1992 01 14 PCW�ty a/ ya 2afoni(a
PLA1ITNXNG COMfX,S,SXON
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
January 14, 1992
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. 92-1
Beginning Minute Motion No. 92-1
CALL TO 0F213E R — Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ................ CONTINUED - PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 &
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-039
Applicant .......... Valley Land Development
Location ............ Northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and
Washington Street.
Request ............. A change in the boundaries for the zoning
classification and a new zoning classification and land
use designation for a portion of the property adjacent
to Washington Street.
Action .............. Request to table.
PC/AGENDA
1
2 . 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 three story parking structure on 5.5+ acres
zoned scenic highway commercial. A variance is
requested from the off street parking standards to
deviate from the setback requirement of the Municipal
Code.
Action .............. Resolution 92- Minute Motion 92-
3. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, EXTENSION #1
Applicant ........... Valley Land Development
Location ............ Northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm
intersection.
Request ............. First One Year Extension of Time request for
Tentative Tract to create 98 single family lots.
Action .............. Resolution 92-
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on
matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items.
Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form
provided. Please complete a form and submit the form to the Recording
Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at
the appropriate time.
When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and
address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded
on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ...............
Applicant ...........
Location ............
Request .............
Action ..............
2. Item ...............
Applicant ...........
Location ............
Request.............
Action ..............
PC/AGENDA
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159
Simon Plaza, Inc.; Mr. Philip Pead
Southeast corner of Washington and Highway 111
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.
Minute Motion 92-
STREET VACATION 91-019
City of La Quinta
North side of Avenida La Fonda between Calle Paloma
and Washington Street.
Determination of La Quinta General Plan consistency
with proposed street vacation
Minute Motion 92-
3. Item
Applicant ...........
Location ............
Request.............
Action ..............
CONSENT CALENDAR
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Coachella Valley Water District
Throughout the City
General Plan consistency of proposed Whitewater
River slope construction program.
Minute Motion 92-
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held
December 10, 1991.
OTHER - A verbal briefing and/or discussion on the following items:
1. Development concerns for the Annexation #5 area.
2. Specific Plan 91-021 and Change of Zone 91-070.
3. Discussion of accessory structures.
ADJOURNMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 1992
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 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
HONORABLE
CHAIRPERSON
& PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM:
PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
SUBJECT: TIME-SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS FOR SIMON PLAZA
On January, 14, 1992, Staff received the applicants proposed
study for the proposed commercial complex at the southeast
corner of Washington Street & Highway 111. The document is
attached. The study is based on the City's copy of the 1983
Urban Land Institution document as required by the Off -Street
Parking Code.
Generally, the ULI study examines varied land uses of varying
sizes (single use projects) and examined similar projects
combined as one project. The typical mixed use project
comprised the following: 1) office/regional retail, 2)
office/entertainment, 3) office/hotel, or 4) a mixture
thereof. The projects were scattered throughout the country
and the project consultant was Barton-Aschman, a traffic
engineering firm.
WHAT IS A MIXED USE PROJECT?:
The study defined a mixed use development as having the
following traits:
o Three or more significant revenue -producing land
uses;
o Significant functional and physical integration of
project components (including continuous pedestrian
connections);
o A coherent development plan specifying project
phasing, scheduling, land use densities, and other
characteristics.
MEMOGT.012/CS
-1-
The study states:
"In recent years, many mixed -use projects have been
successful as catalysts for urban redevelopment and are
viewed as unique and interesting places in which to work,
visit, or live. To increase revenue and promote a lively
atmosphere, mixed -use developments are frequently planned
to incorporate land use activities that extend daytime
activity periods into evening. Combining land uses has a
number of advantages, including the opportunity to take
advantage of a captive market, certain economies of
scale, and cost savings associated with the reduced
amount of space required."
INTERNAL AND SITE RELATED ISSUES:
1. Paid versus free parking (Is there a premium number of
spaces in the area?)
2. Parking structures versus surface parking
3. Entrance/exit capacity and control
4. Types of parking spaces (turnover rate for different uses)
5. Internal circulation system (Is the system easy to
understand?)
6. Directional signing (on -site arrows)
7. Pedestrian system (linkage)
8. Security/safety (Is the area secure and well lit?)
9. Flexibility of the internal design
EXTERNAL ISSUES:
1. Guaranteed Parking - Does the project guarantee peak
levels of service?
2. Exclusive Parking - Will other abutting uses utilize
the on -site parking areas?
