The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 11 26 PCPLANNING COMUSSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California November 26, 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. 91-057 Beginning Minute Motion No. 91-046 Cd�LL TO ORDER — Flag Salute ROLL C.A.LL 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 ui ing 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 .............. Resolutions 91- , 91- PC/AGENDA 2. 3. 4. 5. 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 .............. Request to continue to December 10, 1991 Item ................ GENNETRINALL PLAN �NDMENT 91 039 XATION NING 91-068 & 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 .............. Request to continue to December 10, 1991 Item ................ CONTINUED - PLOT PLAN 91-466 & VARIANCE 91-019 Applicant ........... Simon Plaza, Inc. ]Location ............ Southeast corner of Washington Street &Highway 111 Request ............. To develop a mixed use commercial complex which will include the development of multiple story buildings and a four story parking structure on 5.5+ acres zoned scenic highway commercial. A variance to vary from the sideyard setback requirements of the C-P-S Zone district. Action .............. Resolution 91- , Minute Motion 91- Item ................ SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #4 & TENTATIVE TRACT 25389 Applicant ........... M. J. Brock & Sons Location ............ East of Washington Street between 50th Avenue and Calle Tampico extension, and Calle Ronda and Adams Street alignment. Request ............. To amend a Condition of Approval relating to maximum height of buildings. This request applies to the area within TT 25389. 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. PC/AGENDA When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 Applicant ........... North Star California Corporation Location ............ East of Washington Street and south of 48th Avenue within the Pyramids project. Request ............. Approval of First One Year Extension of Time Action .............. Resolution 91- 2. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 91-468 Applicant ........... Automobile Club of Southern California Location ............ Northeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within the One Eleven La Quinta Center Request ............. Approval of a plot plan to allow construction of an office building. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- 3. Item ............... SR ADJUSTMENT 91-004 Applicant ........... Linda Babior Location ............ 51-065 Avenida Vallejo (in the Cove area) Request ............. To allow the usage of standing seam metal roofing and curved wall sections. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- 4. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 91-159 Applicant ........... Simon Plaza, Inc . ; Mr. Philip Pead Location ............ Southeast corner of Washington and Highway 111 Request ............. Request to install a shopping center identification sign, directional signs and multiple building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on five and one half acres. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held November 12, 1991. OTHER ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA STUDY SESSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1991 City Council Chambers DISCUSSION ONLY 4:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Height limits along Washington Street - Specific Plan Amendment b . PGA West Specific Plan - review C. Guest houses, - draft regulations d . Satellite Dishes - Commercial & Residential zones PC/AGENDA 4 PH #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 12, 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. 5TAFFRFTa 065/C5 —1— DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO IMPORT FILL DIRT TO RAISE THE LOT ELEVATIONS AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE ENTIRE SITE. A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1991: 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 (Attachment A). 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. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 1991: The La Quinta Planning Commission held a continued Public Hearing on the above project on November 12, 1991. At this meeting a number of people spoke for and against the church expansion. In addition, the licensing and zoning of the church school were discussed. Staff was directed to contact the City Attorney for clarification of the zoning status of the school. Attached are the letter sent to the City Attorney and reply received (Attachment 11 & 12). In summary the City Attorney states the following: - "The PUP application should cover the school, existing church building and proposed church expansion. While the church and school may currently be a legal nonconforming use, expansion of the facilities would remove that status and require that all nonconforming structures obtain the appropriate City approvals." - "Recent case law upholds the right of a city to deny approval of a church in a residential zone based upon such concerns as noise, traffic, parking and compatibility with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the City cannot prohibit private schools in residential areas when public schools are allowed in such areas." - "It is important to note that the effect of denial of the PUP would only be to prevent the Church expansion. Even if the PUP were denied, the existing church and school would continue to be a legal nonconforming use." STAFFRPT.065/0 -2- "A city can probably also establish reasonable conditions to approval of private schools which do not have the effect of preventing such schools from being constructed.... For instance, a condition that the school be in compliance with state laws applicable to private schools would be reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the city without excluding such school. Parking, height, lot coverage, setback and other typical requirements would also be upheld if not unduly burdensome and consistently applied." C. 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. D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (See Attachment 3 & 4) 1. The existing church building (1,404 square feet) is presently located on the site. The Applicant has proposed a new church building (3,553 square feet) to seat +100 people. 2. The new church will operate during the hours of 9:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Sunday and 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. on Wednesdays. 3. The church will employ 2 full time and 1 part time employees. 4. The existing school will utilize the existing church building. This school covers grades 1 through 8 and has 20 students. This school has been in existence for seven years. STAFFRPT.065/GS -3- 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 "to prevent a claustrophobic feeling and to provide a church atmosphere. The higher ceiling is needed to preserve the character of this type of building". 11. The Parking Regulations state that a masonry wall is required around all nonresidential uses in a residential area. The Applicant has also filed a Variance request to postpone the construction of a masonry wall on the south side of the property to reduce initial financial outlay of this project. E. 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. 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. 5TAFFRFT e M 6 5/ C 5 - 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. 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. STAFFRPT.0651CS -5- 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. 8. Existinq 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. At the Planning Commission meeting November 12, 1991, the Applicant provided a copy of the letter recently sent to the Riverside County Office of Education in lieu of the required affidavit. Staff however has a concern that a Health Department and Fire Department inspection has not recently been done of the school property as is required by the private school affidavit form (Attachment 13). Staff therefore recommends that these be done prior to issuance of building permits for the church expansion. The validity of attaching Conditions of Approval for this PUP relating to the existing school is discussed by the City Attorney in Attachment 12. STAFPRPT.065/CS -6- 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 separate 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. Please see Attachments 11 & 12 including correspondence with the City Attorney on the above matter. 9. Parcel Merger: The Applicant will be required to merge Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #5 prior to building permit issuance. 10. Design of proposed building: The architectural design of the church is modest and has sufficient detailing on the front and side elevations. Some architectural dealing could be added or landscaping suitably located to add interest to the rear elevation. 11. Existing Building: Staff recommends that the Applicant be required upgrade the existing building. It should be noted that on the existing church there is an unscreened air conditioning unit on the roof and in one wall. These should be screened with materials architecturally compatible with the building. The existing church is plain and lacks compatibility with the new church. However, the window popouts and corner treatments could be added to the existing building. Additionally, the two buildings should be the same color. It should be noted that the existing church building does not have a tile roof. However, requiring a new tile roof on this building to match the new church would create financial hardship on the church. STAFFRPT.065/CS -7- 12. Signage: All proposed signs will be submitted and approved at a later date. 13. Comments from the Engineering Department: 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 La Quinta Municipal Code. B. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. C. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. D. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. 14. Comments from Building & Safety Department: The above Department comments that "openings less than 10-feet from the north property line must be protected by a 3/4 hour fire assembly per Table 5-A in the UBC. 15. Comments from other Agencies: Comments from the Fire Marshall, Imperial Irrigation District and CVWD are attached (Attachment #6, 7 & 8). F. 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). STAFFRPT.065/CS -8- G. 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. H. CONCLUSION Staff feels that Public Use Permit 91-008 should be concidered in light of the above information, including the City Attorneys memo dealing with licensing and zoning issues. I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following options: - 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. 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. Staff has prepared the attached Conditions of Approval which can be adopted if the Public Use Permit is approved and Variance application is denied, or amended if an alternative decision is made. STAFFRFT.055/CS -9- Attachments: 1. Overall locality plan 2. Detailed locality plan 3. Plot Plan 4. Floor Plan & Elevation 5. Environmental Assessment 6. Letter from Fire Marshal dated August 29, 1991 7. Letter from IID dated July 5, 1991 8. Letter from CVWD dated September 9, 1991 9. Letters opposing this project including petition submitted 10/22/91 10. Extract from Design Review Board meeting October, 1991 11. Memo sent to City Attorney dated November 15, 1991 12. Memo received from City Attorney dated November 22, 1991 13. Private School affidavit 14. Copy of letter sent to County Office of Education from La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church STRFFRPT.065/CS -10- 0 • r 4 i ■r'�rrs CASE No. ATTACHMENT No. 2 mom mom Al �r 1 0 ss A 14f f1 v � o G � CASE MAP PUP 9 1 -008 46 O 14 4'5 o 3 MA AVE 1� ORTH cuss wo V*aro --I* i •qo�� oo ' e %oTW MAHO Vino n ATTACHMENT No. 3 W r N I* rs NdY A I� wry Iw..I1IM�I11�� .�.I�r r r rI. •�� ATTACHMENT No. 4 0c- I. Background ATTACHMENT No. 5 Environmental Assessment No.%---9 Case No. Q ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent l.Q w1^4t-,6`_ GtRI STZ,SN Wit..®vV Ott v2cH 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 5 3 — 1?>� C,e, LL gi p, o.-6ox 467°46- L,4 CA 9 Z-.53 3. Date Checklist Prepared j2$f 9 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Gt1�1 d l,� If -..Am 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? �t ,` b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface X__ 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 MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? YY b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X 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? YY n i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 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)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants X 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 ll 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: IL a. Increases in existing noise levels? moo+ s e_vcrt 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 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? MAYBE . NO 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: nsat- tional a. Generation of substantial addi vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? not S4$jAA)j0 J 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? AA 'A'0 r f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? f. Other governmental services? X - n - x X YES 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). See_ 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? MAYBE NO A -9, E7 YES MAYBE NO c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential — to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) x n x X 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. 2. 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 wall on the south side of the project (Parking Regulations require a 6 foot wall around the site). This property is located at 53-800 Calle Paloma; Lots 65 & 66, Desert Club Tract Unit #15. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The environmental checklist completed for this project shows the potential environmental impact of this project III. MITIGATION MEASURES The environmental checklist identified areas where an environmental impact will take place as a consequence of the proposed development. The following pages discuss these impacts and mitigation measures to be taken to reduce these effects. 1. Earth a. No impact. This is a small project comprising one building on a relatively flat site. No major disruption of soil will occur. b. c. e. The proposal will result in very minors disruptions, displacements, compaction, overcovering of the soil and a minor change in the topography and ground surface features. This is due to proposed grading to be done when the implementation of the project is commenced. Unless mitigation measures are taken, once the land surface is disturbed wind erosion might occur. Note should be made that no exceptional topographical features exist'on the site. Mitigation measures proposed are as follows: rq /nncnL . 007 - 1 - 2. 3. 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. Air No impact. This type of land use does not emit any hazardous substance into the air. 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). rc lnr)rr_r. nn7 - 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. e-C Inr)rnt. nn7 - 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. Housin 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. 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. 16. 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. f l 5twv„N, 0, 11 lf, G40k 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 feO , as proposed by the applicant however, might disturb the view and have a greater visual impact. A building more centrally located on the site at a height of 23-feet might have less visual impact. 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. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore based on the above information, this project will have no great effect on the environment subject to the discussed mitigation measures. r•c innrr_r. nn7 - 5 - ATTACHMENT No. 6 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To. City of La Quinta Planning Department ATTN: Glenda Lainis RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 August 29, 1991 RfctivtL SEP C C; tot . Re: Public Use Permit 91-008 CITY Ur LM tjUINTA This letter supercedes Fire Department letter dated March 11; V.R DEVELOU"T nEP1 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 hydrants) (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 910, 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 ® IND1O OFFICE D T96CUL+ OFFICE 7%733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, bxdio, CA 92201 41002 County Crnte Drive, Suite 225, Taneculs, CA 9239 (619) 342MM 9 FAX (619) 775.2072 RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 O ATTACHMENT No. 7 IMPIRIA1 IRRIGAI 1UN U1 tRICI ( 1 I PW COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81.600 AVENUE 58 P. O. BOX 1080 • LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 V TELEPHONE (619) 398.6811 FAX (612) 399.5848 PD-DDC July 5, 1991 City of La Quinta Development Review Committee 78-105 Calle Estado • La Quinta, Calif. 92253 i`'�� :' I.vNTA 'LANKt,':G A. 0EP1 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, �• (4�/ THOMAS G. HILL Superintendent, Distribution Coachella Valley Divison LQChurch.LTR ATE AT City of La Qui: ATTACHMENT No. 8 SO 131991 �IaTA1C COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRIEVBLIC WORD POST OFFICE BOX 10% • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&265' DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS. PRESIDENT THOMASE LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER C- " ENGINEER RAYMOND R RUMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUT"•- SECRETARY JOHN W MCFADDEN September 9 OWEN McCook ASSISTANT GEAi%�. MANAGER DOROTHYM NICHOLS p , 1991 REDWINEANDSHERP- ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH File: 0163,.1r Rf awtV City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 SEP �- c La Quinta, California 92253 Ul"TA v� LA � Gentlemen: ,CNN, r 0nc� OEQ 1EL0 1 Subject: Public Use Permit 91-008, Portion of Northeast Quarter, Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 1 foot, on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley 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, 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 FETTERS OPPOSING THE PROJECT May 17, 1991 rpzzm�MV CITY OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: PROPOSED CHURCH EXPANSION/PARKING LOT ON CALLE 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 fiedgeo 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 Quints 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca 92253 Attn : Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director Dear Mr. Herman, r'•ll 1 u 0 C T 1 0 1991 Y OF tA G-,,.A1A -P,IT In May, 1989 my wife and I moved into our new home in Desert Club unit 15 in La Quints. 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 Quints 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 Quints 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 Quints 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, "0 <-A - `Zi'ane Hooper 78-620 Ave. Tujunga La Quinta, Ca 92253 (619) 564 1976 2 . 50-645 Calle Quito OCT 15 1991 La Quinta, Ca 92253 October 14, 1991 Planning & Development Department City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Ref: Variance requested by La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church at 53-800 Calle Paloma Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman Dear Mr. Herman, We would like to go on record as being unalterably opposed to the above referenced variance. Moreover, the project described in your notice dated October 22, 1991 understates the scope of the undertaking, according to the church's plans. The building would actually be taller and be constructed on a considerably smaller area than listed. We would have liked to have been able to build our home with one slightly elevated room but were told that it was impossible. We certainly do not wish to have our view restricted by and cluttered with another building. Moreover, while a variance is requested enabling them to postpone building the required 6 foot fence around their property on the South side, no mention is made of the `act that they have no fence on the East. We believe fences are necessary as prescribed in the City Code. Our only contacts with the church in the past have been very cordial. We would like to keep them this way. ':heir 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 c:ace 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 TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DANE HOOPER ET AL c 4� RE: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT #91-008 & VARIANCE #91-018 AT: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA LOTS 65&66 DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT 15 I STRONGLY RECOMMEND AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICA- TION. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. THIS UNIT IS ZONED SR AND, EXCEPT FOR THE EXISTING SMALL CHURCH -SCHOOL, CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OCCUPIED, FOR THE MOST PART, BY OWNERS. 2.HOMES IN THE TRACT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY STANDARDS WHICH INCLUDE A 17' ROOF HEIGHT LIMIT AND WALLS SURROUNDING EACH LOT. THE SEVENTEEN FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR ALL TO ENJOY. IT THEREFORE CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. A 22' OR 23' HIGH ROOF WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARAC- TER WITHIN THE TRACT, WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA AND WOULD PROVIDE AN NON -AESTHETIC EYESORE AND WOULD DETRACT FROM OUR VIEW AND APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS WHICH DREW US TO THE AREA INITIALLY. 3.POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 6' MASONRY WALL AROUND THE SITE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH PREVAILING NEIGH- BCRHOOD STANDARDS. WHEN EACH OF OUR HOMES WERE BUILT WE ACCEPTED THE ESTAB- LISHED STANDARDS. OUR HOMES MET THE 17' HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE WALLS HAVE BEEN BUILT-- WITHOUT WAITING FOR A NEIGHBOR TO COME ALONG TO BUILD THEM FOR US. INCIDENTALLY THAT NEIGHBOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 6' MASONRY WALL AND COULD VERY WELL DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SAME. 4. A WALL IS TO BE BUILT DOWN WASHINGTON ST. RESULTING IN CLOSURE OF THE THREE STREETS NEAREST THE EXISTING CHURCH AND WILL CAUSE ALL CHURCH TRAFFIC TO BE ROUTED THROUGH THE UNCON- TROLLED INTERSECTION OF CALLE PALOMA AND CALLE TAMPICO. THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A CHURCH AND SCHOOL OF THIS MAGNI- TUDE WOULD RESULT IN OVER -CROWDING OF THE INTERNAL STREETS AND WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS NOT IN KEEPING WITH A RESI- DENTIAL COMMUNITY. 5. THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADDRESSES "EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH" ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE. IN FACT IF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT IS CORRECT THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMPLETELY NEW CHURCH ON A VACANT LOT AND INCREASED USE OF THE PRESENT FACILITY AS AN ENLARGED DAY-CARE CENTER OR SCHOOL -ALL SITED ON A PROPERTY CLOSER TO .75 ACRE THAN TO 1.4 ACRES. PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS PROVIDE IN TITLE 9.176.040 THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS "—SHALL NOT BE GRANTED --IF THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." I THEREFORE PETITION THIS COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 91-018 TO ALLOW INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AND POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY WALL AS NOT BEING APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA. I FURTHER PETITION THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91•-008 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3553 SQ. FT. CHURCH . BUILDING WITH ATTENDANT PARKING FACILITIES AND REQUIRED LIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR- HOOD. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE SET ASIDE. THE CONCENTRATION OF TRAFFIC ON THE PARKING LOT AND ON THE ONE STREET THAT WILL SERVE IT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS. ALSO ADDED LIGHTING REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY MAY RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT POLLUTION. A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MAY THEREFORE BE INDICATED. NAME AND ADDRESS ( please print) DA#2f H 00136-I 7-& x o AY. 7-vium 6 q M620 AYF. 1'vJ&N6A ,j!!�c.LEN A . SN i P/ L so - 9 z 5 CAcLE Gu /.vn L So 9� S cge- c e �/ivro __E�2 �_,vc;; _cr, ov Y c�1cGc= �'v/err 7 SIGNATURE 650 - 0(Jetir f � 78'6 3� T u fib'- lt�v oc C%, 4h ;d414-6 4-t-Q 5-0 1 i_ 68� Jalye u Te i a. o ��//e a/oIn,¢ AMW yyovm& se-SsutiJS 5-6-&Y5 OAu.� cr&17?0 ''- ycc, B 16""t Ais a Vc C, SE c to I-ac f'A-c,eA A43/Jric ► , 73� 0 %P S-2C TuluNG.! P(t- �- L- :2 L L/L I 5 [ �S �``,-tL�f- fir•., T T 4 Yr s.f A i/A/1/ j 0 6 3 0 O-A LLE C /.yl—* TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DANE HOOPER ET AL RE: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT #91-008 & VARIANCE #91-018 AT: 53-800 CALLE PALOMA LOTS 65&66 DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT 15 I STRONGLY RECOMMEND AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICA- TION. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1. THIS UNIT IS ZONED SR AND, EXCEPT FOR THE EXISTING SMALL CHURCH -SCHOOL, CONSISTS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS OCCUPIED, FOR THE MOST PART, BY OWNERS. 