissioner Mosher made a motion and Commissioner Marrs seconded the motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-041 recommending to the City Council addition of Chapter 9.92, Office, Medical and Related Services (OMS) to the La Quinta Municipal Code and amending Chapter 9.160 of the Off -Street Parking Standards, and concurring with the Environmental Determination that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing, subject to conditions as amended above. PCMINOCT8 2 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B. Plot Plan 91-465, General Plan Amendment 91-037, Change of Zone 91- 065, and Tentative Parcel Map 27267; a request of Desert Hospital for approval of a plot plan to permit a three story office/medical 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. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer presented the Engineering Conditions, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked Mr. Speer to identify the location of the driveway and retention basin in alternative #4. Discussion followed regarding access for the property to the south. 4. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Peter Bergmann spoke on behalf of the Applicant. Ms. Tianna Hamilton, Barton-Aschmann Associates, traffic engineers for the project, gave a synopsis of the traffic report they had prepared for the project. Discussion followed regarding the different traffic access alternatives. 5. Mr. David Hanaman, Vice President Desert Hospital Foundation and resident of La Quinta, spoke on behalf of the project. 6. Ms. Alevis Guttke, 78-540 Saguaro Drive, spoke on behalf of the project stating her support of the jobs the project would provide as well as close medical services. 7. Ms. Barbara Rentle, 54-120 Diaz, spoke on behalf of the high quality health care that would be provided to the residents of La Quinta. 8. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 9. Commissioner Ladner inquired of Staff if other hospitals were looking at La Quinta as a possible satellite site. Staff responded there had been inquires from other local hospitals. 3 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 10. Commissioner Ellson asked the Applicant if moving the parking lot on the south of the project and creating a retention basin would help with the on -site water problem. Mr. Bergmann stated the area referred to was a for future ingress and egress to the project. 11. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff what would happen to the property if the project did not come to fruition. Would the requested zoning stay or would it revert back to the original zoning? Staff responded that it would remain unless the City rezoned the property. 12. Commissioner Mosher asked the Applicant if their financing was in place. Mr. Bergmann responded that the take-out financing was in place and they were waiting for the construction funding. 13. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff how many existing traffic lights were on Washington Street. Discussion followed as to the existing and proposed signals, speed controls that could be placed at the different signals, and when the signals would be installed. 14. Commissioner Ladner inquired if the day care facility was viable. Mr. Bergmann stated there was currently a Memorandum of Understanding between the Bangerters and the Hospital. 15. Discussion followed between the Commissioners, Staff, and the Applicant regarding the traffic signals and the pros and cons in relation to the egress/ingress alternatives. Staff stated that if signals were allowed, that a condition be placed on the project to require the Applicant to pay for all improvements as well as the interconnecting costs. 16. Commissioner Ladner inquired about the pull out for the bus stop. Staff replied that the bus stop was across the street. 17. Commissioner Mosher stated that it appears that the deep concerns about traffic in our City, has become an issue that is out of all proportion relative to the logical and practical application of sound and rational judgement. The concern about becoming "another Los Angeles" with its highway congestion is a popular topic that has become a political hot potato, bordering on paranoia. He stated that without traffic a city cannot have a viable residential community and without traffic a city will definitely have no prosperous commercial possibility. He further stated that this may be unfortunate for those who are planning for utopia, but it is true. He stated that he was in favor of alternative #1 for two basic and practical reasons: PCMINOCT8 4 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 A. The speedway that is now characteristic of Washington Street is deplorable and unsafe. B . The health and welfare of our community will be better served by a little longer travel time which can be negotiated in a safe manner. 18. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-042 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 91-037, and confirmation of the Environmental Determination. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 19. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-043 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91- 065, from R-1 Single Family Residential to OMS Office/Medical and related services. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Ladner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 20. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-038 approving Plot Plan 91-465, subject to the revised conditions (including Scheme #1 - access) . The motion passed with Commissioner Ladner and Chairwoman Barrows voting no. 21. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-044 approving Tentative Parcel Map 27267, subject to the revised conditions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, & Marrs. NOES: Commissioner Ladner and Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. C. Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1; a request of Northstar California Corporation and Valley Land Development to amend the Specific Plan to add approximately 30 contiguous acres and subdivide into 75 lots with private streets and common area with access from the Pyramids project. Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission concerning the project it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to table the issue as requested by the Applicants. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. D. Tentative Tract 26769, Condition of Approval Amendment; a request of Qualico Development Inc. for approval of an amendment to Condition of Approval #43. 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. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Greg Shannon spoke on behalf of the Applicant . 3. Mr. Robert Kull, 54-721 Monroe Street, spoke concerning the issue of his property, which is in close proximity to this project, not being in conformance with the current zoning. Staff responded that Mr. Kull's property would be zoned for the Equestrian Overlay and would therefore be in conformance. 4. Discussion followed as to the properties in this area that would have the Equestrian Overlay as well as other developments being conditioned to notify prospective buyers that this is an equestrian area. 5. The Applicant agreed to a modification to Condition #8, requiring disclosure to buyers that there are horses boarded in the area. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 7. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to modificed Condition #8 as noted above and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-045 recommending to the City Council that Condition of Approval #43 be amended as follows: "The Applicant shall construct an eight foot meandering bike path in the westerly parkway and landscaped setback lot along Monroe Street in -lieu of the standard six foot wide sidewalk." PCMINOCT8 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. E. Preannexation Zoning 91-068, General Plan Amendment 91-039; a request of Valley Land Development to change the land use designation from High Density Residential/General Commercial and Low Density Residential to General Commercial, Office, Commercial, Low and High Density Residential or other designated as deemed appropriate; and a change of zone from R-2, C-P, R-1 to R-2, R-1, C-P and OMS or other zone as deemed appropriate. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing and as no one wished to address the Commission, Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 12, 1991, at the request of the Applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. V . PUBLIC COMMENT - None VI. BUSINESS SESSION A. Sign Application 91-153; a request of Qualico Development, Inc. for approval of a sign adjustment application for subdivision signs. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked if the sign was to be illuminated. Staff responded that the sign would not be illuminated but the landscaping lighting may reflect on the sign. 3. There being no further comment, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-039 approving the sign adjustment as submitted. Unanimously approved. B . Tentative Tract 23269 - La Quinta Highlands; a request of Century Homes for approval of architectural elevations for four units. 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. 7 Planning Commission Minutes October 8, 1991 2. Commissioner Ellson stated she felt the smallest floor plan was an ideal plan for a handicapped person. She asked the Applicant if they had considered marketing it as such. The Applicant stated they had not, but appreciated the comment. 3. There being no further comment, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 91-040 approving four architectural elevations for lots 79- 94, 96-148, 245-261 for Tract 23269, as recommended by Staff. Unanimously approved. C . Tentative Tract 24545 - The Pyramids; a request of Northstar California Corporation for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ladner asked if this request was in compliance with the Development Agreement. Staff requested that this matter be continued to October 22, 1991, in order to verify compliance with the Development Agreement. 3. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to continue the matter to October 22, 1991. Unanimously approved. D. Tentative Tract 23995, Extension #1; a request of A. G. Spanos for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern regarding the density of the project as well as allowing commercial development in this part of the City. She felt this needed to be reviewed in light of the General Plan update. 