There are many factors you can consider, such as: seasonal
variations, parking demand (is it located downtown?), public
transportation, management of shared parking facilities,
parking fees and other unforeseen variables. However, the
typical pattern was as follows:
o Offices: midday peak, evening periods at less than
10% of peak
o Retail: midday peak, evening periods less than 70%
of peak
o Restaurants: evening peak, midday at 50% of peak
NOTE: The study did not examine bowling alleys or fitness
centers.
MEMOGT.012/CS -2-
The ULI study concluded that if shared parking is considered,
the governing agency should insure that the following
attributes are considered. They are:
1. Each parking space should be usable by any parker; that
is, no restrictions have been placed on the use of the
spaces.
2. The facility will have significant inbound and outbound
traffic flow at one or more periods of the day.
Therefore, the design of the access and circulation
system must accommodate bidirectional movement without
significant conflict. The circulation concept should be
easy to use and understand.
3. The facility will probably operate 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. Thus, safe day and night operation is a
significant characteristic.
4. Because of the multiple land uses that would be served,
involving a variety of types of parkers (i.e. business,
daily versus infrequent, shoppers, visitors, recreation),
the facility will be more sensitive to effective signing,
markings, and other forms of communication.
5. Enforcement will be important because the facility will
be more sensitive to encroachment.
6. A strategy for the use of the facility needs to be
developed to guide parkers to the most optimum space.
The strategy would consider:
o Achieving maximum separation of those parkers
who tend to compete for space;
o Achieving minimum walking distance to those
land uses serving captive markets;
o Achieving minimum separation of those parkers
not competing for space.
REPORT CONCLUSION:
Shared parking is not a new phenomenon. It has long been
observed in central business districts, suburban communities,
and other areas where land uses are combined. While developers
and public officials recognize the existence of shared parking,
typical zoning codes do not provide for it. Instead, most
zoning codes are expressed in terms of peak parking indices or
ratios for major types of individual land uses. While the peak
ratios reflect the differences in parking demand generated by
separate land uses and under certain conditions, they do not
reflect the fact that total or combined peak parking demand can
be significantly less than the sum of the individual demand
values. That is, parking requirements may be overstated if
they require space for the peak parking accumulations of each
individual land use.
MEMOGT.012/CS -3
STAFF CONCLUSION:
We believe that the applicants study is consistent with the ULI
guidelines. However, it should be noted that the ULI study
does not address "peak hours" of usage for the bowling alley or
fitness center. Hence, the percentages prepared by the
developer are based on their assumption of when the project
will be experiencing parking demand versus the other on -site
uses. We do think that their percentages seem realistic, but
it is hard to say whether or not, for example, the fitness
center will be at 50% or 75% demand at 12 noon. Demand could
be higher than that proposed by the applicant, but then again,
the clients could also be users from the abutting (on -site)
office complex. We would also like to state the applicant did
not evaluate a medical complex in his proposal.
The project does seem to meet the definition and goals of a
mixed use development scenario as described above because the
developer has proposed various land uses, various parking
facilities, parking which is free to each patron, parking
signing, pedestrian linkage, and other features which are
consistent with ULI standards. Therefore, the developer can
meet the "peak" parking demand based on their January 6, 1992
submittal if the Planning Commission agrees with the attached
submittal. However, the Off -Street Parking Code also requires
that the City include a 15% excess capacity penalty to
accommodate unforeseen miscalculations or approximately 509
parking spaces. Hence, the new site plan is still deficient by
approximately 35 spaces.
The last element to discuss would be the applicants need to
guarantee off -site surplus land (parking spaces) for the
project for a two year period as required by the Off -Street
Parking Code. Mr. Pead has stated that they will guarantee
property on the Simon Motors site to accomplish this
requirement, and if necessary in the future, they will
construct another parking structure on this abutting lot to
meet their minimum on -site needs without accounting for time
shared provisions.
Attachment
MEMOGT.012/CS -4-
LA �RtJI0 A GA - '
J A N 14 1992 '.
WOM. - . -_- . r►
-
I�itis 9 - fe.�
mFFIGEs - -1 1 -176 -+GAr.s1la�l.F,
(�ESTAu �N'rg - 13, 000 ��.F � Sow K 1v� Ova
�+oWLI1JG GE�1Tal✓� '1 4;--AF4/ LAW E. X 4-0
rITFlEy4 GEN'rle`r~ - 12,G�1� x % x
�I I GA Rs
I3o
� 20
c55,
Assull,rf100e, A,&,rvl: Ar-E -�v G(�EA'rE WOp�-r GAs� GONDITIDNS.