2.HOMES IN THE TRACT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY STANDARDS WHICH INCLUDE A 17' ROOF HEIGHT LIMIT AND WALLS SURROUNDING EACH LOT. THE SEVENTEEN FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE VIEWS OF THE SURROUNDING AREA FOR ALL TO ENJOY. IT THEREFORE CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. A 22' OR 23' HIGH ROOF WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARAC- TER WITHIN THE TRACT, WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA AND WOULD PROVIDE AN NON -AESTHETIC EYESORE AND WOULD DETRACT FROM OUR VIEW AND APPRECIATION OF THE BEAUTIFUL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS WHICH DREW US TO THE AREA INITIALLY. 3.POSTPONEM.ENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 6' MASONRY WALL AROUND THE SITE WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH PREVAILING NEIGH- BORHOOD STANDARDS. WHEN EACH OF OUR HOMES WERE BUILT WE ACCEPTED THE ESTAB- LISHED STANDARDS. OUR HOMES MET THE 17' HEIGHT LIMIT AND THE WALLS HAVE BEEN BUILT-- WITHOUT WAITING FOR A NEIGHBOR TO COME ALONG TO BUILD THEM FOR US. INCIDENTALLY THAT NEIGHBOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 6' MASONRY WALL AND COULD VERY WELL DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE IN CONSTRUCTION OF SAME. 4. A WALL IS TO BE BUILT DOWN WASHINGTON ST. RESULTING IN CLOSURE OF THE THREE STREETS NEAREST THE EXISTING CHURCH AND WILL CAUSE ALL CHURCH TRAFFIC TO BE ROUTED THROUGH THE UNCON- TROLLED INTERSECTION OF CALLE PALOMA AND CALLE TAMPICO. THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A CHURCH AND SCHOOL OF THIS MAGNI- TUDE WOULD RESULT IN OVER -CROWDING OF THE INTERNAL STREETS AND WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC HAZARDS NOT IN KEEPING WITH A RESI- DENTIAL COMMUNITY. 5. THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ADDRESSES "EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH" ON A 1.4 ACRE SITE. IN FACT IF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT IS CORRECT THIS APPLICATION INCLUDES CONSTRUC- TION OF A COMPLETELY NEW CHURCH ON A VACANT LOT AND INCREASED USE OF THE PRESENT FACILITY AS AN ENLARGED DAY-CARE CENTER OR SCHOOL --ALL SITED ON A PROPERTY CLOSER TO .75 ACRE THAN TO 1.4 ACRES. PLANNING AND ZONING REGULATIONS PROVIDE IN TITLE 9.176.040 THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS "---SHALL NOT BE GRANTED ---IF THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY." I THEREFORE PETITION THIS COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 91-018 TO ALLOW INCREASED BUILDING HEIGHT AND POSTPONEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY WALL AS NOT BEING APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA. I FURTHER PETITION THE COMMISSION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3553 SQ. FT. CHURCH BUILDING WITH ATTENDANT PARKING FACILITIES AND REQUIRED LIGHTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR- HOOD. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE SET ASIDE. THE CONCENTRATION OF TRAFFIC ON THE, PARKING LOT AND ON THE ONE STREET THAT WILL SERVE IT MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE, CARBON MONOXIDE, NITROUS OXIDES AND OTHER POLLUTANTS. ALSO ADDED LIGHTING REQUIRED FOR SAFE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY MAY RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN LIGHT POLLUTION. A COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MAY THEREFORE BE INDICATED. NAME AND ADDRESS (please print) 7& - &;Lo Ay. T uJu-Vcq AM 8011405-" 1qh,veEL r `woe q Ate-_ 5D -73 5 v„j SIGNATURE 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 needed to soften the height of the building by the use of trees and landscaping. 6. There being no further discussion it was moved by Chairman Rice and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-032 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91-466 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. D. Plot Plan 91-467; a request of Desert Villas, Inc. for approval of a proposed single story apartment complex.. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Craig Bryant, Applicant addressed the Board regarding the background of the proposed project. DRBMIN-10/2 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 ewe •c� Al x ( ATTACHMENT No. 11 MEMORANDUM Of TO: DAWN HONEYWELL, CITY ATTORNEY )qyt FROM : JERRY HERMAN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1991 SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008, LA QUINTA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP The Planning Department is presently processing a Public Use Permit for the expansion of the La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church. This church was approved in 1973 by the County and is presently comprised of one building and an adjoining parking area. The Applicant wishes to expand by building an assembly hall, 3,553 square feet in size. The future church services will take place in the new building. This church is in an SR (Special Residential) Zone. The previous zoning was R-1 and was rezoned SR in 1986. Approximately 8 years ago the church began operating a p iedte schno October a week in the existing building without City approval�' 1985 the City contacted the City ablishment of a fun -time privaAttorney at tt time, Jim ten, and asked school withinan following question. Is the existing church considered a legal extension of the church use, thereby being exempt from additional City zoning requirements?" The reply was: "We have power to control expansion of the allowed use, especially where it causes further zoning problems (e.g., substantial additional traffic) . I suggest you hold decision until (and if) we have complaints about traffic, noise, etc., if not, why make it an issue." In response to the above, the Planning Department did not pursue the above matter at that time. More recently the church has filed a Public Use Permit for the expansion of the church, i.e., a new assembly building. The old building will continue to house the existing school which has a maximum of 25 children. At previous Planning Commission Public Hearings for this project held October 22nd and November 12th (now continuedof the existing private school and complained have questioned the legality about the noise resulting from school activities. MEMOGL.023 Please provide legal advice on the following: 1. If a PUP application is made for the expansion of the church should: a. The school be included in the evaluation and approval of the project and conditions of approval attached related to the school? b. Should the school not be considered part of PUP 91-008 since it already exists and will exist in the existing building and not the new building? 2. In any event, since a Public Use Permit is required for educational institutions ant need too all appes apply (Section O10 of the Zoning Ordinance), does the the school to make school the hool comply legally with n the Zoning Ordinance? The church agrued then � Memnow, that the orandum f Law" supplied byool is an integral hurcrt h) he church's activities (see attache It should also be noted that the church has in the past, failed to comply with State Code Requirements (Section 33190, 33191,35297, 44237 and 48222), and has not filed private school dthtaffidavits. At the now have filed a 19911Stat Statement with the County to complheld on November 12, 1991, y Applicant stated that they with the above State laws. We would appreciate legal advice in writing on the above issues and other pertinent issues for the Planning Commission to review prior to their next meeting to be held November 26, 1991. The reports go out on November 22, 1991. If more time is needed the Public Hearing on PUP 91-008 can be continued until December 10, 1991. Enclosure MEMOGL.023 --�-�-" , 7 L d 14 CC/ Jr, 4 are xv J e 44, c4 41t, he e6l �, e- /,7,0/ 4121;, f -.,. a/ Ae -re Ya .fc�dd! �/i��ti+lih �k4✓/�r ��t/rG� Co'..✓/� i 74e,(,,-yy Ar e: !J / !L .Sl NibOn /'" W11, f ��0 �•►J of c drG4 Yvr r+ /� 7 I-A&Z IA4 G� �il�riicifC �d✓G� ,fG�id� <✓h�G� hic./ �f�/,%/dXtlra/lC� /�oti.� � ter✓ � - F• /� . _. %�c ,r�� '/''z�- /.� �: . _ _S�oi�.- --- !%+_ /�edJ _ e!` -- �c ffz�•�.�•�e �1�._.- pr/S/'c__ .dam<d��d AC J,4 %f /or r� %!/ G�Q`Qf � n yew � `24tn�%.. Oj dJul' (.� G'Y'� ✓� (/1.�� A C f for I,L ,'/'�C�►+v.rw i+�. r� O � �-�w APOSTOLIC ASSEMBLY OF THE FAITH IN CHRIST ASUS, INL. APOSTOLIC CHURCH "EL GETHSEMANI°' j 4WI Varps SUM Indio, CGlifornia 92201 Phone: 347.9876 ow A. a►t so 4% 238 CitNo(nia 92201 June 226 1981 3474280 Paul T. Kaneko, Associate Planner Planning 9 Development, City of Indio P.O. Drawer 11788 Indio, California 92202 Dear Mr. Kaneko® We, at Apostolic Church, do appreciate your concern for the welfare of our community. And we desire not to be a hind- erance to your efforts to better our community. And we hope . that with the reading of the "Memorandum of Law" enclosed, will help you to better understand our position. We. at Apostolic Church, do not wish to seem to be rebel- lious towards the established laws and ordinances of our City; but we do wish to reiterate the same items our Conditional Use Permits have granted us. As you can see in reading the "Memo- randum", also those things that are granted us in the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Sincerely* APOSTOLIC CHURCH in INDIO Abel P. Adame La )glesas que le ofrece el rnettsije de $A'a ')". ONC1011 Por ws rYyC•1••w. .. _:__... ......�. oft cut nrobli,nt,ri V Ll visit) cuatido usted Li solicite. MEMORAN" or tAw FACTS The Apostolic Church is located in a residential district (R3) in the city of Indio and State of Californiag and the Church was lawfully established under the zoning ordinances of the city. The Church has since its establishment expanded its Educational Ministry by commencing a day school ministry.. The Church applied for and obtained a conditional use permit for its buildings to be used as classrooms. The Church's po- sition is that another conditional use permits or a special exception, is not necessary so long as the purpose of the school is to occupy those buildings for which they were permitteds and to propogate their faith. The tenets of faith and beliefs of the members of the Apostolic Church require as a convictional matter that their children receive an education which is Biblical in its framework of philosophy and supposi- tional standards. They refer more commonly to this process of education as giving their children a "Christian Education." This conviction of be- lief concerning the education of the believers' children is shared by in excess of four thousand five hundred (46500) Independent Churches through- out the United States representing, an individual believers' membership constituency in excess of two million. The Christian Schools which are operated for the purpose of providing the religious education to the believers' children are organized and operated as integral and insepara- ble ministries of the Church. They are not operated in conjunction with the Church, but rather, as a part of the Church. The believers' dictates of faith hold that the education of the children on Monday through rriday differs not from the education provided by the Church on Sunday. To pro- vide the children with a non-Christian education is believed to be a s!A against the dictates of the believers' faith. Being convinced that there were no suitable Christian schools of like faith and practice whithin a workable area for the members and constituents of the Apostolic Church to enroll their children ing a day school was com- menced. This school was organized and is now operated as an integral and in- separable part of the Apostolic Church. This was discussed with Mr. Paul Ka- nokol Associate Planner of the Citv. by Rev. Abel P. Adama on March 259 1981. ISSUE Is the day school in question an integral and inseparable ministry of the Apostolic Church so that an additional special exception need not be obtained for the operation of said school since the Church has already been lawfully established under the zoning ordinance? LAW Due to the extremely grave and damaging consequences of allowing an administrative or judicial body to determine what is or is not reasonably a part of a church and the convictional life style practice of faith of be- lievers, the courts have recognized many diverse uses which are classified and should be recognized as necessary, accessory and -or incidental uses to the descriptive term "church" in land use regulations. The concept of what constitutes a church has changed from a place, of worship, used once or twice a weeko to a church used during the entire week, nights as well as days, for various parochial and community functions. Unitarian Universalist Church v. Shirten, 63 Misc.2d 9780 314 N.Y.S.2d 66 (1970). -2- Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constf- tution, the term "church" must be given the moot inclusive and all embracing definition. Since what may be a sacred church building to one denomination or religious sect may not meet the test of another denomination or group. Any building in which a religious group or sect worchips God according to its own practice is a churcb. Appeal of Stark, 72 D. 6 C. 1689 98 Pitt.L. J. 361 (Pa. 1950). The law of multiple jurisdictions is clear and unambiguous that for purposes of legal consideration a school may be considered as an integral and inseparable part of a church. Westbury Hebrew Congregation, Inc. Y. Dormer, 59 Hisc.2d 3871 302 N.Y.S.2d 923 (1969): What Constitutes "Church," "Religious Use" or the Like Within Zoning, Ordinances, 62 A.L.R.3d 197 (1975); Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 N.Y.2d 5080 136 N.E.2d 827 (1956), Catholic Bishop of Chicago v. Kingery, 371 I11. 2570 20 N.E.2d 583 (1939). "Religious use is not defined solely in terms of religious worship. Clearly, it extends to 'education' which is offered by a religious institution primarily for the children of its members. It clearly includes. the church itself, a parochial school with its normal components for recreational and other extracurricular activity . . . ." American Law of Zoning 2d Vol. 19 012.25 at p. 459 and 460. As stated with quoted mention and approval in the decision of Diocese of Rochester et al. v. Planning Board of Town of Brighton et al.: "A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the opportunity to worship God. Strictly reli- gious- uses and activities are more than prayer and sa- crifice and all churches recognize that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading, the con- gregation in prayer . . . To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice would, in a large degree, by depriving the church of the opportu- nity of enlarging, perpetuating and strengthening it- self and the congregation... ." i N.Y.2d 5080 136 N.E.2d 827119500 In 'City of Concord v. New Testament Baptist Church 382 A.2d 377 -3- (1977)90 the court ruled that a special zoning permit was not needed to o- perate a day school ministry of the New Testament Baptist Church. Accord- ing to the court the school "was a permitted use under the ordinance allow- ing facilities usually connected with a church." A "school may be consi- dered as an integral and inseparable part of a church." A single family residence used by a United Presbyterian Church as a combination worship and information center, office, meeting place, and cof- fee house for college students was held to be a "church" under a city zon- ` ng ordinance which provided that a church could be situated in a resident- ial district. Synod of Chesapeake Inc. v. Newark, 2S4 A.2d 611 (Del. Ch. 1969), A Catholic convent which was to he a part of a proposed unit. or pro- ject consisting of a Catholic Church, a priests' mansion, a convent and a school was held to be an integral part of a "church" under a city zoning ordinance permitting churches in dwellinphouse residence districts. Ac- cording to the court, building may be,erectedfor church purposes other than those connected with divine worship. The word "church" applies not only to a building used for worship, but to any body of Christians hold- ing and propogating a particular form of belief. Any building intended to be used primarily for purposes connected with the faith of such a re- ligious organization may be said to be used for church purposes. Board of Zonining Appeals v. Wheaton, 118 Ind.App. 38, 76 N.E.2d 597 (1948), A synogogue was held to be a "church for public worship and other strictly religious uses," within the meaning of a village zoning ordi- nance which permitted such uses in residential districts. The avowed aim of the synogogue was to establish a permament place for religious wor- ship, religious teaching and training, fellowship, guidance of indoor and outdoor activities for youtho and community work. Community Synogogue v. Bates, 1 N.Y.2d 4450 154 N.Y.5.2d iS, 136 N.E.2d 468 (1956). A church is more than merely an edifice affording people the oppor- tunity to worship God. Religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice. All churches recognize that the area of their responsibility is broader than leading the'congretation in prayers. Churches have always developed social groups for adults and youths "where the fellowship of the congregation is strengthened with the result that the parent church is strengthened." It was a religious activity for the church to provide a place for those social groups to meet$ since the church by doing so was develop- ing into a stronger and closer -knit religious unit..To limit a church to being merely a house of prayer and sacrifice, would in large degree be depriving the church of the opportunity of enlargingg perpetuatings and strengthening itself and the congregation. Batesq supra. The proposed use of an estate as a religious education center by the protestant Episcopal. Church was held to come within a town zoning ordii uance permitting a "church or similar place of worship" in residential districts. The buildings on the property consisted of a main residence houseg a tenant house, a boathouse, and a barn. The Church planned to conduct thereg for adults and selected teen -aged youthso a series of programs of supervised religious study, seminars, contemplationg and training with emphasis on Christian living and service. Diocese of Central New York v. Schwarzers 23 Hisc.2d 5159 199 N.Y.S.2d 9399 aff'd 13 App.Div.2d 8639 217 N.Y.S.2d 567 (1960). A retreat house was considered a "church" within the meaning of a city zoning ordinance which permitted churches in residential districts. It was used by Roman Catholic laymen as sleeping quarters for retreat - ants during the conduct of closed spiritual retreats. The retreats, de- fined as a continuous series of spiritual exercises and a form of di- -S- vine worship devoted to examnination, contemplation, and meditation and Intended to improve and perfect the participants in service to God and their fellow men, were carried on in a quiet manner under the constant supervision of the retreat master, a Catholic priest. Noting that what may be a sacred church building to one ¢enomination or religious sect may not meet the test of another denomination or group, and that any definitive judicial delineation of the term "church," controlling fu- ture decisions, would be harmful and a danger to religious freedom, the court decided that under the Pennsylvania Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the term had to be given the most inclusive and all -embracing definition. When a property is used for a church, the court said, it may be used with- out any violation of the zoning ordinance for any purpose connected witht the religious practices which the group or sect maintaining that particular church desires to pursue, unless there is substantial and unreasonable interference with, or injury to, public health, morals, safety, and public welfare. The court further declared that any build- ing in which a religious group or sect worships God according to its own practice is a church. Appeal of Stark, supra. Under a city zoning ordinance provision permitting churches, chap- els, convents, monasteries, or other places of worship and their adjacent residential dwellings in a residential district, a nonprofit religious corporation's use of a house and lot in such a district was held to comport with any conceivable definition of a church or other place of worship. The ground floor of the house was used as a place of worship by two fundamentalist religious groups, on6 affiliated with the plant- iff corporation, and the other not so affiliated. Rooms on the second and third floors of the large dwelling accomodated missionaries passing through the city and some office work was conducted on the premises by -6- the affiliated church. Church school classes were also held in the build - ins. Conversion Center, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 2 Pa.Comn. 306, 278 A.2d 369 (1971). A Bible camp oimed and operated by a church was held to have quali- fied as a church within the meaning of a city zoning ordinance provision permitting "churches" in residence districts. State ex rel. Covenant Harbor Bible Camp v. Steinke, 7 Wis.2d 2759 96 N.W.2d 356 (1959). In Idaho, the court ruled that the term "churches" in'a city zoning ordinance permitting churches in residential Zones includes a lighted recreational complex built by Mormons on the grounds of its church build- Ing. Corporation of Presiding Bishop, etc. v. Ashton, 92 Idaho 571, 448 P.2d 18S (1968). A church is more than merely a building in which ac- tual services are held. Activities, if they are an official part of the church program,: are an integral part of the church and are sufficiently connected with the church itself that use of property for recreational purposes is considered a church use. Ashton, supra. To deny the beliers of a faith their opportunity to practice in lif e style Implementation their stated creeds of conduct by means of refusing land use accomodation is to effectively destroy all semblence of First Amendment guarantees. Accordingly, "the right to establish and maintain a religious use includes the right to establish and maintain uses which are accessory to it. This right is upheld even if the language of the ordinance is broad . . ." American Law of Zoning 2d., Vol. 2 #12.26 at p. 463. The obvious rationale for affording this latitude of scope to the definition of a church is that to allow otherwise would place a judicial forum or administrative tribunal in the position of possessing God -like attributes to the extent of being able to decree the boundaries of a person's religious faith by defining what is and is not a part of his church. No activity of a person's religious faith is accomplished or Initiated without some element of land use provision. For example, wor- ship assemblies are impossible without occupying ground space'; reli- gious education of youths and adults require a land space occupancy; preparation of religious literature, transmission of religious broad- casts, assemblies for fellowhip, etc., all require that the believers be able to make appropriate use of land for the carrying out of their faith. In complete accord with the aforesaid) said church has been law- fully established in the residential zone in question. The school in question is a ministry usually and naturally connected with a church. Unquestionably, the school in question was by design, intent and con- victional faith of the members of the Apostolic Church established as a part of their church and is a permitted use by right of statute and or- dinance. For anvone to contend that the school in question is not a part of the Church and not permitted as a matter of right clearly vio- lates established judicial precedent of noted authority and advances the most dangerous and pugnacious of ideologies -that the State is able to decree by fiat the bounds of the believers faith through the church entity definition. Respectfully submitted, RIBBS 6 CRAZE By: Daniel Jon Loom s 6929 Kest 130th Street Suite 600 Parma Heights, Ohio 44130 (216) 845-6800 -e- :. OITy OF OALIFORNIA 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL • P.O. DRAWER 1788 • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92202 Phone: (714) 347.2351 W. PHILLIP HAWEi PlanningCITY MANAGER 3 Development Dept August 27,, 1981 Mr. Abel P. Adams The Apostalic Church of Indio 46-601 Vargas Street Indio, CA 92201 Dear Brother Abel: The purpose of this letter is to advise you on the status of your K-12 school located at the above address. As you will recall, the staff had determined that a conditional use permit was needed in order for the school to continue to operate. On June 26, 1981, we submitted the case to our City Attorney for his opinion on whether a CUP would be needed. According to the City Attorney, a conditional use permit may not be needed at this time "although technically we could require a use permit for an expanded use We have concluded that since classrooms already exist on the site and conditional use permits 2-49, 2-118 and 2-263 have been previously approved and initiated, a new conditional use permit is not needed. If you have any future comments or questions, please feel free to contact us. xc: Legal request file re: PK/sg Sincerely, Paul T. Kaneko Associate Planner Apostolic Church/School. 1 1. 21. 91 04 : 68 PM *8YC&it Newport Bch CA P02 ATTACHMENT No. 12 M E M 0 R A N D U T0: Planning Commission Members FROM: Dawn C. Honeywell, City Attorney RE: Public Use Permit 91-008, La Quinta Christian Fellowship DATE: November 21, 1991 Y'�C!!7!2@f®lilYOl"YTml1"1Frltl�S.S.�Si 92 �fi f®!®1�81"!®B®!®RlOIb.Y ®1Q r.C�-.