3. Following discussion relative to Commissioner Ellson's concern, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-041 directing Staff to set this matter for Public Hearing to re-examine the project. Unanimously approved. E. Tentative Tract 24890, Extension #1; a request of J. M. Peters for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. PCMINOCT8 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 2. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91-044 approving Sign Application 91-157 subject to the attached conditions. Unanimously approved. C. Sin Application 91-155 (TT 23935); a request of GWR Development for approval of a sign adjustment to allow additional height for temporary signs. 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. Discussion followed among the Commissioner and Staff regarding the height of the sign. Commissioner Marrs stated he felt a precedent was being set for allowing signs to exceed the desired height set by the City. 3. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91- 045 approving Sign Application 91-155 subject to the revised conditions and with the condition that the sign would be allowed for one year only. Unanimously approved. D. It was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to reconsider Sign Application 91-157 in light of the previous discussion. Unanimously approved. E. Sign Application 91-157; a request of Outdoor Media Group. 1. It was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91-046 approving Sign Application 91-157 subject to the revised conditions and with the condition that the sign be allowed for one year only. Unanimously approved. F. Tentative Tract 24950, Amendment #1; a request of Chong Lee for approval of a First One Year Time Extension. 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. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-052 approving the First One Year Time Extension for Tentative Tract 24950, Amendment #1, subject to conditions. Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Marrs, Ladner, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Mosher & Ellson . ABSTAINING: None. VI. OTHER A. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed the upcoming joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting to be held on October 29th (Study Session) and December 11, 1991, open meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on November 12, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:57 P.M., October 22, 1991. PCMINOCT22 10 OTHER MINUTES JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUIVCI]C. AND PLANNING COMMISSION September 9, 1991 Mayor Pena called the joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission together at 7 : 06 P.M. Mayor Pena led the flag salute. ROLL CALL: Councilman Bohnenberger, Sniff, Rushworth, Franklin, and Mayor Pena Planning Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs Chairwoman Barrows Principal Planner Fred Baker introduced the consultants for the General Plan update, Mr. Tim Campbell and Mr. Jon Vlaming of BRW, Inc. to the Council, Commission and audience. Mr. Campbell passed out a booklet containing the "Visions, Goals, and Objectives Workshop" to everyone. He then proceeded to review the items that were discussed at the last meeting. Those items were: Land Use - Commercial and Residential Open Space Urban Development - Hillsides Environmental Issues Circulation Historical At this point, Mr. Campbell explained the purpose of this meeting. He explained what visions, goals, and objectives are and how they hoped to obtain this information. Some topics to consider which he felt needed to be addressed were: Existing Visions, Goals, & Objectives Hazards - Natural and Manmade Natural Resources Cultural Resources Commercial Development Infrastructure Housing Mr. Campbell broke the group into three groups at 7:50 P.M. in order to get more input and direction from those present. The meeting reconveyned at 9:00 P.M. and each group addressed the issues discussed in their respective groups. RED GROUP - JON VLAMING 1. Land Use: A balance and harmony of residential and employment land uses; Convenience; well located park and recreational facilities; reduce pollution by reducing automobile trips; address need for light industrial uses. 2. Transportation: Well functioning vehicular circulation system meeting land use needs; transit that provides good facilities for patrons that does not impede traffic; off-street bicycle path system needed; a well functioning pedestrian path system is highly desirable. 3. Economic Development: Market the City in a proactive manner; Economic Development Department to attract large and small companies; development to meet needs of the community; develop strategies for Highway 111 Corridor (community retail) and downtown (neighborhood commercial/municipal center). 4. Open Space: Keep mountains undeveloped; address equestrian needs of community ( riding trails) in most advantageous capacity for City residents. 5. Natural Resources Conservation: Conserve/protect mountains and drainage areas; groundwater protection - effluent uses for large landscaping areas ( golf courses) ; interpretive area for history (museum) . 