Sul L®I W6 00 GOr-NEr— \WILL 6E A I~�iTAuF—Af4r•
2, NIGFt r'1' SEA/OKAL- LjS, 'TAKEN
�j. r oe rAU (ZANI-'4-i IAK-EN Rs 6'o fo of /a K'5^ F-vg�: fte Ld IJSI: .
a . �I'fc�F�s GIE►�T�R. 'TAKEN As fv of aPngA 1p- rdOL1r- Irsl✓ -
�, u5E PE�G�N'rA��',� ���� IGNEP 'r0 �I'(NE5'S iso`�l-iN4 GE�I'�ERS
`4f?IE GON�E1��lA�I�/E t�E'�EP-,KIN �� t3`( Pf�l�lA'rE � F-A9 44.
of Tay F,
It
/fir 9� 0
K
OU K
OFFIC94
9F14AuKAN'rS
104
Frr E55
GArts--
�:Gd A iti
63
iR¢•
5
24,
TO
14
2-7
Ss3 - -
- --
10�00
/oo
Go
/0
27_
_y37
---
00 Ply •
qo
zM
7v
_2_7-
z?
z?
— ��� --
¢5�'
3�
IAA}C . I15�
'78
SO
_&0
�o
60
So
6,19
49
93
71
2BQ
259
LO
78
w5
5D
75
-1-W
41
4to
80
12c
No
53
3G z
�'Do
Z2
!co
130
100
100
zz
1vo
130
!vc
I
®:DO
1
12----
----
.�O:pO
-1p
rAt�1�JOC
PSIP6P
q
G��.��
rAgr,i Q4
rWUIIz.j�I7
r
.a
s 1 I 1y
v, t - ✓, ✓, ✓, ✓, W. ✓. t% o N t �o OC o• c o o � o0 oc oo ao on oc m cr. o� o� a o. o. o• o o
�
N
S If, 00
O 00 00 t - n ti t+ n t` ar 00 a< O- O. O` c
O
9
.. ..
IQ
V
]L
a` •
+
a- x O� O O O �G n �, Q O oc O O A
S t- C v, O ✓, O C %0 a- 00 O� O P O G
ao
Ci-
�. �.
V
uj
H
I I I I I I �Aeo.f,i;V%0000 S$S00c�
N
~
n�i M O o0 O O ✓, ✓+ O O V, v, ✓, O
N
y
✓� O O O O O O p O - IO O O O O
LA I- O �O v� - P S S O O � ✓>
>
Q
O O ✓, M v, v, p C v, ✓, O v, O ap M
00 O 8 O A r •O �O ✓a T "i -'
CA
Q
�
W
X
•�
ce
00 00 N 00 t- t- p l- h t� P N O� t- �I M I
C M O O P P OC r-- 00 00 00 M -�
A,A
W
w
I ^a cogoS8coS V -rf'3 I I I I
U-
CA
u
O
b
,O p p
M N P S S P S
C
C
E E E E E E$ E E E E E E E E E E E
.J
p,d
m v v f0 14 Z G. G M ti M t1 M G d G G
p
S S O O S O S S S S S S S S S S S S
n
O
G t- 60 P O N N M T VA �6 t- a0 P O r1 C
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
SUBJECT: PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
91-039
Planning has received a request from the Applicant to table this matter until further
notice. Therefore we recommend that the Planning Commission table this matter until
the Applicant requests the matter be rescheduled for public hearing. At that time
we will renotice and schedule the hearing.
MEMOJH .147
January 8, 1992
Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning Director, City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: 145 Acres at Fred Waring Drive & Washington Street in La Quinta, CA
Dear Jerry:
I request the following items be tabled until further notice:
ITEM:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Very truly yours,
Thomas A. Thornburgh
President
TAT/rm
Change of Zone 91068
General Plan Amendment 91039
Valley Land Development Company
Northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and
Washington Street
42 600 COOK ST. I SUITE 160 l PALM DESERT, CA 92260 / (619) 568-1400 / FAX: (619) 34
PH-#2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
(CONTINUED FROM OCT. 22ND, NOV. 26TH, & DEC. 10,
1991)
PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-466 & VARIANCE 91-019
REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A
RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE
STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A THREE LEVEL PARKING
STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER
RELATED STRUCTURES.
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON
STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON
+5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE
EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON
HIGHWAY 111.