�C�-+�. L`L'-i�14�!!i We have been informed that the La Quints Christian Fellowship Church (the "Church") is applying for a Public Use Permit ("PUP") for the expansion of their church meeting space on their property. The original structure was built in 1973, with religious services continuously held in that building since that time. In addition, a church operated school has been operating on the site since approximately 1983. At a later time the site was incorporated into La Quints and rezoned SR, a scone which allows churches and schools only upon issuance of a conditional use permit or public use permit. In connection with the Church's application, we have been asked by Jerry Herman to provide advice on the following questions: uestion No. 1: If a PUP application is made for the expansion of -the church, (a) should the school be included in the evaluation and approval of the project and conditions of approval related to the school? (b) should the school not be considered part of PUP 91-008 since it already exists and will exist in the existing building and not the new building? Question No. 2: Since a PUP is required for educational institutions in all zones (Section 9.176.010 of the zoning ordinance), does the applicant need to apply for a PUP for the school to make the school comply legally with the zoning ordinance? Short Answer: The PUP application should cover the school, existing church building and proposed church expansion. While the church and school may currently be a legal non --conforming use, expansion of the facilities would remove that status and require that all non -conforming structures obtain the appropriate City approvals. L 1. 2 1. 9 1 04 : 56 PM *SVC&M Newport Bch CA P03 uestion No. 3: What standards apply to the evaluation of a pu lic use permit for an existing church and church -related school? Short Answer: while the City normally has wide discretion to approve, disapprove and set conditions for public use permits, the City's discretion is somewhat more limited in evaluating a church and a private school. Conditions to approvals and disapprovals of a church must be based upon a compelling City interest which outweighs the burden on the church's exercise of religious belief. Recent case law upholds the right of a city to deny approval of a church in a residential zone based upon such concerns as noise, traffic, parking and compatibility with the neighborhood. Furthermore, the City cannot prohibit private schools in residential areas when public schools are allowed in such areas. DISCUSSION: 1. nat vortion of Applicaht's or The Applicant's property is located in an SR Zone, which allows "educational institutions" and "churches, temples and other places of religious worship" subject to obtaining a conditional use permit (Section 9.42.030). A PUP would also be sufficient to allow the church and school to locate within the SR Zone (Section 9.176.010). The Applicant has never received a conditional use permit or PUP, and therefore is not in conformance with current zoning. However, the property appears to be a legal non -conforming use, assuming it was in conformance with zoning standards at the time of construction and that use has been maintained since such time. Non -conforming uses may be maintained for the time periods set forth in Section 9.1520 "provided there are no structural alternations" to the facilities except as otherwise allowed (Section 9.152.020). The Applicant has clearly proposed a structural alteration to the property within the meaning of that section. Courts have been protective of a city's right to restrict the protection of a nonconforming use statute. As one court stated, "The continued nonconforming use must be similar to the use existing at the time the zoning ordinance became effective . . . . The spirit underlying the ordinance is to restrict rather than increase the nonconforming use . . . . The ultimate purpose of zoning is to confine classes of buildings and uses to particular localities and to reduce all nonconforming uses within the zone to conformity as speedily as is consistent with property safeguards for the interests of those affected. 0232m -2- 1. 21. 91 04: 58 FM w®YC&R Nev^.po r t Ho h CA PO4 2. Any change in the premises which tends to give permanency to, or expands the nonconforming use would not be consistent with this purpose." Sabekl Inc. v. County of Sonoma, 190 Cal. App. 3d 163, 166-168 (1987). In this matter, the expansion would both tend to give permanence to and expand the church. This appears to be a significant expansion which would remove the protection of the nonconforming use statute. It would therefore be necessary for the Applicant to obtain a conditional use permit for the entire property, not just the building proposed to be constructed. It is important to note that the effect of denial of the PUP would only be to prevent the Church expansion. Even if the PUP were denied, the existing church and school would continue to be a legal nonconforming use. Standards for Evaluating PUP Application The standard for evaluating a PUP application is normally very broad. Section 9.176.040 of the Municipal Code provides that "a public use permit shall not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community." The main restriction on conditions to PUPS is that each condition be reasonably related to the type and amount of burden created by the proposed development. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1981). When the subject of the permit application is a church or a private school, however, certain additional requirements apply. (a) Approval of Churches. A city is somewhat restricted in its application of zoning laws to churches and other religious institutions due to the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The standard for evaluating the impact of zoning laws on churches was recently articulated by a federal court in a very similar case. In that case, Christian Gos eI Church v. San Francisco, 896 F. 2d 1221 (9th Cir., 1990), a church challenged the city's denial of a conditional use permit for the church to hold worship services in a residential neighborhood. The city, which had a broad CUP standard similar in some respects to La Quintals, denied the application on the grounds that the church would create noise, traffic and parking problems and that it would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The court found that a zoning decision should be evaluated by examining the following three factors: 0232m -3- 1 1. 21. 91 04 : 5d PM wMVC&R Newport Bch CA P05 "(1) the magnitude of the statute's impact upon the exercise of the religious belief; (2) the existence of a compelling state interest justifying the imposed burden upon the exercise of the religious belief; and (3) the extent to which recognition of an exemption from the statute would impede the objectives sought to be advanced by the state." A reviewing court would probably uphold La Quinta's total denial of a PUP for the church. The courts recognize a strong interest of cities in the protection of residential neighborhoods from the problems of traffic, noise and litter, and the establishment of a consistent zoning scheme. Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. San Francisco, supra, at 1224, Grosz v. City of Miami Beach, Fla, 721 F. 2d 729 (llth Cir., 1983). At least two older California cases have upheld denials of CUPS for churches in residential areas: Matthews v. Board of Suoervisors, 203 Cal. App. 2d 800 (1962), Garden Grove Congregation v. City, of Garden Grove, 176 Cal. App. 2d 136 (1959). This interest is somewhat diminished by the fact that the church and school already operate in a residential zone. However, California courts also recognize the city's interest in eliminating non -conforming uses and allow cities to strictly forbid their extension or enlargement. Paramount Rock Co. v. County of San Diego, 180 Cal. App. 2d 217, 226 (1960), Sabek, Inc. v. County of Sonoma, supra. A city's interest would be balanced against the impact a denial would have on the churches exercise of its religion. The impact would not be great, because denial of the PUP would only prevent the church from expanding. It would still be entitled to continue its religious services and private school in its existing buildings as a legal non -conforming use. It could also relocate to other locations within the City upon approval of a PUP or CUP. Other conditions to a PUP would likely be upheld if the church is able to comply with them. For instance, a reasonable parking requirement would have a minimal burden on the churches ability to practice its religion, while protecting strong City interests in ensuring an ample supply of parking spaces for worshipers and neighboring properties. Similar conditions have been upheld in earlier California cases: Redwood City Co. of Jehovah's witnesses v. City of Menlo__Parkc, 167 Cal. App. 2d 686 (1959), CC�itY_Of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archibishop of Los Anoe el s, 180 Cal. App. 20 657 (1960). We would recommend that this office review proposed conditions for their adherence to the test articulated in Christian Gosoeell Church. 0232m —4 1 1. 21. 91 04 : 58 FM *8YC&R Newport Bch CA Poe (b) A2yroval of Private Schools. In addition to the special rules for evaluation of churches, cities must also give special consideration to evaluation of private schools. A city may not prevent or effectively prevent the construction of a private school in an area where public schools are located. Roman Catholic Welfare Car of San Francisco v. City of FiRAMO-At, 45 Cal. 2d 325 (1955). Education, even through private schools, has been held to be a "fundamental right" which cities fray abridge only upon a "compelling interest" which outweighs the right to education. Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc., 32 Cal. App. 30 488, 514 (1973). in the R man Catholic Case, the city excluded private schools from more than 98% of the City, which effectively excluded private schools altogether. On the otherhand, a zoning ordinance which excludes private schools from same areas and allows them is other areas would probably be permissable. A city can probably also establish reasonable conditions to approval of private schools which do not have the effect of preventing such schools from being constructed. The Roman Catholic case held that "Insofar as other regulations in the interest of the public welfare are concerned, no doubt the city, acting under its police power, could insure the preservation of the public peace and the preservation of private property." For instance, a condition that the school be in compliance with state laws applicable to private schools would be reasonably related to the health, safety and welfare of the city without excluding such school. Parking, height, lot coverage, setback and other typical requirements would also be upheld if not unduly burdensome and consistently applied. 0232m -5- z 0 O pU� WZ W O o� �a Q� a� J w 0 wZ cc 8q �o aw I a 0 LL Q U) a E a 17 .0 ATTACHMENT No. O � O D t -.0m E;XX- o � ` 0 E,M1� od Zwa E� Eu a j F- C LL a a is E • { I H L t I j c 0 3 I I � cc) m'o n� > L rJ W > H Hcl a 0 H F- Li LL V) (n w Z W 00 `- `o m �v'o 8-0 -ovv 0-0v-0- C LO f` (9 R t9 c0 ` CJ t7 CJ lL o `1 U' C7 C7 U' C7 C7 U' 0 0 U` 0 10 I .n° rn c 0 .F `u T c N c c Rf .p C C .0 Q7 nc u 0 � C m a 01 y n� Q U-S 0' i j w m z toZ w .� O w I d N U (N LL O w z W cc LL 8 El 13 n a : T O a >. v E r a n n o v v c t 'a O 7 L 'R1 rJ r c a L a > n O E 0 E L �" d Of L C-0J G !9 a d d u a- E O cr V ; U Q LU z a UO � c J yyT O Z y JL � 0 U o n :F- t0 = Q 2 5 t F u o _z b ffi C c C r U f c N Q O 8 u y 00 7 O O m u O cm L ¢ O a cc �m I I � Q o w LL 0 Z 0 o Z O c N c LL OJ r G d m N C 8J I 2 lL i CO U ' z LL O co w 0 O wa UJ U = I 0 o V � S uLL—i w Uy cr 0 cl 0 76 M U n U9 C-2 N a 0y m rh cc C `c = m � C o M E cc 'M cc c z ZQj Z z Z L Qj Z G_r,'LL a . o] K X. 91 y i x o Iro rn cc N r N m W V U. U. O .J a U z_ FE IL c Q U) m V W c 1 w I p 3 b � j U <D U I r c FZ �3M-p N ` O Vj M p N E ya u `u pz G U y 0. O 2 T fC a U uj U G p O o Q O G y p °a > > woof — wt o a 2 E p o f � 3 j g o�tQ) Rt ebb ° v0.j z E 4 aa-j ` �R - p 4 0. 0. G _O U po L3�oc E cu j p in °o w W O v y a N I N g o O a O a LU z y w pO w z O r N O a w Z N Z � p a Q � � C V 6 7 z 4 C z �a o a a w p C �4 m U � w N W C � O a W t�i3y p U U cc lz a ) V (A a« z � W mr U Z ¢ O a a ¢ w zzz3 w ¢ a O O LL O co ¢ w w 0 a 4 LU m z r c a c � O d O 4 _ c N co 0 cn N It Z w O a C c i N U � . y a J O - a� U j C N m N w O.2 co 70 U C C CJ V A s O 0 t9 m z M C $ O U U m v 3 c, �7�U a F° cc I m a O I N c y C Q O y+ J N W� cr. ¢ J Q S g x Z o y = r (d U > O LIQ C C. U cn -C I iL uj :E LU -j LU LU ZE d. z Ll -C —c -o : - O O U FL E� r t3 c To ir E: vi b 0 —r -c a. 1 L) c� OS W E: E L -iz c, t 6 F Qf c" L c, L E E u. c� 'o Li u L iL tc a E n cn L x-, u (D r 0 cl M t. L fil c cl cx r r t- - E5 M -a 'o ri � E E E: Iq LF cc O W r. 0 3 c; c > 7 o 5! -r- -F :-7 Z E tt E -b z m (n cx -6 m c Zn rij ro- rw tc I M CD 0 -C E5 cp 0 6Z-0 m — c E, CL c I , cc ci r- 2 r -7i jo E Gn a, m E 0 22 IcL ro IL 2!; FL 0 L Ln m :3 Ln tj L L c Ei zr L c cc n a, Z3 14 C O En c. > E t C5 C L C, "o - E E a) w V) F-- 9 Q b v: ' , v g o , j� E c- u 3: c) 0 c c c2 c: LLI rj 7 1 L 10 i� M W _j W N W O Z O W J t1 O L) m O U- m z �'^� V PJ D cc z N 0 fT 0 u U! Ir J rJ S C3 G7 f, U a a) 0 m L` U N 0u u ATTACHMENT No.14 A QUINTA � gERIStIAN LLOWSHIP November 12, 1991 Riverside County Office of Education 47336 Oasis Indio, CA 92201 Gentlemen: Mark Gulllfl�, 564-919! 50-800 Calie Paloma P. O. Box 676 La Quinta, CA 92253 This letter is in lieu of the 1991 Private School Affidavit which is at- tached. 'The La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church is now in its 8th. year conducting a Christian day school, ministry as an inseparable and integral p:«rt of the total church ministry. As pastor of the church, I am the ad- n.lnistrator of the school, which is under the oversight of our church board made up of four capable Christian men. Records are kept at the above address. Criminal record summary information has been obtained pursuant to section 44237. Health and fire regulations have been met. As of October 1st., our enrollment was 19, kindergarten through 8th. grade. Our church and school. ministry is affiliated national- ly with Accelerated Christian Education, 2600 Ace Lane, Lewisville, Texas 75067. The La Quinta Ghristian Fellowship Church is tax exempt under the constitu- tion of both the State of California and the United States of America, Sec- tion 501(c)-(3), of the 1954 U.S. Internal Revenue Code and Section 23701 (d) of the State Revenue and Taxation Code. Our school day for all. grades is from 8:30 AM to 2:30 PM. Presently, we have two full-time teachers and one part-time teacher's aid. Our scheduled number of days of instruction for this year is 169. We are located in the Desert Sands Unified School District. Sincerely, ry\o.rLk Pastor Mark A. Collins Principal and Pastor PRIVATE SCHOOL STATE24M (a) LA QUIN A CHRISTIkN r ELLCUSHIP CHURCH SCHOOL 50-800 Calle Paloma (P.O. nox 676) La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 564-9195 November 12, 1991 (D) La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church School. does not maintain grade levels, but if it did, the following would apply (Grades K-8) Kindergarten- 3 Grade one- 4 Grade two- 3 Grade three- 1 Grade four- 7 Grade five- 0 Grade six- 0 Grade seven- 2 Grade eight- 0 (c) Principle officers of La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church are: Mark A. Collins, Pastor Susan Collins, Sec. Cindy Thieme, Treasurer 50-800 Calle.:Pa1_oma 50-300 Calle Paloma 50-300 Calle Paloma (P.O. Box 676) (P.O. 3ox 676) (P.O. Box 676) La Quinta, CA 92253 La Quinta, CA 92253 La Quinta, CA 92253 (d) True and accurate records including attendance, courses of study, names, addresses, and qualifications of faculty are kept by: La Quinta 0iristian Fellawship Church School at 50-800 Calle Paloma, La Quinta, CA 92253 Criminal record summary information has been obtained pursuant to section 44237. S IG;VATM A-, 66�42 i Pastor/Principal. DATE I+ I L ` q I ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 22 AND NOVEMBER 12,1991 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 November 12, 1991 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ellson. II. 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. Chairwoman Barrows asked for a motion to reorganize the agenda to include the discussion of the cancellation of the December 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to amend the agenda as stated. Unanimously approved. 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. 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 Ladner asked Staff if the conditions that were imposed by the County in 1973 had been complied with. Staff stated that all the landscaping had not been completed or died. Staff further stated that the present Applicants were not involved with the original application. PCMINNO12 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 3. Commissioner Ellson asked for clarification as to how Many lots were involved. Staff stated that the original application only consisted of one lot. Since that time the Church had received the additional lot . 4. Chairwoman Barrows inquired about the school licensing. Staff stated that the school was not required to be licensed. They only needed to file an annual letter or affidavit with the County stating they were in operation. 5. Commissioner Mosher asked if the City Attorney had been contacted regarding this issue and what her opinion had been. Staff informed the Commission that they had been in contact with the City Attorney and she had asked the Commission to continue the matter to give her more time to research the matter. 6. Commissioner Marrs stated that he did not feel the school was part of the application before the Commission. Staff stated the school was only before the Commission if they chose to consider them jointly. It was to the discretion of the Commission whether to consider them jointly, separately, or to not take up the issue of the school at all. 7. Commissioner Mosher asked if the height limitations imposed on this area were governed by City zoning ordinances or by the property owners CC & R's. Staff stated the zoning was imposed on this area when the SR Zone was created. 8. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Clark spoke on behalf of the Applicant and addressed the issue of the school. He stated the school would be restricted to 25 students and requested that Staff impose this limitation in the Conditions of Approval. As to the letter or affidavit to the County, it had been sent that day and a copy was presented to the Commission. They had complied with all laws required of them to their knowledge. 9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the school needed to be licensed. Pastor Mark Collins stated the school was associated with the Accelerated Christian Education program and received their curriculum from them. 1 o . Commissioner Marrs asked how the school obtained accreditation. Pastor Collins stated that the only requirement needed of the school was a letter to the County stated they were operating a school. When a child leaves their school to go on to higher education, they only have to take a test and pass it. He stated that their students had scored extremely well on all tests. PCMINNO12 2 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 11. Mr. Clark went on to state that the Church had met with as many of the neighbors as would attend their meeting, and tried to work out all the objections. In light of some of the objections, they were withdrawing the Variance application. He went on to state the other objections that had been raised at the previous meeting and how they had tried to solve them. 12. Chairwoman Barrows questioned the 17 foot height limitation. Discussion followed as to building heights. 13. Commissioner Mosher questioned the Applicant regarding the parking being able to accommodate the school and church. Mr. Clark stated that there were only 3 or 4 cars during the school hours. He further stated that the Church had surpassed the amount of landscaping originally conditioned on the Church. Commissioner Mosher stated that he felt the Church should be required to paint the existing building the same color as the proposed structure, screen the air conditioning equipment, and provide the landscaping that was suggested by Staff. 14. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project addressed the Commission regarding some of the conditions. He asked if the noise study would still be required if the Applicant provided the walls on three sides. Staff stated that if walls were provided on three sides and a 36-42" wall and berm were provided for the frontage, the elimination of the noise study was possible. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Fire Marshal requirements for a fire hydrant would be required. He felt this would be accomplished as a matter of the City improvements for this area. Staff stated this was up to the Fire Marshal, but the potential for this to be included in the City improvements existed. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Commission would consider the phasing plan to accomplish all the work as he requested at the last meeting. 15. Mr. Dan Hooper, neighboring resident, addressed the Commission and stated that he felt the Applicant had mitigated all of his objections and he would support the approval of the project. 16. Ms. Roselyn Davis, neighboring resident, spoke in opposition to the project stating her concerns regarding noise, traffic, parking facilities, the unknown growth of the church, and having a playground in her front yard. Commissioner :Mosher inquired how long Ms. Davis had lived in this house. She stated she had moved to this house in June, 1991. 17. Ms. Catalina Porras, Church member, spoke in favor of the Church and stated how the Church had ministered to the Community and she was dismayed at the neighbors objections. PCMINNO12 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 18. Ms. Susie Sanford, neighboring resident, read a statement regarding her objections. She compared the location of this Church to locations of various churches in Indio. In addition she stated she was concerned about the unknown growth of the Church and showed pictures of the church showing what she felt was a lack of upkeep. 19. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission again and showed the original plans of the Church and stated the Church's growth would be restricted by the number of people it would hold. 20. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 21. Commissioner Ladner inquired why the Applicant had not completed the affidavit. Mr. Clark stated they had chose to write a letter instead following the procedure that was followed by most private schools. 22. Commissioner Mosher asked what the seating capacity of the new sanctuary would be. Mr. Clark stated it would be 110. 23. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff if the City's zoning regulations allowed churches in residential area. Staff stated they would be allowed under the Public Use Permit application in any zone. She felt that as there was obvious objections to this type of use in a residential area, maybe the City should consider rewriting the regulations. Staff stated this was a finding the Commission could use to deny the application if they so chose to do so. 24. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City made any allowances for homeowners who did not have the money to complete required improvements. Staff stated they did not. 25. Chairwoman Barrows questioned whether the school should be considered with the application before them. Staff responded that it was at the Planning Commission's discretion. 26. Commissioner Ellson asked if the current building would be replaced at some future date. Mr. Clark stated that there plans were to replace the building at a future time when funds were available. 27. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue this matter to the meeting of November 26, 1991, to allow further City Attorney input regarding the school use. PCMINNO12 4 Planning commission Minutes November 12, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 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. 2. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 26, 1991. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. C. Preannexation Zoning 91-068 and General Plan Amendment 91-039; a request of Valley Land Development for a change in the boundaries for the zoning classification of a new zoning classification and land use designation for a portion of the property adjacent to Washington Street, north of Fred Waring Drive. 1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Marrs moved to continued the Public Hearing to the meeting of November 26, 1991. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. D. Specific Plan 88-012 and Tentative Tract 23995; a request of A. G. Spanos Construction Company 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 Marrs asked Staff if there was any assurance that the bike path would be completed and would connect at both ends. Staff stated there was a master plan and as developments took place the bike path would be created. PCMINNO12 5 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 2 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. 3 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 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-008 NOVEMBER 26, 1991 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development of the site shall comply with approved Exhibits as contained in the Planning Department's file for Public use Permit No. 91-008 and the following conditions which shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with these exhibits. 2. Public Use Permit 91-008 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division and Zoning Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final approval. Otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Prior to expiration of the permit, the Applicant may apply to the Planning & Development Department for an extension of time in which to use the permit, with the total time of approval not to exceed a period of three (3) years. 4. Construction of the future buildings and facilities authorized under this permit shall begin within five years after the final approval by the La Quinta City Council, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion; otherwise, approval of those unconstructed or uncompleted portions of the development authorized under Public Use Permit 91-008 shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 5. Chimes or church bells are not permitted on this site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshall o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District 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. CONAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NO'VEMBER 26, 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 26, 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 NOVEMBER 26, 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) (6" x 4" x 2 1 / 2" x 2 1 / 2") located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . C. Install portable fire sprinklers per NFPA 13, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. D . Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. E. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. F . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained a fire lanes. G . Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 21. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. 22. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of State Code & file a private school affidavit with the Riverside County Office of Education. The applicant shall provide proof of Health Department & Fire Department Inspection of the existing school (required by the affidavit) to the City of La Quinta prior to Building Permit issuance. CONAPRVL.038 4 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVEMBER 26, 1991 ENGINEERING CONDITIONS 23. 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. 24. Prior to issuance of grading permit applicant shall post an approved form of security in guarantee of grading and environmental control. 25. Applicant shall fully landscape and maintain all street right of way contiguous to the site. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. The parking lot and drives shall be improved in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code. 31. 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 CONAPRVL.038 Conditions of Approval PUP 91-008 NOVEMBER 26, 1991 grading plans. 32. 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. 33. 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. 34. 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. 35. The Applicant shall construct off-street parking lot improvements in accordance with the LQMC . 36. The Applicant shall pay for half of the forthcoming City installed street improvements on Calle Paloma in the area that abuts the subject property. 37. The Applicant shall import fill dirt to raise the lot elevations as needed to provide positive drainage from the entire site. 38. The Applicant shall landscape and maintain the parkway area behind the curbs. CONAPRVL.038 6 PH #5 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 APPLICANT/ OWNER: M. J. BROCK & SONS, INC. PROJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #4 TENTATIVE TRACT 25389 REQUEST FOR A CONDITION CHANGE SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #4, REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL RELATING TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS. THIS REQUEST APPLIES TO THE AREA WITHIN TENTATIVE TRACT 25389 ONLY. TENTATIVE TRACT 25389, PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL CHANGE RELATING TO MAXIMUM HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS. LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET BETWEEN 50TH AVENUE AND CALLE TAMPICO, AND CALLE RONDO AND PARK AVENUE (SEE ATTACHMENT W . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TT 25389 IS A SUBDIVISION OF 63.6 ACRES INTO 255 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR SALE, PLUS NUMEROUS STREET LOTS. NOTE: SURROUNDING GOLF COURSE IS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4-8 DU/AC SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY DESIGNATION: 5 DU/AC (THIS AREA IS IDENTIFIED AS PHASE 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001-DUNA LA QUINTA-WITH A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 300 UNITS). DENSITY OF PROJECT: 4 DU/AC (TOTAL NET ACREAGE OF TENTATIVE TRACT 25398 IS 63.6) EXISTING ZONING: R-2, 7,000 (EXISTING GOLF COURSE R-5) STAFFRPT.067/CS -1- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25389 IS A PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENTS #1, 2, AND 3, DUNA LA QUINTA, FOR WHICH A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED BY LANDMARK LAND COMPANY AND CERTIFIED BY THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL AS BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE BY ADHERENCE TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES AS REQUIRED BY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION: ON -SITE RETENTION ON -SITE CIRCULATION: PRIVATE STREETS. ONE MAIN ENTRANCE FROM PARK AVENUE AND EMERGENCY ACCESS TO CALLE RONDO. OFF -SITE CIRCULATION: AVENUE 50 - DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL WITH 100 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. A. BACKGROUND: (See Attachment 2, 3 & 4) 1. Specific Plan 83-001, "Duna La Quinta". The original Specific Plan (May 15, 1984) approved 1,277 dwelling units on 266 acres, oriented around the La Quinta Hotel Golf Course. Subsequent amendments to the Specific Plan have been made. Most recently, Amendment No. 3, approved on June 17, 1986, reduced the number of dwelling units approved to 966, plus six acres of commercial, on a 180-acre overall site. 2. This request for condition change applies to an area within Specific Plan 83-001, 63 acres in size, covered by Tentative Tract 25389 only. Any changes proposed by the Planning Commission for Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 affecting the area not covered by Tentative Tract 25389 would be subject to an additional public hearing where the whole specific plan area is noticed. Only the owners of property within 300-feet of Tentative Tract 25389 have been noticed for this hearing. 3. The subject area, plus two golf course lots totaling 31.5 acres in size, was processed as Tentative Tract 23292 and approved by City Council on May 3, 1988. This Tentative Tract showed 193 single family lots for sale plus a multi -family lot. STAFFRPT.067/CS -2- 4. Tentative Tract 25389, which replaced Tentative Tract 23292 was approved by City Council on February 6, 1990. In effect, Tentative Tract 25389 increased the number of lots, replaced the multi -family lot with single family lots but retained the same road system and golf course lot configuration. 5. Parcel Map 24837, approved at a Planning Director's hearing on August 23, 1989, shows a three parcel subdivision, two golf course and one residential lot, following the same boundaries set by Tentative Tract 23292. This Parcel Map allowed the residential areas to be separated from the golf course. NOTE: Tentative Tract 25389 concerns only the residential parcel shown on Parcel Map 24837. 6. Phase One and Phase Two (TR 25389-1 and TR 25389-2) were recorded on July 16, 1990 and May 22, 1991, respectively. Both phases together comprise 161 lots on 37 acres. 7. Forty-seven dwelling units have either been completed orare under construction; all in Phase One (TR 25389-1). (See Attachment 3) 8. An Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 25389 was approved by City Council on October 1, 1991. The new expiration date for Tentative Tract 25389 is February 6, 1993. B. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: (SEE ATTACHMENT 5) 1. The applicant has requested that the following Condition of Approval for Specific Plan 83-001 be amended to allow 500 of the lots within 200-feet from Calle Rondo, Calle Tampico and Park Avenue to be 2 stories, and not to exceed 30-feet in height. '126. Height limitations shall be imposed as follows: a. No portion of any structure on top of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade. b. All new residential buildings, excepting those approved prior to Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, shall not exceed one story (20 feet) in height when located within 200 feet of any perimeter property line (excluding the La Quinta Stormwater Channel) public street frontage. STAFFRPT.067/CS -3- C. Excepting as provided in subsections (a) and (b) above, all other single-family residential dwellings shall not exceed two (2) stories (35 feet) in height. All other structures will be reviewed to determine appropriate height." 2. The applicant also requests that Condition of Approval #12 of Tentative Tract 25389 be amended to allow 500 of the lots within 200 feet from Calle Rondo, Calle Tampico and Park Avenue to be 2 stories, not to exceed 30-feet in height. Condition #12 currently reads: 1112. All single family dwellings located on the following lots within the subject tract shall not exceed on story (25-feet) in height: Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 204, 207-211 and 238-255." NOTE: This request does not affect lots 1-5, 17, 18 and 103-116 (lots fronting onto 50th Avenue). 3. The applicant is therefore requesting an increase of the existing allowable height of 25 feet, one story, to two stories with a maximum height of 30 feet in the following locations: - southwest boundary of property, (ie east of Calle Rondo) - south boundary of property, (ie north of Calle Tampico) - southeast boundary of property, (ie west of Park Avenue) C. ANALYSIS: 1. Five unit plans have been approved for Brock Homes as shown in the table below: PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 3 PLAN 4 PLAN 5 Sq. Footage 2204 2269 2734 3017 2683 # Stories 1 1 2 2 1 # Car Garage 2 2 3 3 2 Height in Feet 19 24 29 29 24 2. Roth two story units are 29 feet in height. These units, a few of which have been built, exhibit a large visual mass due to the architectural design and square footage of the plans. STAFFRPT.067/CS -4- 3. Staff feels that all units in this subdivision should be restricted to 30 feet high and two stories in height. The 7,000 square feet minimum lot size is too small to accommodate higher units. 4. Lots 203, 204 and 207-211 (East of Calle Rondo) a) All units on the west side of Calle Rondo are in the SR zone with a maximum height of 17 feet or one story, whichever is less. b) Lots 204 and 207-211 have either a lot or a street (Cypress Point Drive) between them and Calle Rondo. Lot 204 is located alongside Calle Rondo. c) Staff recommends that 500 (4 units) of the units built on lots 204 to 212 should be allowed to be 2 story. Note, new restrictions have been placed on Lots 205, 206 & 212 since it is felt that these lots have the same situational circumstances as the adjoining lots under study. In addition, no unit shall be higher than 30 feet and no more than 2 two-story units shall be located alongside one another. Lot 203 should be restricted to one story only (24 foot height restriction). 5. Lots 247 to 254 (Southeast of Calle Rondo) a) Again it should be stated that all units on the west side of Calle Rondo (Desert Club Tract Unit #5) are in the SR zone with a maximum height of 17 feet or one story, whichever is less. b) The above lots (247 to 254) are all located on the east side of Calle Rondo. c) Staff feels that the Brock units on the east side of Calle Rondo (Lots 247 to 254) should all be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height so as not to negatively affect the units on the west side of Calle Rondo. 6. Lots 91 to 102 and 238 to 246 (North of Calle Tampico, southwest of Park Avenue) a) The project south and southeast of Tentative Tract 25389, the Citrus Course (TT 24890), has a height restriction which states that all dwelling units within 200 feet of the property line shall be limited to one story (20 feet in height) (Oak Tree West Specific Plan 85-006). Therefore, the lots south of Calle Tampico (in the vicinity of the subject site) and southeast of Park Avenue are subject to a 20 foot, one story height restriction. b) Calle Tampico, where it is located south of Tentative Tract 25389, and the south section of Park Avenue, is bordered by a 6 foot high wall on both sides of the street. A tunnel effect has been created. Many higher units located on the north side of the street would increase this tunnel effect. A few higher units, say 5 out of 21 units (+250) could introduce visual variety to this corridor. STAFFRPT.067/CS -5- c) Staff, therefore, recommends that up to 25% of units on Lots 91 to 102 and 238 to 246 can be two story, no higher than 30 feet and no more than 2 two-story units shall be placed alongside one another. 7. Lots 31 to 48 (West of Park Avenue) a) The Citrus Course (TT 24890) and Chateau Estates (TT 25429) are both located across Park Avenue from Lots 31 to 48 of TT 25389. The Citrus Course height restriction of 20 feet within 200 feet of the property boundary has been discussed in the preceding pages. Chateau Estates does not have a specific height restriction on this property boundary and therefore is restricted to 35 feet, 2 1/2 stories as is specified in the R1 zone. b) Grand Traverse Avenue and a landscape strip are located between Lots 31 to 48 of Tentative Tract 25389 and Park Avenue. c) Staff therefore recommends that 50% of these lots be allowed to be two story, maximum of 30 feet in height and not more than 3 two-story units be located next to one another. 8. Staff recommends that the following Specific Plan 83-001 Condition of Approval be amended to eliminate existing inconsistencies between Tentative Tract 25389 and Specific Plan 83-001: Condition 26 a) shall be amended to state that two story or 29 foot structures are allowed on top of the La Quinta stormwater channel for Tentative Tract 25389 only. (Previously one story) Condition 26 b) shall be amended to state that the maximum height of limit of one story units in areas as stipulated is 25 feet. (Previously 20 feet) CONCLUSION: 1. Staff therefore recommends the following changes to Specific Plan 83-001 Conditions of Approval: Existing Condition: 1126. Height limitations shall be imposed as follows: a. No portion of any structure on top of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade. STAFFRPT.067/CS -6- b. All new residential buildings, excepting those approved prior to Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, shall not exceed one story (20 feet) in height when located within 200 feet of any perimeter property line (excluding the La Quinta Stormwater Channel) public street frontage. C. Excepting as provided in subsections (a) and (b) above, all other single-family residential dwellings shall not exceed two (2) stories (35 feet) in height. All other structures will be reviewed to determine appropriate height." Proposed Condition: 26. Height limitations shall be imposed as follows: a. No portion of any structure on top of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade except those units in Tentative Tract 25389 which shall have a height limit of two stories (29 feet). b. All new residential buildings, excepting those approved prior to Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, shall not exceed one story (20 feet) in height when located within 200 feet of any perimeter property line (excluding the La Quinta Stormwater Channel) public street frontage excepting lots in Tentative Tract 25389.. C. Excepting as provided in subsections (a) and (b) above, all other single-family residential dwellings shall not exceed two (2) stories (35 feet) in height. All other structures will be reviewed to determine appropriate height. This condition (#26 c) shall not apply to Tentative Tract 25389. d. The following height restrictions shall apply to Tentative Tract 25389: i) The height of units on Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 247-255, 103-116 and 203 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. ii) 750 of the units on Lots 91-102, 238-246 and 204-212 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story; in height. No more than 2 two-story units shalt be located next to one another. iii) 500 of the units on lots 31-48 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 3 two-story units shall be located next to one another. STAFFRPT.067/CS -7- iv) Excepti iii all ui restricted heiaht. as is outlined in Condition sits in Tentative Tract 253 to 30 feet maximum (two 2. In addition staff recommends the following Tentative Tract 25389 Conditions of Approval: Existing Condition: d) i, ii & 89 shall be stories) in change to "12. All single family dwellings located on the following lots within the subject Tract shall not exceed one story (25-feet) in height: Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 204, 207-211 and 238-255." Proposed Condition: 12. The following height restrictions shall apply to Tentative Tract 25389: i) The height of units on Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 247-255, 103-116 and 203 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. ii) 750 of the units on Lots 91-102, 238-246 and 204-212 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 2 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iii) 50% of the units on lots 31-48 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 3 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iv) Excepting as is outlined in Condition d) i, ii & iii all units in Tentative Tract 25389 shall be restricted to 30 feet maximum (two stories) in height. FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of amendment to Condition #26 for Specific Plan 83-001 (Amendment #4) and amendment of Condition of Approval #12, Tentative Tract 25389, First Extension of Time can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution 91- and 91- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 (Amendment to Condition of Approval #26) and Condition of Approval amendment to Tentative Tract 25389, First Extension of Time (amendment of Condition of Approval #12) as recommended by Staff. STAFFRPT.067/CS -8- Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tentative Tract 25389 showing height restrictions. 3. TT 25389 units built or under construction 4. Specific Plan 83-001 5. Applicants request STAFFRPT.067/CS -9- ATTACHMENT No. SO TM' .4 VE AiL m I FARO✓K GAc-LE B * r04 Mic'lC 0 AVCAJIOA Ay�iQA A Nue5 L4 ,Ae7-A A v15A.64 I -A 7Za2A2195 VIC /A// *rY M_ A je-P iv 0 S G'.4 L E 11 CASE Na TT 25389 HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS TT 25389. ATTACHMENT No. 2 zce- 1 Zo I a �.V FJ.1tt�. VLTtMB Existing one story (25 ft) restriction to remain. Height restriction under discussion Desert )FairmyS / k \3 ,* 0 1I,4I 11* , toll' 1*4 A 4 0 19, ► ik s j CC) C> �- z� 9 P \7 WL. yr -E !Z9 ! jai IJ /33 � 13 SPrOI ASS !3 l� ZS S 14 5 135 � 26 1 to !sl t So GG Z I L 73 h /7 133 ZQ+•r I _ �IYE / 33 149 # Icy 34, U O 14.8 143 3s . 1 o • 146 14S 37 • 2ow l05 v b8 67 38 • • (� i�R 66 e'o, 70 65 40. �07• -11 (64 41 • 72 63 t!-y • • 73 62 i) 43. 2,v • • 7rt gQ i U 44• y11 O 6a 4s. q 21s 7L 54 �1 213 ., 77 58 tt7 zS(+ �245 76 57 -- .. Z •2S3 t1-7 8 c 2�1 SD S L O 2SL 53 12 I oZ • 25r ao•rt OwvE lot • SO 8 7 223 74 go 61 62 g3 too • C •249 -� - 99 . rn •L48 so 31 4�23�4 t35 20 90 9t 8 .17 F� 99 247 BRECKERRIDGE OWE 97 • Z4 6 Y4 i a4! 24o t3$ ( 2 93 94 9S 46 • • • • T • • • • • • • o • • • • —� CALLE TMDICO U North BUILT UNITS TT 25389 ATTACHMENT No. 3 . M.m=.. Two story units ® R O C K Desert Faimuys ATTACHMENT No. 4- as TPM 28860 0 AM* .ma son ------------- rTy THE PYRAMID iS P 84-004 A QUINtA PAttC ESTOE A QUINTA TT 25154 TRACT C *�10 215 55 41 V.2211105.e 48 venue 1;M - - I_ PUP 91-010 SPORTS COMPLEX SCHOOL:-4 � SIT TT 26016 TT 266 254299 Angell . . ............. A• alone t:30 PUP `1' -007 r - - - - - - - - - - 4,00�� - - - -, -_ - - - _" --- FRITZ BURNS PARK &Y16 52 REALIGNED OAK 'FREE SP 85-006 SP 83-001 AMENDMENT No 4 AREA THE KEITH COMPANIES - INLAND EMPIRE, CA-achclla Villo ATTACHMENT No. 5 October 21, 1991 Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Planning City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 DI gk; jt'T, O C T 2 1 1991 c,nr OF tA AJSr2iA PLAR,1-!w3 UPAn?rJfMT Re: M.J. Brock's Revised Conditions Dear Jerry, F807-001 I am writing this request for a revision to the existing conditions that have been established for Tract 25389, M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc.'s Desert Fairway Project. The Tract was approved with a condition No. 12 stating the ' single family dwellings on certain lots could only be one story, not to exceed 25' in height. The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan Pian,ng Condition No. 26(b) also referenced the one-story building limitation within 200' of the property lines. We are requesting E,rev, reducing these conditions to allow a maximum of 50% of the referenced lots to be two-story not to exceed 30' in height. sevces We have attached a map depicting the lots that are affected in Landsczp our request and an exhibit displaying cross sections in critical A"tec- areas showing how the two-story model will not adversely affect Laid any views or privacy from the surrounding areas. sje,^; If you have any questions, please give me a call. PAD,"V': Water Pe Sincerely, THE EEITH COMPANIES - �v Mike Rowe Project Manager MR:kd Enclosures 301-L-0 INLAND EMPIRE, INC. (619) 346.9844 FAX (619) 346.9368 41.865 Boardwalk, Suite 101, Palm Desert, CA 92260 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 25389, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME, CONDITION OF APPROVAL AMENDMENT CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 25389 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME, CONDITION OF APPROVAL AMENDMENT M.J. BROCK & SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 9th day of January, 1990, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. to subdivide 63.6 acres into 255 single family lots and numerous street and common lots, generally located between 50th Avenue and the Calle Tampico extension, and Calle Rondo and Park Avenue alignment, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 6, Township 6 south, Range 7 East, SBBM; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1st day of October, 1991, consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract 25389, First Extension of Time; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, did on the 16th day of July 1990, and 22nd day of May, 1991, approve the final map for Tract 25389-1 and 25389-2 respectively; 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 determined that the proposed tentative tract has been previously assessed in connection with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report was approved; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and have been incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 25389, First Extension of Time, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council on October 1, 1991, approved a request of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. for a First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 25389; and, RESOP9,9291G5 -1- WHEREAS, the owners M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. have applied for a Condition of Approval change (Condition #12) for Tentative Tract 25389; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the applicants request at a duly noticed Public Meeting, and said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract Map First Extension of Time Condition of Approval change: 1. That Tentative Tract 25389, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 25389 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, First Extension of Time, Condition of Approval change, the City Council 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 that the previous Environmental Impact Report for Duna La Quinta Specific Plan 83-001 assessed the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map 25389, First Extension of Time, Condition of Approval change for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. RRS®FQ,029/Q8 -2- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 26th 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 RES©PC.929/CS -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #4 ("DUNA LA QUINTA") CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT #4 M.J. BROCK & SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 27th day of November, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. to amend Condition #26 of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 generally bounded by 50th Avenue to the north, Calle Tampico to the south, Avenida Bermudas alignment on the west and Park Avenue on the east, described as follows: A portion of the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 6 south, Range 7 East, SBBM; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on May 15, 1984, November 5, 1985, and June 17, 1986, approve Specific Plan 83-001, Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #2, and Specific Plan 83-003 Amendment #3 respectively and deny the application for Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #1 on April 16, 1985; and, WHEREAS, a final EIR was prepared by Landmark Land Company for Specific Plan 83-001 and certified by the La Quinta City Council as being in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for Specific Plan 83-001; and, WHEREAS, impacts of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 will be mitigated to the extent feasible by adherence to the mitigation measures as required by the Final EIR and Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 83-001; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the applicants request at a duly noticed Public Meeting, and said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4: 1. That Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 was conditionally approved, is consistent with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. 2. That the Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. RESOPC.030/CS -1- 3. That Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 is not likely to cause serious public health problems. WHEREAS, in the review of this Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4. 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 Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the previous Environmental Impact Report for Duna La Quinta Specific Plan 83-001 assessed the environmental concerns of Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #4; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 for reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 26th 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,030/U -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT #4 NOVEMBER 26, 1991 1. Development of the site shall comply with the approved Exhibit "A" (Land Use Summary) and Exhibit "B" (Environmental Impact Report/Specific Plan Text) as contained in the Community Development Department's file for Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. Development of this site shall be in accordance with the provisions and standards contained in the La Quinta General Plan, the Washington Street Specific Plan and the La Quinta Redevelopment Project #1 plan as in effect at the time of construction. 