6. Environmental Hazards: No imported refuse; no businesses that generate hazardous waste products or obnoxious odors; quantify generation of waste and type. 7. Infrastructure and Public Service: Curb all roads - create comprehensive treatment; law enforcement - create adequate levels of service for residents; evaluate creative financing of utility construction for employment. 8. Water Conservation: Use drought tolerant plant species for landscaping; use gray water. 9. Parks and Recreation: Hierarchy of park types; develop parks within close proximity of users; establish a benefit assessment district for parks. 10. Air Quality: Encourage mass transit; encourage employees to locate in residential areas which are in close proximity to their areas of employment. GREEN GROUP - TIM CAMPBELL 1. Land Use: Maintain the City's low density residential character with the necessary supportive commercial and community facilities; the City's unique and attractive character stems from a combination of its environmental setting near the mountains, its existing resort image, the ethnic diversity in the Cove, Village and other areas and the positive and culturally -oriented attitude of its residents . Preserve the diversity and type of uses as in the Cove. Commit to a preservation of the high quality of life. Encourage regional commercial and employment uses along the Highway 111 Corridor. Do not allow PCMIN9-9JT the type of strip commercial development along Highway 111 that has occurred in Palm Desert ( cluster commercial development in nodes or centers similar to the Von's Center at Washington/ Highway 111) . Locate major employment uses and regional commercial uses outside of neighborhoods within the Highway 111 Corridor. Locate other types of commercial and employment uses only along arterial streets and not within neighborhoods. Locate high density residential uses in aesthetic settings which give them the appearance of a low density character. 2. Economic Development: Pursue high tax revenue generating types of users, specifically high end retail, hotel uses and "clean" industry or corporate headquarters, offices. Attract the types of uses which require an employment base of skilled workers and then entice the employees to live in La Quinta. Attract the types of specialty/boutique shops that typically are located in exclusive, tourist towns. Locate these boutique types of uses in the Village. Economic development efforts should be targeted to market opportunities and should respect the desired type, location, and design criteria established by the citizens of La Quinta. 3. Circulation: Provision of a balanced circulation system accommodating all modes of transportation. Encourage non -vehicular modes (e.g., integrated system and network of bikepaths, sidewalks as in Ojai, David, California. Encourage development of a private shuttle system funded and operated by the private sector. The shuttle would circulate between tourist attractions. Discourage high automobile speeds through residential areas through the use of street design and design geometrics . Maintain the existing level of transit service to La Quinta, and specifically the Cove. YELLOW GROUP - FRED BAKER 1. Land Use: Develop the Village in a character like Laguna Beach - an upscale mall or village environment with pedestrian access. Attract a balance of land uses. One-half of the yellow group wants apartments and the city should provide opportunities for them to be located in La Quinta. The other one-half do not want apartments, but if apartments are located in the City the design and open space should be regulated, also provide facilities and amenities. Address urban design of uses such as uniform architecture and height standards. 2. Circulation: Model alternatives; golf carts, bicycles, safe streets. 3. Economic Development: Balance of medium upscale, clean industries with high tax revenue generating capability. Destination hotels/resorts properly sited. No Motel 6 type of hotel development. Employment for youth; services for the community; economic development key is the attraction of a commercial, financial base of businesses. 4. Open Space: Area south of Cove should be "Natural Open Space"; school south of Cove; open space west of "Yucatan Peninsula". PCMIN9-9JT 3 5. Natural Resources Conservation: Protect views of mountains (building height restriction) . 6. Cultural Resources: Adult education; concerts; visual and performing arts. 7. Environmental Hazards: Light (illumination) pollution enforcement; air and noise pollution; air traffic patterns/noise. 8. Infrastructure and Public Services: More police protection; adult education (C . 0. D . ) ; place utilities underground as streets are built. 9. Source Reduction and Recycling: Composting from golf courses. 10. Water Conservation: Eliminate use of water trucks; use recycled water on golf courses. 11. Parks and Recreation: An affordable La Quinta municipal golf course for residents; parks for all ages (similar to Santa Barbara, California); park activities for young people, band shell, events and outdoors activities. 12. Air Quality: Dust control from development activity; "No Smoking" ordinance. Following this recap, Mayor Pena thanked Mr. Campbell and Mr. Vlaming for their presentation and thanked the members of the community for taking the time to participate and give their input. This joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:21 P.M. PCMIN9-9JT 4