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT
ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH
OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL
EXISTING
ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE:
NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven
La Quinta Shopping Center)
SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington
Square Commercial Center)
EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors
WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta
Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-211 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.
STAFFRPT.070/CS -1-
BACKGROUND:
The previous report of December 10, 1991 is attached.
DECEMBER 10, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
At the meeting of December 10, 1991, the Commission examined
the Applicant's November 27, 1991, development submittal which
included approximately 168,000 square feet of commercial
leasable area with a five level parking structure. The
Planning Commission took testimony from the Applicant and his
partners, and a summary of their ideas and comments were as
follows:
A. Parking Structure - Mr. Pead stated that they have tried to
accommodate the City and the community by reducing the height of
the structure from 47 feet to 37 feet by removing one level from
the structure. It was indicated that they have designed the
structure so that it will be architecturally compatible with the
project, and to City standards. The office buildings should block
or buffer this structure according to the Applicant.
B. Recreational Uses - The developer stated the City is in need of
family -style entertainment, and that their project would help meet
this need. A bowling center and fitness center would be an ideal
commercial use of this area of the City. Mr. Rudy Leeway, the
proposed operator of the bowling center explained the benefits of e
bowling center and reviewed the demographic qualities of a typical
bowler. A pamphlet was distributed.
C. Additional Property Dedication - The history of the property was
explained by Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. He stated that when they
subdivided the property in 1982 they were obligated to: 1) dedicate
approximately 3.4 acres of property for Washington Street, Highway
ill and Simon Drive; 2) install off -site curb, gutter and sidewalk
improvements (plus other off -site water lines); and 3) reconstruct
the traffic signal at Highway 111 and Washington Street. Mr. Simor
stated that the improvements on Simon Drive were requested by the
County of Riverside during the tentative map approval and the City
when it approved the final map. They are still paying for these
improvements.
Mr. Paul Selzer (one of the partner's) stated that they are
receptive to the additional dedication on Washington Street for
street widening (+20,000 square feet) but they believe the City
is obliged to examine their request to have a two story facility or
Washington Street. He stated that the dedication of right-of-way
on Washington Street would impact Pomona First Federal's property
(Parcel 6) making it unusable unless their partnership buys this
parcel and uses it with their other five lots. If they cannot make
this project work, they will have no option but to leave the
parcels as they exist today. Mr. Selzer stated that if the City
prefers independent development on each parcel, the City could not
STAFFRPT.070/CS -2-
ask for additional right-of-way based on present legal statutes
(e.g. Nolan vs. Coastal Commission). However, he felt the City's
legal counsel should examine this legal issue further.
D. Shared Parking - Mr. Pead stated that the parking calculation
that staff proposed was a "worst" case scenario. He stated that
they will have strictly day or night type users possibly in this
center and they would like to submit a shared parking analysis per
the Urban Land Institute requirements to resolve this matter. He
felt their parking ratios were adequate.
E. Storm Water Retention - Mr. Simon, Sr. stated that when he built
Simon Motors he had to examine water retention, but when Plaza La
Quinta was built they did not have to accommodate water run-off in
their project.
Mr. Pead and Mr. John Sanborn both stated they are receptive to
working with the City to resolve their storm water problems; and
they were comfortable with the attached condition on this matter.
F. Proposed Conditions of Approval - Mr. Pead expressed conce
regarding Conditions 14, 16, 18, 25, 38, 41-45, 49, 53, 64 & 65.
He felt some of these conditions should not be imposed, were not
relevant or did not reflect the actions of the Design Review Board
G. Simon Drive Intersection with Washington Street - Mr. Fred Simon,
Sr. stated that a median break at this intersection is important
for patrons who live in the cove area of the City and that the
traffic signal discussion had been debated by the Planning
Commission and City Council during the review and approval of the
Washington Square project. If this access point did not have full
access to Washington Street, he felt traffic needs would not be me
in this area for City residents.
H. Project Setbacks - Mr. Pead stated that they have modified the
project over the last few months, and various adjustments have bee
made to meet the intent of the City's General Plan and Zoning
Code. They have averaged the setbacks around the property frontag
I. Letter of Support - On December 10, 1991, the Applicant submitted
approximately 110 letters of support for the bowling cente
Packets were given to each Commissioner. A majority of the letter
were from people who reside in La Quinta, and the other letters
were from other Coachella Valley residents.