3. The Applicant shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #2, as adopted by Resolution 85-87 on November 5, 1985, unless modified by the following conditions. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building per for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain any required zoning and land division approvals in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use and Land Division Ordinances. Soils/Geology 5. The Applicant shall comply with the latest Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City of La Quinta. The appropriate seismic design criteria will depend upon the type and use of the proposed structure and the underlying geologic conditions. Hydrology/Water Conservation 6. Prior to the approval of final tract maps, the approval of zoning permits, or the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City Engineer which will indicate the method and design to protect the proposed development from the 100-year flood. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and the Coachella Valley Water District then in effect for flood protection. C0NAPRVL.025/C6 -1- 7. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which will indicate: a) Methods to minimize the consumption of on -site water usage, including water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and programs to minimize landscape irrigation. b) Methods for minimizing the effects of increased on -site runoff and increased groundwater recharge, including the construction of on -site collection and groundwater retention basins. c) Methods for minimizing the amount of groundwater pumped out for on -site irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the City's Master Plan of Drainage. Archaeology 8. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. Air Quality 9. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. At the time of submittal of tentative tract maps or plans for any zoning approvals, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed uses include provisions for non -automotive means of transportation within the project site as a means of reducing dependence on private automobiles. This may include golf cart path systems, bicycle and pedestrian systems, and other similar systems consistent with the specific plan. 11. Specific project designs shall encourage the use of public transit by providing for on -site bus shelters as required by the Planning Director and consistent with the requirements of local transit districts and the specific plan. 12. The Applicant shall encourage and support the use of Sunline van/bus service/Dial-A-Ride/journeys between the project site, local airports (e.g. Palm Springs, Thermal) and other regional land uses. CONAPRVL.025/CS -2 Traffic and Circulation 13. The Applicant or Developer shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: a. The Applicant shall construct street improvements for all abutting public streets and all private on -site streets in accordance with the provisions of the La Quinta General Plan and the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as in effect at the time of construction. These street improvements shall include, but not be limited to, traffic signs and markings, and raised median islands (if required by the La Quinta General Plan). b. Desert Club Drive, along the project frontage, shall be developed as a local, 60-foot-wide street with appropriate offers of dedication and half -street improvements at the time of development. This shall be shown on the approved Exhibit "A". C. Realigned Adams Street between Calle Tampico and Avenue 50 shall be shown on the approved Exhibit "A". The street design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 14. In order to facilitate mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts of these and other area projects, the City shall establish a traffic improvement needs monitoring program. This program will undertake biannual traffic count studies to determine if warrants are met for major roadway improvements. Upon determination of needs, the City may initiate projects to meet those needs. 15. The Applicant shall install a raised center median island, including landscaping and irrigation, where required by the La Quinta General Plan and the City's adopted standards in effect at the time of construction. 16. The Applicant shall submit a traffic circulation analysis prepared by a Registered Civil or Traffic Engineer to the City Engineer and Community Development Director for review and approval. This analysis shall address access from public roads and on -site circulation. Development of the site shall conform with the approved circulation analysis. 17. All new gatehouses and other entries shall provide for stacking space and other design factors consistent with the City Standards and the requirements of the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.025/CS -3- 18. Calle Norte (the north -south internal street connecting 50th Avenue and Calle Tampico west of Washington Street) between Phases 3 and 7 shall be gated to restrict through traffic, but shall provide for emergency access. At the request of the Applicant, this shall be reconsidered at the time of pertinent tentative tract approvals and may be revised provided that any redesign does not direct all traffic towards 50th Avenue. 19. Calle Norte shall be a continuous, loop -type road connecting through Phases 2, 4 and 5 to the remainder of the internal private road system. Noise 20. Prior to the approval of tentative tract maps or the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit site specific noise studies in accordance with the adopted La Quinta General Plan Noise Standards as follows: a. All uses located within 2800 feet of the centerline of major streets. b. For all nonresidential uses proposed for areas within a 1000 foot radius of designated residential uses. 21. Based upon the recommendations contained in the policies within the La Quinta General Plan, Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment U , shall incorporate measures to ensure compliance with the City's recommended indoor and outdoor noise standards. These mitigation measures shall include, but not be limited to the following: a. Construction of noise barriers, including walls and berms. b. Siting and orientation of noise sensitive uses within the project. C. Installation of special design features in buildings. Energy 22. Requirements for the installation of solar water heaters shall be determined by the City on a uniform city-wide basis for new construction at a later date. The developer shall comply with the requirements current at the time of construction. 23. All tentative maps and development plans shall be designed to ensure compliance with the State laws regarding solar accessibility. To the extent possible, all structures shall be sited, oriented and designed so as to minimize the energy needs for cooling. QQNAPRVL.025/Q5 -4- T.and TTGP 24. The maximum allowable densities for the residential phases of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, as depicted on Exhibit "A" (Land Use Summary), for a total of 861 dwellings, shall be amended as follows: a. Phase 1 Shall have a maximum allowable density of 4.05 units per acre, for a maximum of 77 units. b. Phase 2 and 5 shall be redesignated as a single phase with a maximum allowable density of 6.21 units per acre, for a maximum number of 54 units. C. Phase 3 shall have a maximum allowable density of 3 units per acre for a maximum total of 24 units. d. Phase 4 shall have a maximum allowable density of 3.7 units per acre for a maximum number of 16 units. e. Phase 7 shall have a maximum allowable density of 13.0 units per acre for a maximum number of 390 units. f. Phase 8 shall have a maximum allowable density of 5.0 units per acre for a maximum number of 300 units. 25. The phases shall be developed in accordance with the designations approved for Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #2; Phase 4 on the Land Plan Summary (Exhibit "A") shall be changed to "Single -Family" to comply with this requirement. 26. Height limitations shall be imposed as follows: a. No portion of any structure on top of the La Quinta Stormwater Channel shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade except those units in Tentative Tract 25389 which shall have a height limit of two stories (29 feet). b. All new residential buildings, excepting those approved prior to Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #3, shall not exceed one story (20 feet) in height when located within 200 feet of any perimeter property line (excluding the La Quinta Stormwater Channel) public street frontage excepting lots in Tentative Tract 25389.. C. Excepting as provided in subsections (a) and (b) above, all other single-family residential dwellings shall not exceed two (2) stories (35 feet) in height. All other structures will be reviewed to determine appropriate height. This condition (#26 c) shall not apply to Tentative Tract 25389. CONAPRVL, 925/CS -5- d. The following height restrictions shall apply to Tentative Tract 25389: i) The height of units on Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 247-255, 103-116 and 203 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. ii) 75% of the units on Lots 91-102, 238-246 and 204-212 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 2 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iii) 50% of the units on lots 31-48 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 3 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iv) Excepting as is outlined in Condition d) i, ii & iii all units in Tentative Tract 25389 shall be restricted to 30 feet maximum (two stories) in height. 27. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City a site for a neighborhood park consistent with the Open Space Plan of the La Quinta General Plan with the location and size to be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council (neighborhood parks range in size between 5 to 10 acres, with an average size of 7 1/2 acres), or the Applicant shall agree on other alternative methods to secure park land in the general vicinity of this project. 28. All apartments constructed within Phases 6 and 7 shall provide a minimum of one covered parking space for each unit with one or fewer bedrooms and two covered parking spaces for each unit with two or more bedrooms. 29. If the apartment portions of the project include any three -bedroom units, adequate provision shall be made for recreational open space within the project. 30. The following setbacks for walls, fences and structures shall be required to provide for parkways along public streets. a. Wall setbacks from 50th and 52nd Avenues, except where walls now exist on 50th west of Washington, shall be based upon the design of tracts adjacent to said roadways and shall be subject to City review and approval. CONAPRVb.025/CS -6- b. A minimum of two 5-foot x 80-foot recessed cutouts, one being in the Phase 5 portion and the other being in the Phase 4 portion, shall be provided along Washington Street for the perimeter wall. The wall, sidewalk and landscaping shall be installed by December 31, 1984, or by the recordation of future tracts (for development) on Phase 4 or 5, whichever occurs first. In conjunction with these improvements, the Applicant shall also provide landscaping (i.e. lawn) in the future right-of-way between the existing paving for Washington and the future curbline. C. A minimum 10-foot setback from the public right-of-way of Adams Street (if designated as a public street). d. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits or approval of any tentative maps or other required zoning approval, the Applicant shall submit plans to the Planning Department for review and approval demonstrating that there is adequate setback of street, utility and structural improvements to provide for the setback of project perimeter walls along public roadways in accordance with the City's adopted parkway standards in effect at the time of approval for said permits, unless the standards stated in (a) and (b) are lesser than the adopted parkway standards. Public Services and Utilities 31. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the La Quinta Municipal Code in effect at the time of development. a. The Community Infrastructure Fee Program is the primary method for the City to secure funding for fire station facilities. In conjunction with tentative tract maps and similar approvals, the City may request prepayment of fire facilities fees on an as -warranted basis if funds are needed to facilitate needed construction. b. The interior private street system shall comply with adopted standards of the Fire Department relating to access and circulation. C. Provide required minimum fire flow and fire hydrants pursuant to standards in effect at time of development. 32. Domestic Water and sanitary sewer service shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of Coachella Valley Water District in effect at the time of development. The Applicant shall annex the project site to Improvement District #55 to obtain permanent wastewater treatment services. Q©NAPRVL.Q25/Q5 -7- 33. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of Imperial Irrigation District: a. Any relocation of existing overhead power facilities within or adjacent to the project shall be in accordance with the District's requirements and subject to the City's review and approval. 34. All overhead utility lines located along the perimeter public roadways, with the exception of high voltage power lines of 66 KV and above, shall be installed underground. 35. The Applicant shall pay a per -unit school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreements as approved by the La Quinta City Council and in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits. 36. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. Certain facilities required as part of this Specific Plan are eligible for credits set forth in the fee program; these generally include parks, fire station facilities, major streets, traffic signals, bridges, and related infrastructure identified in the program. Miscellaneous 37. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or the approval of tentative tract maps or other required zoning approvals, the Applicant shall submit a phasing schedule and map for the entire project, which shall include the phasing of off -site infrastructure, to the Planning Director for review and approval. 38. In conjunction with the review and approval of required Plot Plan application(s) by the Planning commission and City Council, the site and building design considerations shall be evaluated and appropriate conditions related hereto shall be established: a. Determination of appropriate setbacks for one and two-story buildings from adjacent residentially -zoned property and public streets. b. Determination of appropriate buffers including fences and/or walls and landscaping between the proposed uses and adjacent residential property. C. Development of appropriate methods to screen parking areas from adjacent public streets. d. Determination of appropriate driveway access standards and median cut location. Q©NAPNVL.025/CS -a- 39. Regarding development on Phase 6, the Downtown Study and Architectural Design Guidelines currently being prepared for the City will take precedence over the following conditions, in the event that project development occurs after City adoption of the said study and guidelines: a. Building materials of the project shall consist of earthtone colored plaster exterior siding and mission tile roofing. All sides of the structure must be designed with architectural interest and common materials provide. b. Varying roof lines should be provided for architectural interest and variety, particularly along the streetscape. 40. Desert Club Drive, along the project frontage, shall be developed as a local 60-foot-wide street with appropriate offers of dedication and half -street improvements at the time of development. 41. Calle Tampico shall be improved as a "Secondary Image Corridor" and a "Ceremonial Street" consistent with the General Plan. 42. The location and access to all construction facilities shall be subject to review and approval of the community Development Department. CONAPRU a 025 /bc3 -9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CHANGE - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 25389; FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME NOVEMBER 26, 1991 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 25389 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, conditions of Duna La Quinta Specific Plan any previously recorded parcel map on this property, 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. Prior to final tract approval, the Subdivider shall comply with development requests of the Fire Marshal, Public Works Department, and Coachella Valley Water District. Written clearances from these agencies must be provided to the Planning and Development Department. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4. Subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Public Works Department, including the following: a. Dedication of all necessary public street and utility easements as required. At a minimum, the following half -street rights -of -way shall be provided: Avenue 50 .......... 50 feet Calle Tampico ....... 30 feet Calle Rondo ......... 30 feet Avenida Ultimo ...... 20 feet b. All street improvements shall be constructed to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: (1) Full street improvements along Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Calle Rondo, as part of Phase One development improvements. No further improvemetns to this section of Calle Tampico shall be required of this Tract nor Oak Tree West Specific Plan 85-006. (2) Half -street improvements along Calle Rondo and Avenida Ultimo shall be constructed during Phase Four. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 1 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 (3) Half -street improvements on Calle Tampico from Calle Rondo to Park Avenue and along Park Avenue between Calle Tampico and the Tract entrance (Lot E). (4) Twenty-eight feet wide street improvement centered on Park Avenue centerline between the Tract entrance (Lot E) and 50th Avenue. This improvement is subject to reimbursement as provided by further action of the City Council. (5) Three -quarter -street improvements along Avenue 50 for the length of the tract. These improvements shall include an appropriate raised median, and six-foot sidewalk with a two percent cross slope. The Developer is responsible for half the cost of a raised median and shall provide a bond or letter of credit for that share of the cost. (6) The private streets are to be developed pursuant to City construction standards for public streets. C. Unrestricted temporary access to the entire tract shall be permitted on 50th Avenue via Lot B. Details of the temporary access shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. This temporary access shall be abandoned at such time that fifty percent (50%) of the buildable lots within the tract have received occupancy permits. The Applicant shall give notice to all buyers of lots in this tract as a condition of sale that Lot B is a temporary access only. d. Subdivider shall dedicate, with recordation of the final tract map, access rights to Avenue 50, Park Avenue, Calle Tampico, and Calle Rondo for all individual lots which front or back-up to the right-of-way (except as provided in "c", above). e. Storm water run-off produced by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in a lake, landscaped retention basin(s), or discharged to an off -site area approved by the City Engineer. Any private drainage structure that crosses a public right-of-way shall be installed in accordance with all requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer when the encroachment permit is issued. f. The Developer's share of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue shall not exceed 25 percent. The Developer shall provide a bond or letter of credit for his share of the cost prior to final map recordation. BJ/CONAPRVL,034 - 2 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 g. Provide a dimensioned, detailed Park Avenue access entry design, including access control system location and turn -around area, for the purpose of demonstrating adequate stacking area for development entry. h. The Applicant shall construct an 8-foot wide sidewalk/bikeway on the north side of Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Park Avenue, and on the west side of Park Avenue in that portion which abuts the tract. 5. The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way as required by the City Engineer for a "branch type" turnaround near the west end of Avenida Ultimo. 6. The Applicant shall construct an aesthetically pleasing sight -restricted gate and wall or chainlink fence with suitable landscape screening, at the west end of Avenida Ultimo, if the City vacates the last 70-feet to 90-feet of the street at the west end. 7. The Applicant shall construct an aesthetically pleasing sight -restricted gate and wall or chainlink fence with suitable landscape screening, at the golf course access point near the west end of Avenida Ultimo. 8. The Applicant shall relocate overhead utilities to underground facilities along the following perimeter streets: Adams Street Calle Tampico Avenida Ultimo Park Avenue: Fifty percent responsibility only from 50th Avenue to Calle Tampico 9. The Applicant shall provide, in conformance with the City Engineer and Fire Marshal's requirements an emergency access point on Calle Rondo matching up with Avenida Tujunga. This shall be identified as a street lot on the Final Tract Map with a note "emergency access only". TRACT DESIGN 10. A minimum 20-foot landscaped wall setback shall be required along Avenue 50, 10-foot landscape wall setback along Park Avenue, and five-foot landscape wall setback along Calle Tampico. Design of the setback areas shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Along Avenue 50, the landscaping should incorporate slope stabilization. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines; in the case of Avenue 50, the setback shall be measured 50 feet from the centerline. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 3 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 a. The minimum setback area 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. 23, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 11. The Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for Design Review Board review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The matter will be scheduled as a Business Item before the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the draft C C & R's to the Planning and Development Department for review. 12. The following height restrictions shall apply to Tentative Tract 25389: i) The height of units on Lots 1-5, 17, 18, 247-255, 103-116 and 203 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. ii) 75% of the units on Lots 91-102, 238-246 and 204-212 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 2 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iii) 50% of the units on lots 31-48 shall be limited to 25 feet (one story) in height. No more than 3 two-story units shall be located next to one another. iv) Excepting as is outlined in Condition d) i, ii & iii all units in Tentative Tract 25389 shall be restricted to 30 feet maximum (two stories) in height. PHASING 13. All perimeter tract boundary walls, landscaping, and streets shall be installed/constructed as part of Phase One improvements, except as noted elsewhere in these conditions. 14. Provide temporary turnarounds at all dead-end streets. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 15. The Subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 4 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 16. The Subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for district facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Subdivider 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. 18. Prior to final map approval, the Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including, but not limited to, plant types, sizes, spacing locations, and irrigation system for all common areas. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing mitigation of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 19. Prior to final map approval, the Subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. MISCELLANEOUS 20. Provisions shall be made to comply with the requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 21. 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 with attention given to avoiding the isolated appearance given by continuously -walled developments. 22. The Subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all common areas by the following methods prior to final map approval: BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 5 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all perimeter street and landscaped buffer areas. It is understood and agreed that the developer/Applicant shall pay all above costs of maintenance for said improved landscaped areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b. The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the lot owners of this subdivision, in order to insure that private streets and common lots/facilities including retention basins will be maintained. A homeowner's association shall be created with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual lots 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. 23. The Applicant acknowledges that the City has formed a City -Wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 24. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 25. The Applicant shall provide an acceptable alternative to the park dedication as required in the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The alternative shall include (1) dedication of parkland elsewhere, or value in -lieu fee, or a combination of the two; or (2) pay the value equivalent in development of an existing City park or proposed park. The value shall be determined consistent with the procedures of the Subdivision Ordinance. An agreement to satisfy the condition must be reached prior to recordation of Phase One. 26. 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; BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 6 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 27. 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 Tentative Tract 25389 and the Environmental Impact report for Specific Plan 83-001, 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 Impact report for Specific Plan 83-001 and Tentative Tract 25389 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 mitigation measures of Environmental Impact report for Specific Plan 83-001 and Tentative Tract 25389. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 7 - MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 SUBJECT: BUILDING MOVING 91-001 As the time of writing this memorandum, the application fee of $835 for this project has not yet been received from the Applicant. Please note this fee is needed to defray the expense of investigation and processing of the application. Chapter 14.20 of the Municipal Code, which addresses building moving, stipulates that this fee must be paid prior to the Planning Commission making a decision on this matter. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission continue BM 91-001 until the December 21, 1991 meeting. Attachments: 1. Staff report for BM 91-001 MEMOGL.024 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.054/CS -5- igY9.fv y ATTACHMENT No. b ®. SAND PL ACE �,,_ F! 0WFR CASE MAP CASE No. BM 91-001 EXISTING LOCATION OF BUILDING b i 0 ATTACHMENT No. 2 r w� ♦. � 1 �( •�, , ' w t S ,�r ,1 Q lK L�E CHXLQN b THE SITE PROPOSED LOCATION OF BUILDING , �. ATTACHMENT No. 3 .t/Ytlfrott"" w •wx%&-ftwfL.0 W my " %^" w a-V •KANI N wa•r•r. K M 6 Y•r / t/1(x 4 �A tii Itl• • llrM W CAn r &Oft w b.tr•i 1. M talat (AI•[• N N.•1 7 a cu 1 r V arr+. N e� _ i• •� V r4• W!1+0++ ►1 W-P o0o u aaeltt ra xxr A..'" a!In• 0t .. c••a. t7 •• �P NAM WM-* a ul" 4e.)1 >N r iolt• 10.1J N r L"--Cm•v vrla•n CAN CUM W IjC.:r% . A•oFltfo.4• Tl1 41, Li1R106 W •.++ r :Ia421tr%-U= W 'N :/G CA 1D+ • am-ty. mtlla+e4• - MT4l •M r INN •I! im a yf f 141mm N r W-14 Il a % Iaoftt. •c N l • J aa1•. WOK •.(KTw CIlfT1A N r 2a1'. tiLt++l!0 W 94 r asft •4R. N t J Wei .+a1o• ► xl7c ngwk N 1 .J WWA )-•MAGI N o••w W.A- tr•n co17►4rr N nt-1 1 r!•t W- N ►Jy .Ni Ca ►Jy J al•tl• Ga • 45'Gl wuI ;-m'.la5 ca". V Wr yr. •t3• WA as +a • e.•s+rtu f1•.cl 64 LaQuinta .0c" t� !7►i is r_�.uwr ROI.i K see • e : .J �0 = vA • o• �t• y � •.t .w••ro C•..1 YS•C •.l u••r•• e ... :•N .e::+ . G+rw.. :• •c. e•1 le1 !sr •:elf it U•,�: I77 STREET V ►:e+ •... c+ f./r..•r c+ rr• 1• •« c• t+w•••> c+ INDEX .>.<> .• •<►••• c< f•^.�• .. �. s•e► •!r'Io •r• of fr •aeb 1. was ••'.• •11 L•' •.+ •• •. L• 1 .tea• a 4w • • •rrr :.< •.•,-w .. G7 t.r<. 7Y. •••11 •ww�• •1• rt•• l I rY •1: •Sr� .•••••If•• • ♦y.r r.••a 11'11 ad •1• •.••<I r••••r• N'1 � • •R•W Y •.r<• rrr Cf U-a V • w CI ....... e.fe co C. "w u .�•r W MILD Cam, m G. N •.••r1 arr M/y Cow Nr N ••o,<• •••ws •e C•rr a 0+ I t 1 a�«~4 c� N •.wr p.••a• N/y 0•••w M O N IM • � •w f!r•1• N l•w.r p N 1.l H• N i,a•.r a •1 Ir.rr ta• �1 e.•+,r � p 4•N O •01 POINTS Of INTEREST W N Wr0 M W Y•.44 4.1 /rrw $, N W eyss.•. M •r w•rti 0 4aCa1.1 CAMBER OF COMMERCE BE t.r C. r. w a•,r► tw1 wC.oaw•r.r 4s/ r•4•n•4 ►... s t CITY HALL11AlaAU94 PARK N Y .. CU.r 4M I,r••r'4 Y G� p�1NTA ARTS FOUNDATION BE �;; �'vr, w w rl •».+/ 1 r$TDFFICE 94 ..a.., 1• •• f- % #. G ti_-- `I --&- - . - ( " I T ATTACHMENT No. 4 ' 4 (V (4"(V IC TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: 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. • The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning. • The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined below. • 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, 900 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 1410 MOVING BUILDINGS Sections: 1410.010 Title. 14.20.020 Permit —Required. 1420.030 Permit --Issuance. 14.20.040 Application for permit --Forms. 1410.050 Separate applications, permits required. 1420.060 Filing fee. 1420.070 Indemnity deposit. 1420.080 Prerequisites to issuance --Absence of public detriment 1410.090 Permit upon terms ---Conditions. 1420.100 Contents of application. 1420.110 Submission of plans to planning commission--- Public hearing. 1420.120 Approval of plans by the planning commission. 14.20.130 Deposit or bond —Conditions --Forfeiture. 14.20.140 Clean-up bond. 1420.150 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 tee. 14.20.200 Damage to street or property —Restoration— Cost 1410110 lights on building. 1410120 Hours for use of streets. 14.20.010 Title. This chapter shall be known and may be referred to as the "housemoving ordinance." (Ord.10 $1 (part),1982) 14.20.020 Permit --Required. No person, firm or corporation shall move any building or structure constructed before or after the adoption of the provisions codified in this chapter or any section thereof over, upon, along or across any public street within this city without first obtaining a permit for that purpose from the city manager. (Ord. 10 § 1(part),1982) 14.20.030 Permit —Issuance. No permit shall be issued by the city manager except upon compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter. (Ord.10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.040 Application for permit —Forms. Application to the city manager shall be made prior to the issuance of any permit, and the application shall be made in writing upon blanks and forms to be provided by the city manager and filed with the city manager. (Ord..10 § I (part),1982) 14.20.050 Separate applications, permits required A separate application shall be made to, and a separate permit obtained from, the city manager for the moving of each separate structure or building or section or portion thereof. (Ord.10 § I (part),1982) 14.20.060 Filing fee. 'There shall be paid to the city manager at the time of the filing of the application or applications; a 552 14.20.060 processing fee or fees in an amount or amounts as established by resolution of the city council to defray the expense of investigation and processing. (Ord. 10 11 (part),1982) 1410.070 Indemnity deposit. (CA 'There shall be deposited in the office of the city manager at the time of tiling 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 11 (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 § I (part),1982) 14.20.090 Permit upon terms --Conditions. Upon determining that the granting of any such permit is jt:stiLed 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 shaU 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 buDding 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 bur7ding or structure will be moved; F. Time schedule: the time proposed for the moving of the building or structure, togother with the time required to complete the removal; G. Owner of buDding 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 I (part),1982) 14.20.110 Submission of plans to planning commission --Public hearing. The detailed plans and specifications provided for by Section 14.20.100(4) shaU be first submitted tc the city planning commission. The planning commission shall thereupon provide for a public hearing tc be held in the manner provided for conditional use permits in the zoning ordinance of the city. (Ord. V § I (part),1982) A daxtA . 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, shal make a determination to approve or disapprove the housemovtng permit applied for. The planninq 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—Forfeitum 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) 14.20.1S0 Use of clean-up bond. An applicant desiring to move a building out of town shall have a period of thirty days in which to clean up the site in accordance with the instructions of the city manager. If the site is cleaned in accordance with the instructions of the city manager within thirty days, the entire cash bond shall be returned to the applicant or person posting same. If the site is not cleaned in accordance with the instructions of the city manager, then the city manager shall be empowered to use all or a portion of the cash.bond to accomplish the remaining clean-up requirements. If all the bond is not used by the city manager, then that portion remaining shall be returned to the applicant or the person posting the bond. Should the cleaning up of the site require an amount in excess of the bond posted, then such cost shall be a claim against the applicant, due and owing to the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.160 * 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 bur7ding or structure proposed to be moved. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.170 Plans of proposed appearance of building. In the event that am 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 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.180 Supervision of moving. Every building or structure or portion thereof moved over, upon, along or across any street shall be moved under the inspection and supervision of the city manager. (Ord. 10 § I (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 cast tbereof to the applicant for permit, and deduct the costs from the indemnity deposit required by Section 14.20.070. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.210 Lights on building. No person moving any building or structure or portion thereof over, upon, along or across any street shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at all times between sunset and sunrise at each comer of such building or structure or portion thereof and at the end of any projection thereon while the same or any part thereof is located in or upon any street or other public place. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982) 14.20.220 Hours for use of streets. The hours during which moves are to be made on public highways shall be determined by the city manager. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982) 555 ATTACHMENT No. 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY • Nownwwwwwwo o-- -� �1 COIS BYRD. SHERIFF � `;'s-'-t)y� Dk C•-\RREON b-% D • P`DIO. CA 92201 • (6191 42-n99 October 1, 1991 Ms. Glenda Lainis City of La Quinta Planning Department 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 RE: BY=91-001 Dear Ms. Lainis: Our only suggestion reference the building moving is that you consider contracting for Sheriff's Deputies to provide traffic control during this move. CB: RD:gt Sincerely, COLS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dve, Lieutenant Indio Station OCT 0 2 1991 t•t ' 10iT 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 RESCPC.057 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-_ CONDITIONS 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- 6. 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 rnNAPRVT,. 023/CS -2- 8. No person moving any building or structure or portion thereof over, upon, along or across any street shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at all times between sunset and sunrise at each corner of such building or structure or portion thereof and at the end of any projection thereon while the same or any part thereof is located in or upon any street or other public place. CONAPRVL.023/CS -3- � 4 PH #3 MEMORANDUM 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 December 10, 1991. We therefore request that you move to continue this matter to December 10, 1991. MEMOJIi .14 7 NOQ 20 '31 16:27 TO 5645617 FROM VALLEY LAND DEV. CO. T-244 P.02 November 20, 1991 City of La Quinta P. D. ]fox 1504 La Quint&, CA 92253 Attn: Mr® Jerry Herman Planning Director RE% 145-Acres Fred Waring & Washington Street La Quinta, CA Hear erry w Request for continuance of the following item: ITEM: change of Zone 91068 General Plan Amendment 91039 "PLICANT'. Valley Land Development Co. LOCATZON; ]dos: teeeast, corner of Fred Waxing and Washington Street We hereby request the Public Hearing to be continued from November 29, 1991 to Demmer 10, 1291 meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission. Very truly yours, VALLEY LAND REVEL wPME44T CO. Thomas A. Thorn?ourgh President TAT/mk WMPAW412-600 COCA( q. t SUITE 160 t PALM DESERT, CA 9226G 1(610) 568- PH #4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22, 1991) CASES: PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MR. MERLIN J. BARTH PROJECT ENGINEER: MR. JOHN SANBORN, SANBORN/WEBB, INC. OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL REQUEST: 1. PLOT PLAN - REQUEST TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. 2. VARIANCE - A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE STANDARDS. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY Ill AND WASHINGTON STREET. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued the case on October 22, 1991, to November 26, 1991, because the Traffic Study had not been reviewed by Caltrans, and our Staff did not have adequate time to examine the initial submittal. The Traffic Study was revised on November 7, 1991, however, since this time the updated final report has not been delivered to the City for final consideration. Staff is therefore unable to present the final report to the Commission because of this delay. It should be noted that this document is one key component of the Environmental Assessment thus the City would be in err to consider the project without this material pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. It should be noted that Caltrans has responded to the initial study but they too have not commented on the revised document as of the writing of this report. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearings for Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019 to December 10, 1991. PCST.022 ....mitt i� 1�511 ll�!! 'f Ul9il�i I BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 APPLICANT: NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH ALLOWS SUBDIVISION OF 269+ ACRES INTO 276 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET AND SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT BACKGROUND: This item was continued from your meetings of October 8, 1991, and October 22, 1991, due to a concern regarding the status of the overall project. The Developer and City signed a Development Agreement in 1985, which vests the project. The City in return receives an annual payment consideration. This tract is located with the Pyramids project, also known as Specific Plan 84-004. The tract creates 276 single family lots, 6 golf course lots and various other street and landscape buffer lots. The tract creates lots on the westerly half of the specific plan area. To date only the golf course that runs within this tract area has been developed. ORIGINAL APPROVAL: This tentative tract was approved by the City Council on June 6, 1989, subject to conditions. Those conditions are attached for your review. Although some work has begun on the final map recordation, it has not been completed. Therefore, the Applicant's have requested this time extension. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: A Development Agreement has been recorded on the property. This Development Agreement allows development of the property in accordance with the provisions of Specific Plan 84-004, Parcel Map 20489 (now recorded) and Change of Zone 84-014. Any new Conditions of Approval for subsequent tract maps, etc., must be consistent with the Conditions of Approval for the specific plan and other original approvals. In return the City receives a $40,000 per year payment consideration. PCST.033 ANALYSIS: 1. The Development Agreement has not been terminated. 2. Staff feels that there are no required changes necessary for this tentative tract map at this time. FINDINGS: Findings for justification of a recommendation for approval of the First One Year Extension of Time for this tentative tract map can be made and are found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution 91- recommend to the City Council concurrence of the First One Year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 24545. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter of request 3. Tentative Tract 24545 (reduced copy) 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 91- PCST.033 2 4ORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 7I� September 6, 1991 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Tentative Tract Map 24545 First Extension Dear Mr. Herman: RECUIrtu SEP C 6 ioo- 01 v ur Ui VuiNTA °LANN{NG & DEVELOPMENT OUT Through our conversations of last week, it came to our attention that The Pyramids Tentative Tract Map 24545 expired June 6, 1991. Please find enclosed our application for an extension for Tentative Tract Map 24545. Mr. Tom Thornburgh applied to the City of La Quinta for a revision to his Specific Plan and Development Agreement for Tract Map 25154, to incorporate his tract into The Pyramids development. We thought that Mr. Thornburgh, at the time of his request, made application for an extension to The Pyramids tract, along with payment of the required fee. We apologize for this confusion. We trust everything is now in order. Should there be any problems, please advise. We thank the City of La Quinta in advance for its cooperation and assistance with this matter. Sincerely, NORTH STAR CALiFORIINIAP CC�iFCRiiTTO,: Pamela L. Dekany Development Coordinator enc. cc: Mr. David W. Beaver Mr. Tom Thornburgh w/o enc. Files 78371 HIGHWAY 111 CA QUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 1619j 564-2500 FAX (6191 564-2057 CASE Nm TT 24545 LOCATION MAP ORTM SCALE: NTS t� j � y�j ,fir'' • _ ' - i eV{ j St r jj iv L. 5 _ i urIt" 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FIRST ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 WHICH ALLOWS THE CREATION OF A 276 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A +269 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 24545, EXT. #1 - NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 23rd day of May, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and recommended to the City Council approval of said tentative tract request of Northstar California Corporation, Inc., to subdivide 269+ acres into 276 single family development lots, generally located east of Washington Street, north of 50th Avenue, south of 48th Avenue, and west of Jefferson Street, more particularly described as: A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, AND PORTIONS OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6th day of June, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map 24545 and approved said application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of November, 1991, recommend approval of a One Year Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 24545, to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5) , in that a Negative Declaration has been certified and the proposed tentative tract Time Extension will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, at said meeting, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said tentative tract map extension: 1. That Tentative Tract 24545, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan in that the proposal complies with the requirements, R-2 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. RESOPC.051 2. That the topography of the site is suitable for the proposed land division, circulation design, and single-family lot layouts. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 24545 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will mitigate this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 24545 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the Tentative Tract 24545, as conditioned, provided for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the Tentative Tract 24545, as conditioned, provided storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the tentative tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan and the prior EIR with addendum. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map Extension, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this matter; 2. That it does hereby confirm the environmental determination relative to the environmental concerns for this Tentative Tract Time Extension; and, 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract 24545 Time Extension subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: REsoPc.051 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPO.051 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 24545 NOVEMBER 26, 1991 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with Exhibit "B", the Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 84-004, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedent in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the Specific Plan conditions. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 24545 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 4. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 6. Per Condition No. 11 of the Specific Plan Conditions, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the following improvements as requested by Sunline Transit: o A bus turnout and passenger waiting shelter shall be provided on Washington Street. The shelter could be built by the Developer or the Developer may make arrangements with Frank Jones and Sunrise Media to install a shelter with advertising. Maintenance is the responsibility of the Developer. o Sunline has suggested standards for bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters and are willing to work with the City and the Developer to create a mutually -acceptable design. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -1- Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 24545-Extension #1 November 26, 1991 7. Per Condition No. 15 of the Specific Plan, the Applicant/ Developer shall construct road lots A, F, I, L, and R with a minimum 36-foot pavement width, the rest of the private roads shall be constructed with a minimum 32-foot pavement. 8. Per Condition No. 34 of the Specific Plan, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with the Fire Marshal's requirements: a. Schedule A fire -protection -approved Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") shall be located one at each street intersection, spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI. b. ]Prior to recordation of the final map, Applicant/ Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." C. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. d. Lots "N", "0", and "S" exceed the maximum allowable length for dead-end roads and shall be provided with a connecting through road so that cul-de-sac does not exceed 1,320 feet; or require fire sprinkler systems on those houses along the cul-de-sacs, subject to final approval by the Fire Marshal. e. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum 45-foot curb -to -curb radius turnaround. f. Entry streets constructed with gates and without 24-hour guard staffing shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire Department override system. Gates shall be operable during power failures by human hands without special knowledge or force. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -2- Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 24545-Extension #1 November 26, 1991 g. Medians constructed at entry streets shall have a minimum setback of 30 feet from the curb face of the connecting streets. h. Driveways for lots 68, 90, 92, and 127 shall be improved to withstand the loads of fire apparatus, and provide a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. i. A permanently mounted, illuminated address monument shall be installed adjacent to the driveway entrances for Lots 68, 90, 92 and 127. j. Requirements during phasing: The road improvements shall be constructed as required with each phase so that dead-end streets do not exceed 1,320 feet in length. k. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Applicant/Developer shall deposit a sum of $100,000 as prepayment of fire mitigation fees. 1. An emergency vehicle control override system shall be installed on each traffic signal that the Applicant/Developer is required to install or alter. Installation shall meet the specifications and approval of the Road and Fire Departments. M. If public -use -type building(s) are to be constructed, additional fire protection may be required. The fire flows and hydrant locations will be stipulated when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Department. MR/CONAPRVL.058 -3- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 91-468 APPLICANT: AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (TOM PAVLOVSKY) ARCHITECT: DENNIS WEHMUELLER, ARTHUR STEPHENS, ARCHITECTS REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A PLOT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A OFFICE BUILDING. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET WITHIN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 89-150) WAS APPROVED FOR THE OVERALL III LA QUINTA CENTER OF WHICH THIS SITE IS A PART, BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1990. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: C-P-S/VACANT LAND WHICH IS PART OF 111 LA QUINTA CENTER SOUTH: C-P-S/VACANT LAND EAST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND WHICH IS PART OF Ill LA QUINTA CENTER WEST: C-P-S / VACANT LAND BACKGROUND: The proposed site is a part of the Ill La Quinta Center (SP 89-014) which was approved by the City Council on April 17, 1990. The specific plan indicated a 8, 000 sq. ft. pad building in the location proposed by the Applicant. PCST.032 1 Since the time of the original specific plan approval, the overall site plan has been slightly modified with driveways on Highway 111 relocated by Caltrans. Additionally, in addition to Phases I and III of the main buildings being approved, the Shell service station at the corner of Adams and Highway 111 has been approved. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The Applicant has submitted a plan for an 8,000 sq. ft. Automobile Club office. In addition to the Automobile Club, the emergency road service, which is presently located in Palm Springs will be relocated to this office. This building will replace the existing office in Indio. DESIGN PROPOSAL: The building which will be approximately 106' X 75' is located near the corner of Washington and Highway 111. Immediately adjacent to the west will be the perimeter landscaping along Washington Street with the proposed theme plaza adjacent to the south site of the building. Parking will be provided on the east and north sides of the building with the main entrance into the building on the east. The architectural style of the building utilizes architectural features used on the approved major uses in the main building area. Additionally, all colors and materials match those used in the project. All four sides of the building will have a covered walkway feature to match that used in the shopping center. The maximum height of the structure is 21' 6" with the exception of a narrow tower feature which would be 5' higher along the east and west sides of the building. This building is within 150' of Washington Street. As such, it is within the corridor of Washington Street. The policy has been to limit structures within 150' of Washington Street to one story. The height proposed by this construction is in compliance with that approved along Washington Street. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of November 6, 1991. After a short discussion, they recommended approval of the plans subject to four conditions recommended by Staff. ANALYSIS: Staff feels that the plan as designed is acceptable. The architecture will match that of the main shopping center area. Additionally, the colors and material finishes are identical. With regards to the building heights along Washington Street, the proposed height is comparable to construction of a single story residence. For example, Pare La Quinta, south of Highway 111, was limited to one story at 21' adjacent to Washington Street. PCST.032 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Plot Plan 91-468, by Minute Motion 91- , subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Overall site plan showing proposed building location 2. Overall site plan for shopping center previously approved as SP 89-014 3. Floor plans, landscaping plans, elevation plans 4. Comments from City Departments and other agencies 5. Draft Conditions of Approval PCST.032 .Jir, ..—I v'.i..) %1•1 /11J f,nri 1.-I 111 DDVN S tOl O 0: O.0 > 4=1 �. t 00=00=0: E cxo o• � ! vR: 3sw a2 Nt g E o o• w� { ��_ Luz, OV"O� '•I o a r • is o i Eoc-vor�.�•; •!� • cc I LU d h 0000 wi�•1 •1!`: � i i • 0 . ! O � .. tsu a WEc.vo•: ; ••N•if OO 00:0: E o" o- •�_� 1 �.N w w b r� •�I•� p ON V •y • i L 1 v `# n / ✓' T c 0 4 .. i `� III •�+ ea �- 14 I IL_ T�+ •.•�`..•�.� x It I GT V z� rtn � x z gg \ AU10MOp�ILE Gu1P� oP SaItfNEWJ GAUfaaRNla "-ARTHUR DENNIS WE HM U E L LER LA TWA, a r c Isi t STEPHENS . � f||!!!■t �Z i•,� L x | o $ � . r ■ | ~ } @ > §@ k i � %& Imo| . l .• tI _ ` . �� ! % ■f-- - � � , I|. 3\ I 46z:- 7 ! ■ E g � e Ina EHF% # � I | � �- - uo@o :�� ,' ,...., _...u.iL.. . ! �r-e-, a _wTA , A R T H U R STf;HE.s , . . , i — � S gli I Rif FillSKI ' F f —� a ©_-I= LI- F I s =ej �lz - ;i I F ® LM E;p74 �' 3 I- i (� yhlt� ( 1�ly RZIGT oi�i x - L.A -?J1 Cs, LANMS ,PE PLANS PREPARED BY: roan sr rarweiz - WwA'w4rx4 +i MwY III DAVE BERET a ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPRATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON. Govemo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186.6406 acr (619) 688-6968 ffT 2 3 1991 October 18, 19 1 CITY t�t�; UINTA 11-RIV-111 PI-��;t��kG C'CF�.RTt,'.EwTM 33.1/34.2 Plan #91-468 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Stan Sawa We have reviewed the proposed project to construct the Automobile Club office building in the shopping center approved by Specific Plan No. 89-014 in the City of La Quinta. On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) 11-RIV-111 PM 33.1/34.2 was approved by the district. Proposed improvements were designed to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed commercial development north of SR-111 between Adams Street and Washington Street and anticipated growth for the year 2010. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing highway to a six lane conventional highway through this area was included in that report. Any improvements to SR-111 included in the Plot Plan #91-468 must meet Caltrans Standards and also be in conformance with the PSR/PR shown above. Please note that one driveway location shown in the Site Location Plot (see enclosure) is not in conformance with the PSR/PR approved by the District. Driveway access locations will be allowed midway between intersections, median openings will be spaced a minimum of one -quarter mile apart, and State right of way will be set back 30 feet minimum from the edge of travelled way. Any proposed access or work within Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit. Information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688-6843. Early coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all encroachment permit applications. For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688-3211. If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at (619) 688-6968. cc: CRWest AKosup PHardin HJackson JESUS M. GARCIA District Director BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Attn: Sam Sawa Re: Plot Plan 91-468 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE a PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 September 19, 1991 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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. Fire Flow is based upon the building being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2$" x 2}"), will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shal-1 be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 3. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 4. Install a fire alarm system per NFPA 71 that provides for valve supervision and 24 hour monitoring of the waterflow alarm at the automatic fire sprinkler system. 5. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 6. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 7. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. PLANNING DIVISION R INDIO OFFICE ❑ TB ECUTA OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Tonecula, CA 92390 (619) 342aM • FAX (619) 775-2072 ❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694-5070 a FAX (714) 694-5076 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 2754777 • FAX (714) 36%7451 9b printed on recycled pope City of La Quinta Planning Division September 19, 1991 Re: Plot Plan 91-468 Page 2 8. Approved building address shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. 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 o.,. /{c�'-Zlz Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist wla T4'it 4 4aamrw 78-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2248 FAX (619) 564-6617 FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: V City Manager \i Waste Management Principal V Public Works/Engineering General Telephone Planner(s) V Fire Marshal Palmer Cable Vision Associate to Building & safety Sunline Transit Planner(s) Chamber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) Assistant N CVWD Agricultural Commission Planner Imperial Irrigation City of Indian Wells it Planning Southern California Gas City of Indio Director Desert Sands School Dist. US Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Environmental Health Owner's Association Sheriff's Department LA QUINTA CASE NO (S) :Ilei P14NA Q (- 4(os ; aLht-t�% I La, GI LFb 4 Go SEP 19 1401 11TV �r LAI N t ATION: The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initia3 environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 1�2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the ect design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulationI,IRCE ns which your agency is responsible; and 0 �� SEP 1 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant &aerse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided thrMiles) " ans, please recommend the scope and focus of additional stuwhich may be helpful. Please send your response by TUB I 0� 14 (qGj 1 and return the maps/plans if not needed for your files. You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: 7] 1 L.I , 3,1,q4 ( Time: 12M Contact Person: bpi W Q Title: Jt�Ai Comments made Date: 9 T .- by:l' Title: Phone: Agency/Division ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - DIRECTORS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT JOHN W.McFADDEN DOROTHY M. NICHOLS THECDORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: Ro PIE 0� a P�. i�11�Adr�£PA.:9aS:�E'�T OFFICERS September 25 1991 THOMASE.LEVY,GENERALMANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER P r BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS File: 0163.1 Subject: Plot Plan 91-468, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 19, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed -to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans. There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:cb/e9a cc: Don Park TRUE CONSERVATION Riverside County Department USE WATER WISELY of Public Health, Bermuda Dunes CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN 91-468, AUTOMOBILE CLUB NOVEMBER 26, 1991 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: 1. The development of this site shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for Plot Plan 91-468, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the Planning Commission approval; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within the one year period and thereafter diligently perused to completion. 3. All applicable conditions of SP 89-014, Plot Plan 90-434, and Parcel Map 25865, shall be complied with as necessary. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded to eliminate glare on the adjacent streets. 5. Should mandatory recycling be required at sometime in future, separate recycling bins if needed shall be provided within a masonry enclosure. 6. That all conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District in their letter dated September 25, 1991, shall be met as required. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: 7. The screen walls for the trash bin, transformer, and emergency generator shall be high enough to screen them from view of Washington Street and the parking lot. Plans showing wall height and equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Agricultural Commissioner and the Coachella Valley Water District, prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Applicant shall work with master developer to provide coordination of landscape planting along the south and west side of the building. 10. Final sign program shall be submitted separately prior to issuance of a building permit. Signage shall be in conformance with the approved sign program for the center. Signage on the north and south elevation shall be restudied with consideration to providing signage below the tile roof line. CONAPRVL.039 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-468 - Proposed November 26, 1991 CITY FIRE MARSHAL: 11. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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. Fire flow is based upon the building being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1 / 211 X 2-1 / 2") , will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant (s) in the system. 13. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildings). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 14. Install a fire alarm system per NFPA 71 that provides for valve supervision and 24 hour monitoring of the waterflow alarm at the automatic fire sprinkler system. 15. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 16. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 17. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes . 18. Approved building address shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, plans showing site grading, parking, circulation, and access to streets, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department and Engineering Department to insure compatibility with the overall approved plans. 20. All storm water and nuisance water run-off produced on this site shall be discharged in accordance with the approved drainage plan prepared for Specific Plan 89-014, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.039 2 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-468 - Proposed November 26, 1991 21. All off -site improvements adjacent to the site and site grading shall conform to approved improvement plans prepared pursuant to Specific Plan 89-014. 22. The Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the site grading and improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant and charged with the compliance responsibility shall make the following certification upon completion of construction: A. "All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . The finish building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. " 23. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking, and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in affect at the time work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. CONAPRVL.039 BI #3 DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1991 SR ADJUSTMENT 91-004 LINDA BABIOR TEV COLLABORATIVE (JULIA TAKAHASHI) 51-065 AVENIDA VALLEJO (IN THE COVE AREA) SR (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL) CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CEQA. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. The subject property consists of three lots which have been merged into a 150' X 100' lot. The property presently contains a single family residence of approximately 1600 sq. ft. which the Applicant has owned since 1988. The Applicant wishes to add a major addition to the residence and substantially upgrade the property. The newly remodeled house will contain approximately 3, 000 sq. ft. of floor area. Additionally, new landscaping, sprinkler systems, and a pool and spa will be added. The newly remodeled residence will consist of two bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths, a fully enclosed two car garage, entry drive court, golf cart storage, and a gardeners shed. Presently the property which is located on a corner, is fully enclosed by a stuccoed wall with some wood fencing. This wall will remain after the remodeling. The remodeled residence will be designed in a manner which is considered Art Deco or streamlined moderne style by the architect. The design incorporates curved forms and roof and wall surfaces. According to the architect, interest has been added to the design of the roof by varying the roof lines so that it becomes a composition of both flat and curved roof forms. The heights of the roof are also varied to correspond to the interior function of the space and to add interest to the exterior. The roof forms are related to massing of the building and have been used to create a sense of depth and shadow to the exterior elevations. The proposed structure does not exceed the 17' high maximum height limit. Exterior materials will consist of stucco walls with metal windows, glass block metal, and wood doors, and wood trim. The roofing material utilized will be standing seam metal for the curved roof surfaces. The exact colors have not yet been chosen for the exterior materials. However, the architect believes that the walls will probably be off-white or white with the roofing materials, possible being "Sage Green" in color. The architect PCST.031 1 estimates that the total cost of the improvements will be $450-500, 000 including construction and landscaping. SR ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: The requested SR Adjustment which is permitted by the Municipal Code, is to allow the usage of standing seam metal roofing and curved wall sections. The SR Zone specifically requires that for other than flat roofs, roof material shall be either clay or concrete tile. The specific examples of architecture styles does not show any curved wall surfaces. The Municipal Code allows deviation from these requirements provided that the Planning Commission determines that the adjustment will be "compatible with the surrounding neighborhood". ANALYSIS: 1. The subject property is located at the extreme north end of the Cove area. Within a block or two of the property to the south east and west, approximately 1/3 of the lots are developed. Generally the value of the surrounding homes probably runs from $90-$110, 000. As noted, the Applicant intends to spend approximately $450-$500, 000. There are homes of approximately this value in the area to the west, approximately four blocks away, known as the Yucatan Peninsula. 2. Across the street to the north is the La Quinta Hotel Golf Course. Therefore, there are no homes immediately to the north of the project site. 3. Due to the location of the remodeled residence on the lot, the existing stuccoed wall around the property, proposed landscaping, and the extensive amount of mature landscaping that will remain, visibility of the remodeled structure should be minimal from the street and surrounding properties. 4. Since the property is located at the extreme end of the Cove, the deviation in exterior materials and style will be minimal when compared to a site which is in the middle of the Cove area. 5. Staff feels that the residence in itself is attractive. If the zoning of the property was not SR, there would be no restriction against constructing this residence. The restriction is because when the SR Zone was developed, it was felt that a certain architectural style utilizing tile roofs was desirable for the area. 6. City policy has been to require compliance with the SR requirements for new construction. In the cases of remodels, the policy has been to allow some deviation if the original construction does not comply with the SR requirements. PCST.031 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this item at their meeting of November 14, 1991. The Design Review Board after reviewing the request on a unanimous vote, recommended to the Planning Commission that the adjustment be approved as requested. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should review the requested adjustment in light of the above Staff comments and Design Review Board action and determine acceptability. Should you feel this request is acceptable, approve by Minute Motion subject to the attached conditions and any other conditions the Planning Commission feels is appropriate. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Supplement to application from applicant received October 31, 1991 3. Plan exhibits PCST.031 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SR ADJUSTMENT 91-002 - RECOMMENDED NOVEMBER 26, 1991 1. Approval shall be subject to exhibits on file in the Planning and Development Department. Minor deviations from approved plans shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 2. Final exterior colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 3. Landscaping shall be provided around exterior of perimeter wall. Landscaping shall be designed to compliment and screen residence. PCST.031 4 CALL£ — Too �s• 7° w • Z/ O 2 Q 2 • 20 h 3 : 0.Oe. Q � 0 06 AC 4 Q 06/ M i /7 O O 6 ° J 16 O ® 7 ° /5 C 140 09 j /5 ® Q /0 ; ie. of 04 7 s 14 ' e 5 AV£N/DA � TAMPi I 7 T ?2 / ?2 " • �.• M 7• 7• _ ..• to• 1[ i•. /3 Z 71 _ oa ?, ?0 O /4 5 ?G Ac O 1?0 9 /5 4O /© 4 /9 cz /9 ® Q 4 W 180 05 180 © 5 l6 Y06,3 /�6 V /7 6 V 17 � a © Q � 0 -4/6 © ® 7 16 m /6 O7 ® 7 Q /5 O Og B QO Q /5 © ® B /5 /4 O9 ®9 2 O ; /4 O9 ®9 /< Q Q — /0 /3 ® /O Q /3 I a• o• I /•• /I. I ,.s P ig 7• J• ae 7f lr. 1' � Wes 79lG • N — - - — MONTEZUMA CASE No. SR adjustment 91-004 LOCATION MAP ADJUSTMENT TO SR STANDARDS SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION APPLICANT: TEV Collaborative Contact: Julia Takahashi or Michael Evans 410 St. Louis Avenue Long Beach, CA 90814 OWNER: Linda Babior c/o Higgins & Cosme, Inc. 135 Screenland Drive Burbank, CA 91505 ADDRESS: Parcel #773062023 51065 Avenida Vallejo La Quinta, CA 92110 PROJECT: dL'd.v Suss.'y ar`.lJd' 4;0 C T 3 1 1991 FNIT The proposed project is a new one story single family home of approximately 3000 square feet to replace a 1950's circa house of approximately 1600 square feet. The site consists of 3 standard lots which have been tied together. Proposed renovation of site includes new septic system, hook-ups for future City sewer system, repair and infill existing 6 foot high fence around property, new street frontage landscaping and sprinkler system and new pool/spa. The new 2 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath residence will also include a fully enclosed 2 car garage, entry drive court, golf cart storage, gardener's shed and 2000 square feet of gallery, living, dining and kitchen space. The residence is similar to the flat roofed Art Deco style shown in the `Manual on Architectural Standards,' with modifications as described below. The Owner has requested top quality construction and finishes for the project. The Owner will be using this house as a primary residence. Total cost of improvements is estimated at $450,000 to $500,000, including construction and landscaping. This represents a substantial upgrade of the existing property and investment in the Cove Area of La Quinta. REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS: 1. Modification of the roof line to allow for curved roofs over the back (away from the street frontage) portion of the buildings. 2. Modification of permitted roofing materials to allow for standing seam metal roofing on the curved roof surfaces. 3. Modification of building massing as shown on Architectural Styles sheet to allow for curved sections. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Two JUSTIFICATION: The Owner of this property requested a design which would serve as a primary residence for the owner and comfortable quarters for occasional guests. In addition the design was to respond to the beauty and drama of the La Quinta environment and provide panoramic views of the Santa Rosa Mountains for the master suite. The Owner has a particular affinity for curved spaces and requested that curved wall and ceiling surfaces be incorporated in to the design. In response to site and client parameters, the design of the residence consists of primary living spaces clustered along the south side of the property. Moving from the east side (Avenida Vallejo) this portion of the building consists of a two car garage, a garage entrance door into a service area with powder room and laundry, a kitchen, a dining area, a main entry area and a gallery/living room along the west side. The gallery has a high ceiling which curves in a 1/4 round to open the space up to windows framing a view of a large existing tree and shaded garden space. The curved ceiling helps scoop light into the gallery and provides drama and height without feeling oppressive. The more private master suite and guest suite are set along the north side of the house. This provides the master suite with a panoramic view of the Santa Rosa Mountains as well as direct access to the spa and swimming pool. The master bedroom is designed with a barrel vaulted ceiling. The roof over the atrium space and private patio is also curved to create a dramatic frame for the view. The full drama of the Santa Rosa Mountains is brought into the interior of the master suite as the curved frame encompasses the sky and helps to capture the sense of spaciousness of the desert. The two rounded forms on the north side provide a balance to the skyward thrust of the roof. The round space on the east side serves as a bath and shower and the other will be used as a study. The standing seam metal roofing material has been selected as an efficient and attractive roofing for curved surfaces. The materials permitted in the Architectural Standards are not applicable on curved surfaces. LNiPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: The roof line along the Avenida Vallejo frontage has been kept flat so as to provide a low profile in keeping with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Using computer modeling studies, we estimate that very little if any of the curved roof surfaces will be visible from Avenida Vallejo. In addition the entire property is surrounded by a 6 foot high stucco wall. The screening of this wall is further enhanced by existing and planned landscaping with trees and climbing vines (bougainvillea). It is our understanding that Avenida Tampico will eventually be developed as a pedestrian and bike path. The golf course is on the north side so there will not be any other residential development along that side. Views of this property from the golf course are already screened by golf course landscaping the topography of the course. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Three Adjacent properties along the south and west sides are already fairly well screened from view by the 6 foot high garden wall and adjacent landscaping. FINDINGS: 1. Conformation with General and Specific Plans The proposed project is a remodel of a single family dwelling on a 100 foot by 159.47 foot lot. The site will continue to be used as a single family dwelling. 