In summary, the Applicants believed the project was both aesthetically
pleasing and would meet the economic needs of the community.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Steve Robbins, ESCO Engineering, spoke representing the Washingt
Square project located to the south of the subject site. Mr. Robbin's
stated that they were opposed to the Applicant's request to: 1) have a
two story building within 150-feet of Washington Street, 2) allow a
STAFFRPT.070/CS -3-
landscape variance, 3) permit off -site storm water channeling, 4) allow
full turn movements at Simon Drive/Washington Street, and 5) delete the
8-foot bike trail on Washington Street. The Applicant should be
required to meet Coachella Valley Water District's on and off -site watez
and sewer requirements.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission debated many of the topics that were addressed
in the Staff Report and asked various questions of staff and the
Applicant. However, the case was continued to January 14, 1992, in
order for staff to work with the developer to resolve the following
issues or questions:
1. Can the Applicant meet the one story height provision of the City's
General Plan on Washington Street?
2. Examine the front yard setbacks on both primary street frontages
and their relationship to the project and to abutting properties
(e.g. approved projects, existing projects, etc.)
3. Review the on -site parking needs of the project and determine if
shared parking arrangements can be allowed.
4. Is the off -site storm water plan, as proposed by the developer,
adequate?
5. Is this project too intense for the site?
6. Are the aesthetics of the project acceptable for this primary
corner of the City?
7. Is the parking structure necessary, and if so, can the project
designer reevaluate its bulkiness and location on the property?
Can the height of the structure be reduced?
8. Can the architect create "view corridors" through out the project
which will enhance the character of the development?
MEETING WITH STAFF:
Staff met with Mr. Pead on December 17, 1991, to discuss the views and
actions of the Planning Commission on December 10, 1991. At the
meeting, staff gave the applicant two alternative site plans which were
prepared by staff. Both plans proposed one story buildings or
Washington Street, reduced building square footage and elimination of
the parking structure. Mr. Pead said he would review our ideas to see
if some of our ideas/thoughts could be used if they choose to examine
other design options for their site.
STAFFRPT.070/CS -4-
Mr. Pead stated that he would have his architect put the architectural
elements of the project on his Computer Aided Design (CAD) system so
that various views through the site could be shown to the Planning
Commission versus the flat elevation drawings which were presented at
the December loth meeting. Mr. Pead said it is important that the
Planning Commission understand the buildings articulation they a:
proposing, especially on Washington Street. He said he did not believe
that the Planning Commission understood that the upstairs offices (2
story) on Washington Street were not as close to the street as the first
floor offices. Hence, it is their belief that the building would not bi
an intrusion on the Washington Street corridor.
Mr. Pead said that they will also show the existing Simon Motors
building to the east on their Highway Ill elevation in order to give th4
Planning Commission a better idea of how their building heights relate
to this existing structure.
Staff also inquired if their development team had asked Mr. Fred Simon,
Sr. whether or not the proposed parking structure could be put on the
Simon Motors property versus where it is currently proposed. Mr. Pead
said to his knowledge, this matter had never been discussed to his
knowledge. However, Mr. Pead felt the proposed location of the parking
structure was appropriate because it services all the proposed uses of
the site more effectively then if it was located to the east of its
present location.
It was agreed that Mr. Pead would submit any new submittals to staff by
January 6, 1992.
NEW SUBMITTAL:
On January 6, 1992, the Applicant submitted a new proposal for this
site. The plan has reduced the project square footage to 134,018 square
feet, from 168,000 square feet, and reduced the parking structure from
five levels to four levels (deleted 96 parking spaces). Currently, eac)
office building will be two stories but the basements have been deleted
and, the second story building connection over the two-way driveway has
been deleted. The project square footage has been reduced by
approximately 21%.
The new summary is as follows:
A.
Bank/Restaurant
8,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
B.
Fitness Center
12,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
C.
Restaurant/Bowling Alley
42,240
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
D.
Office Buildings
53,628
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
134,018
sq.
ft.
total floor space
STAFFRPT.070/CS -5-
PARKING ANALYSIS:
* A. 2 Restaurants (20 sp/1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)= 130 pk. spaces
**B. Fitness Center (1 sp/150 sq.ft. pub. area)=
53
pk.
spaces
C. Bowling Alley (3 sp/Alley)=
120
pk.
spaces
D. Office Building (1 sp/250 sq. ft.)=
215
pk.
spaces
or
Office Medical (I sp/200 sq. ft.)=
268
----------------
pk.
spaces
Approximate Total Required
518
pk.
spaces or
561
pk.
spaces
Total Provided
474 pk. spaces
* Assumption - Half the restaurant will be used for public dining.