2. Compliance with Zoning Requirements Setbacks: As per communication with the La Quinta Planning Department on July loth, 12th and 23rd of 1991. The site is being developed with the Avenida Tampico frontage considered as the front yard with a 20 foot setback and the Avenida Vallejo side considered as a sideyard with a 10 foot setback. In addition, as the garage doors do not face the street and as off street parking is provided in the drive court; the site plan meets the intent of the zoning code in respect to garage setbacks and off street parking. (Please refer to attached copies of correspondence). Upgrades to the property related to zoning requirements include the addition of a fully enclosed two car garage and golf cart storage space. All setbacks meet the zoning requirements except for an existing non -conforming condition along the south setback where the wall of the existing house is approximately 5 feet from the property line. All new portions of the structure will be constructed within the allowed buildable area. Fencing: There is an existing 6 foot high stucco and wood fence around the property. This fence is in good repair but will be check and repaired as required. The existing gate is ornamental wrought iron and will be re -used. All new gates will be designed and constructed to match the existing gate. Landscaping: The entire site will be re -landscaped and a new sprinkler system will be installed. Existing mature trees and plant materials will be incorporated into the new design. Where existing trees are located within the new building footprint, they will be saved and moved where feasible. Pool Equipment & Refuse Containers: Pool equipment will be located in the gardener's shed adjacent to the pool and will not be visible from the street. Refuse containers will be located within a walled enclosure. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Four Utilities: Utilities will be installed underground. A new septic system will be installed as well as hook- up for the future City sewer system. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting for garden areas will be located a ground level. At entries it will be located at approximately header height. All exterior lighting will be directed so that the light beam does not shine into adjacent properties. Building Design Standards: Architectural Variety: Architectural interest and variety have been incorporated into the building through the use of form, massing and roof design. Roof Design: Interest has been added to the design of the roof by varying the roof lines so that it becomes a composition of both flat and curved roof forms. The heights of the roofs are also varied to respond to the interior function of the space and to add interest to the exterior. The roof forms are related to the massing of the building and have been used to create a sense of depth and shadow to the exterior elevations. Architectural Style: The style selected is reminiscent of the flat roofed Art Deco style shown on the style sheet. The design incorporates curved forms and wall surfaces which is in keeping with the language of the Art Deco/Streamlined Moderne style -- especially as exemplified by the Southern California work of this period. The facade a massing has been kept fairly simple with flat roofs along the Avenida Vallejo frontage so as to maintain a street presence in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. The building forms become more exuberant in the private areas of the site as they are meant to be primarily viewed and experienced by the homeowner and guests. Floor Plan: Plan has 2 1/2 baths, connecting pedestrian door from garage into the house, minimum 20' x 20' clear interior dimension in the garage plus space for mechanical equipment and bedroom clear interior dimensions greater than 10' x 10'. Exterior: No portion of the building is higher than 17 feet. Exterior materials will be stucco with metal windows, metal and wood doors, and wood trim. Roof material is subject to this Adjustment Application. All roofing materials will be rated "Class A." There are no extended eaves in the design. Building colors will be submitted with application for building permit. All exterior mounted equipment will be screened from view. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Five Relationship between the House and the Site: This project has been designed to present an appealing front to the street. The front of the building has been kept fairly low and will be partially hidden behind the garden wall and the landscaping. Glimpses of the curved roofline beyond will provide a sense of intrigue and interest and the in and out massing of the building will provide an interplay of light and shadow. A set of decorative metal and wood doors will face the drive court and will be visible from the street. The garage has been turned so that the garage doors cannot be seen directly from the street. In front of the garage will be a drive court with decorative paving. This court is screened from the street by a decorative wrought iron gate. Additional gates for pedestrians and service access will be designed to match the driveway gate. Landscaping along the street frontage will be a mix of olive trees, bougainvillea, mexican sage and other flowering drought resistant plants. These materials should standout well in front of the stucco wall and provide color to the street as well as a softening of the total effect. The neighboring properties will be able to see taller mature trees and palms beyond the garden wall as well as a good view of the Santa Rosa Mountains. ie: The approach to the landscaping will be to provide a pleasing street frontage and screen direct views of the house from adjacent properties yet maintain a view of the Santa Rosa Mountains across the site for adjacent properties to the east. The floor plan of the house has been designed to relate all of the primary living spaces to exterior patios and gardens. The gallery and main living spaces access to and have views into the shaded garden and patio space to the west as well as high windows looking out to the mountains. The front entry is accessed through the drive court. The court will be landscaped with a decorative paving, large terracotta planters and bougainvillea trained along the walls. The guest suite has its own private patio on the east side and the master suite has a private patio with a spa and pool which leads out into the yard. The pool is accessible from the guest suite bath. The floor plan has been designed to open up the spaces with light and views through the house. Skylights will be strategically placed to bring natural light into the more interior sections of the house. A sense of indoor - outdoor flow of space is fostered through design elements such as: from the front entry there is a view through the house to the shade garden, the atrium in the master bedroom suite has a panoramic view of the mountains and a curved glass block wall provides privacy yet brings natural light into the other parts of the master bedroom. 3. Architecture compatible with future surrounding development South: There is an existing single family house to the south of the site. Between the two properties is an approximately 6 foot high wood and stucco wall and a row of trees on the south side of the wall. The neighboring house looks to be in fairly good condition. Future development of this site might be a remodel of the existing house. Because of the siting of the house and the existing landscaping it is unlikely that the proposed project will have a negative impact on possible future development of that site, including impacting views to the mountains. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Six East: There are several undeveloped parcels along Avenida Vallejo and several others which might be remodeled in the future. The project has been designed to present a fairly low profile, landscaped frontage to the street and to allow views of the mountains over most of the site. Portions of the building which do not conform to the U Quinta design standards have been placed towards the back of the site and should not be very visible from the street as shown on the computer model perspectives. Note that the computer models do not show either the existing or any new landscaping, the landscaping will further screen the building and provide a colorful and softer frontage to the street. Therefore it is expected that the impact of this project on possible future development along Avenida Vallejo will be minimal. North: The property to the north of the project has been developed as a golf course. It appears that the "rough" of the course lies along the Avenida Tampico side. From the enclosing fence the golf course topography drops sharply to the greens some 200 to 300 yards away. In addition, trees and landscaping have been planted along the golf course fence. As seen in the computer model perspective, very little of the project will be seen from the north side. Existing and planned landscaping will further screen the building from view. Viewers from the playing area of the golf course or from the club house, etc. will see very little if any of the proposed project. The impact of this project will be negligible on any future development on the golf course. West: To the west are parcels which will probably be remodeled or developed in the future. These properties face onto adjacent streets so that the primary potential impact of this project will be on their rear yards. An existing approximately 6 foot high wall and mature trees lies along the property line. The owner of the proposed project wishes to plant bougainvillea plants along this wall and to train the vines up along the side. This planting along with additional trees planned for the landscaping should provide a fairly good visual screen between the properties. The proposed project places the house along the east edge of the property thus providing a back yard buffer between this house and its neighbors to the west. Views from the adjacent properties to the mountains will not be obstructed by the proposed project. The impact of this project on the privacy and development of the properties to the west will be slight. General Comments: The proposed project is within the proscribed height, density and materials of the SR District. In width, bulk, or massing it is not out of proportion to the site or the surrounding area. In many ways it is a fairly small house for the site and the logical assumption for future development in the area will probably be homes of more than 5000 square feet. Only the roof line and the roofing materials for this project vary from the requirements. Because of the placement of these elements on the site and the location of the site itself, it is unlikely that this project will have a detrimental impact on the development of the Cove area. In fact, this project represents a very substantial investment in and upgrade of the existing property. The Owner wishes to create a high quality, aesthetic project. As such it should have a positive impact on the future development interest in the area and should provide a good example of sensitive design and landscaping. SR Application: 51065 Avenida Vallejo Page Seven 4. Public Health, Safety and Welfare The proposed project will be built to meet current City and State building codes. In addition, the site development will include a new septic system and hook-ups for future sewer system. The proposed project represents a substantial remodel as most of the construction will be of new materials. All repair work will be done to meet the current codes. The project will continue to be used as a single family home and will not generate an increase in the use of the City's infrastructure or resources. In fact, the site is a composite of three single family lots which have been tied together, thereby actually decreasing the potential density of the Cove area. Thus the project will be an improvement over the existing conditions and will not be detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. 5. Design Responds to Existing Site Characteristics The existing site is fairly flat with existing mature landscaping. The proposed project is sited where the existing house is sited. Extensions to the house will necessitate the removal of several mature trees. Where feasible, these trees and palms will be moved to other undisturbed locations on the site. Mature trees not feasible for relocation will be offered to local landscaping professionals for use on other sites. Site drainage will be developed as part of the construction drawings. In addition, the project has been designed to minimize solar heat gain in the summer. The floor construction will be a concrete slab on grade with a stone or ceramic the finish, which will provide a heat sink for some passive solar heating. 6. Maximum Limit of Five Unsold Houses The proposed project is a single family dwelling for use as a primary residence by the current property owner. The project is not being developed for speculative uses. FrHan O C T 3 1 1991 0 PL40 4%3 WAF.TMENT +a�V��Tnec•.L�fiA:. i1RAtM.J[�aR�' 9 vs m i 0 C T 3 1 1991 CITY nc � � Gui,TA PLOT!tit{►� t;�P„�iWEiT J T1�-`t'� li jl ICE Y� �e�:, :.l!-1.,..�d.'•"J.7."vs..f saw '!pl O C T 3 1 1991 ��i ( 0CGWNTil STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 26, 1991 REQUEST: SIGN APPLICATION 91-159: SIMON PLAZA, PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM. REQUEST TO INSTALL A SHOPPING CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND MULTIPLE BUILDING SIGNS FOR A FUTURE OFFICE/COMMERCIAL FACILITY PLANNED ON FIVE AND ONE HALF ACRES LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY III AT WASHINGTON STREET APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD SIGN DESIGNER: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: SIGN APPLICATIONS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15311, CLASS ELEVEN RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the Sign Application to December 10, 1991, because the related cases (PP 91-466 and Var 91-019) are not ready for consideration by the Planning Commission. PCST.030 1 a It 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 November 12, 1991 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 00 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ellson. II. 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. Chairwoman Barrows asked for a motion to reorganize the agenda to include the discussion of the cancellation of the December 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to amend the agenda as stated. Unanimously approved. 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. 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 Ladner asked Staff if the conditions that were imposed by the County in 1973 had been complied with. Staff stated that all the landscaping had not been completed or died. Staff further stated that the present Applicants were not involved with the original application. PCMINNO12 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 3. Commissioner Ellson asked for clarification as to how many lots were involved. Staff stated that the original application only consisted of one lot. Since that time the Church had received the additional lot. 4. Chairwoman Barrows inquired about the school licensing. Staff stated that the school was not required to be licensed. They only needed to file an annual letter or affidavit with the County stating they were in operation. 5. Commissioner Mosher asked if the City Attorney had been contacted regarding this issue and what her opinion had been. Staff informed the Commission that they had been in contact with the City Attorney and she had asked the Commission to continue the matter to give her more time to research the matter. 6. Commissioner Marrs stated that he did not feel the school was part of the application before the Commission. Staff stated the school was only before the Commission if they chose to consider them jointly. It was to the discretion of the Commission whether to consider them jointly, separately, or to not take up the issue of the school at all. 7. Commissioner Mosher asked if the height limitations imposed on this area were governed by City zoning ordinances or by the property owners CC & R's . Staff stated the zoning was imposed on this area when the SR Zone was created. 8. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Clark spoke on behalf of the Applicant and addressed the issue of the school. He stated the school would be restricted to 25 students and requested that Staff impose this limitation in the Conditions of Approval. As to the letter or affidavit to the County, it had been sent that day and a copy was presented to the Commission. They had complied with all laws required of them to their knowledge. 9. Commissioner Ellson asked if the school needed to be licensed. Pastor Mark Collins stated the school was associated with the Accelerated Christian Education program and received their curriculum from them. 10. Commissioner Marrs asked how the school obtained accreditation. Pastor Collins stated that the only requirement needed of the school was a letter to the County stated they were operating a school. When a child leaves their school to go on to higher education, they only have to take a test and pass it. He stated that their students had scored extremely well on all tests. PCMINNO12 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 11. Mr. Clark went on to state that the Church had met with as many of the neighbors as would attend their meeting, and tried to work out all the objections. In light of some of the objections, they were withdrawing the Variance application. He went on to state the other objections that had been raised at the previous meeting and how they had tried to solve them. 12. Chairwoman Barrows questioned the 17 foot height limitation. Discussion followed as to building heights. 13. Commissioner Mosher questioned the Applicant regarding the parking being able to accommodate the school and church. Mr. Clark stated that there were only 3 or 4 cars during the school hours. He further stated that the Church had surpassed the amount of landscaping originally conditioned on the Church. Commissioner Mosher stated that he felt the Church should be required to paint the existing building the same color as the proposed structure, screen the air conditioning equipment, and provide the landscaping that was suggested by Staff. 14. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project addressed the Commission regarding some of the conditions. He asked if the noise study would still be required if the Applicant provided the walls on three sides. Staff stated that if walls were provided on three sides and a 36-42" wall and berm were provided for the frontage, the elimination of the noise study was possible. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Fire Marshal requirements for a fire hydrant would be required. He felt this would be accomplished as a matter of the City improvements for this area. Staff stated this was up to the Fire Marshal, but the potential for this to be included in the City improvements existed. Mr. Bund then inquired if the Commission would consider the phasing plan to accomplish all the work as he requested at the last meeting. 15. Mr. Dan Hooper, neighboring resident, addressed the Commission and stated that he felt the Applicant had mitigated all of his objections and he would support the approval of the project. 16. Ms. Roselyn Davis, neighboring resident, spoke in opposition to the project stating her concerns regarding noise, traffic, parking facilities, the unknown growth of the church, and having a playground in her front yard. Commissioner Mosher inquired how long Ms. Davis had lived in this house. She stated she had moved to this house in June, 1991. 17. Ms. Catalina Porras, Church member, spoke in favor of the Church and stated how the Church had ministered to the Community and she was dismayed at the neighbors objections. PCMINNO12 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 18. Ms. Susie Sanford, neighboring resident, read a statement regarding her objections. She compared the location of this Church to locations of various churches in Indio. In addition she stated she was concerned about the unknown growth of the Church and showed pictures of the church showing what she felt was a lack of upkeep. 19. Mr. Clark addressed the Commission again and showed the original plans of the Church and stated the Church's growth would be restricted by the number of people it would hold. 20. There being no further comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 21. Commissioner Ladner inquired why the Applicant had not completed the affidavit. Mr. Clark stated they had chose to write a letter instead following the procedure that was followed by most private schools. 22. Commissioner Mosher asked what the seating capacity of the new sanctuary would be. Mr. Clark stated it would be 110. 23. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff if the City's zoning regulations allowed churches in residential area. Staff stated they would be allowed under the Public Use Permit application in any zone. She felt that as there was obvious objections to this type of use in a residential area, maybe the City should consider rewriting the regulations. Staff stated this was a finding the Commission could use to deny the application if they so chose to do so. 24. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City made any allowances for homeowners who did not have the money to complete required improvements. Staff stated they did not. 25. Chairwoman Barrows questioned whether the school should be considered with the application before them. Staff responded that it was at the Planning Commission's discretion. 26. Commissioner Ellson asked if the current building would be replaced at some future date. Mr. Clark stated that there plans were to replace the building at a future time when funds were available. 27. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue this matter to the meeting of November 26, 1991, to allow further City Attorney input regarding the school use. PCMINNO12 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 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. 2. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue the matter to November 26, 1991. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. C. Preannexation Zoning 91-068 and General Plan Amendment 91-039; a request of Valley Land Development for a change in the boundaries for the zoning classification of a new zoning classification and land use designation for a portion of the property adjacent to Washington Street, north of Fred Waring Drive. 1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Marrs moved to continued the Public Hearing to the meeting of November 26, 1991. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. D . Specific Plan 88-012 and Tentative Tract 23995; a request of A. G . Spanos Construction Company 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 Marrs asked Staff if there was any assurance that the bike path would be completed and would connect at both ends. Staff stated there was a master plan and as developments took place the bike path would be created. PCMINNO12 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 3. Mr. Ron Rouse, legal counsel for the Applicant, addressed the Commission regarding their request. He stated he did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission to address issues other than the time extension as this matter had already received all the necessary approvals. 4. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern regarding the density of the multi -family portion of the project. She strongly expressed her opinion that there were too many people confined in to small an area with no consideration for open space or parks. Discussion followed between Mr. Rouse and the Commission relative to this subject. 5. Commissioner Mosher asked what the prior zoning for the project had been. Mr. Rouse explained what the zoning had been and the process they had followed to obtain the current zoning. 6. Following discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 91-053 and 91-054 recommending to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 23995, First Extension of Time subject to the amended conditions and Specific Plan 88-012, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ellson. NOES: Commissioner Ladner & Chairwoman Barrows. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. E. Variance 91-020; a request of Jack Sobelman for approval of a variance to the maximum building height in the SR Zone for a residence under construction. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Sobelman, applicant, addressed the Commission regarding his request. 3. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-055 approving Variance 91-020, subject to conditions. PCMINNO12 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. IV. ]PUBLIC COMMENT - None V . BUSINESS SESSION A. Street Name Change 91-002; a request of Wilma Pacific for a street name change and the setting of a date to consider the name change. 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 Mosher to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-056 setting the date of December 10, 1991, as the time and place for hearing the request to change the street Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B . Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 91-032; a request of Thunderbird Artists for an Amendment to Conditions of Approval for the Art Shows at Plaza La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no comment, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91- 047 approving the Amendment to Condition #7 for Minor Temporary Outdoor Event 91-032. Unanimously approved. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of October 8, 1991 and October 22, 1991, as submitted. Unanimously approved. PCMINNO12 Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 1991 VIII. OTHER A. Chairwoman Barrows introduced the matter of cancelling the December 24, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to cancel the Planning Commission meeting of December 24, 1991. Unanimously approved. B . The Commission discussed the survey prepared by Staff on building heights. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was requested by the Commission that Staff prepare a color coded map for the Commission which shows the various projects at their height limits. C. A brief discussion followed as to billboards on Highway 111. Staff stated the billboards are removed as projects are approved. IX. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on November 26, 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 9:40 P.M. , November 12, 1991. PCMINNO12 8