** Assumption - 2/3 of the Fitness Center will be for public
purposes.
The project submittal is closer to meeting the city parking
requirements. However, Staff would like to point out that the number of
on -site parking spaces is still short of the minimum number as required
by the City Parking Code. We also did not receive a shared parking
study by January 6, 1992, as requested.
The proposed architectural elements have remained similar to the design
as examined by the Planning Commission except the architect has
eliminated the second story complex to the office/bowling alley
complex. This feature was removed by the architect in order to create a
view corridor through the project as requested by the Planning
Commission at your last meeting.
Staff did not receive the CAD drawings or the
Simon Motors included) by January 6, 1992, as
applicant on December 17, 1991. We anticipate
be presented at the meeting.
DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS:
A. Infrastructure Fee -
street view plans (with
discussed with the
that this material might
At the December 10, 1991 meeting, the developer inquired why the City
was requiring an infrastructure fee since they are required to improve
the site with new improvements.
Resolution 87-39, as adopted by the City Council in 1987 (amending
Resolution 85-26), was adopted to fund the following community
facilities: public buildings, public safety buildings, recreatic
buildings, bridges, major thoroughfares, and traffic/pedestrie
signals. Public construction projects are exempt from this fee and low
income projects can be exempted if permitted by the City Council.
However, all other projects are required to pay the fee at the time the
City issues a building permit.
I'll') I,,
STAFFRPT.070/CS -6-
The Resolution does discuss credits which can be available to the
Applicant/developer but no credits are allowed for "....construction or
widening of major thoroughfares." Therefore, the requirements 4
Washington Street would not qualify for a credit, however, the Applicant
can pursue Redevelopment Agency assistance if they so choose with the
City Council.
B. Fringed -Toed Lizard Fee -
The Coachella Valley Fringed -Toed Lizard Conservation Plan was adopted
in 1986. It was developed to mitigate the impacts of development on
this Federally protected species. The plan, as adopted, requires the
Valley cities to collect $600.00 per acre on properties within the
designated habitat area at the time a building permit or grading permit
is issued. The developer has stated that they graded the property in
1982, therefore, they should not be subject to this fee.
Staff has contacted the US Wildlife Department to inquire whether or not
the project would be exempt from this fee, but it was determined that
the site would not be exempt because the only exceptions are for public
agencies or agricultural uses which were in effect prior to 1982.
C. Design Review Board -
The conditions of the Design Review Board were outlined in the Staff
Report of October 2, 1991, and their motion was to accept the
recommendations of staff, but with minor modifications. The informatioi
in the report is correct.
D. Bus Shelter Locations -
Staff has decided to eliminate the proposed bus shelter on Washington
Street although requested by Sunline Transit because it will hamper
traffic movement at the intersection.
E. Joint Use and Time -Share Use of Parking -
The off-street parking code (Section 9.160.035) addresses this topic.
The key components are:
1. That the parking plan is based on ULI "Shared parking" methodology,
2. That the plan is based on the City's off-street parking
requirements.
3. That the time-share uses are separated by a minimum of 60 minutes
and/or are for separate days and 15% excess capacity is provided
for unforeseen peak time miscalculations.
4. That the parking facilities are a binding part of the plan.
After these standards are met, the developer must for a two year period,
guarantee additional land to meet the City's off-street parking
requirements without time-sharing. The guarantee can be in the form of
a bond or other acceptable mechanism. The City will examine the project
over the two year period. ,
STAFFRPT.070/CS -7-
Staff did not receive a time-share study from the developer by January
6, 1992, as requested.
F. Archaeological Study
On December 5, 1991, the developer submitted a copy of their 1981
Archaeologic Study which was prepared by Jean A. Salpas. Our review of
the study is that the report addressed the Simon Motor's site
exclusively. Therefore, we would recommend that the Planning Commissio
leave the requirement of the on -site archaeologic study as a condition
of approval unless the developer can have the original consultant
certify that the site was also included in the 1981 study and subsequen
on -site work supervised.
CONCLUSION:
The Applicant has tried to address the Planning Commission's concern on
building square footage and they have made an attempt to provide a "vie
window" through the project be eliminating the second story building
element at the southwest side of the site. However, the project is
still deficient in their on -site parking needs, landscape setbacks and
building heights along Washington Street.
In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However, the
City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City may consider
"trade-offs" in the setback requirements provided imaginative designs
are considered. The Planning Commission could permit a variance if the
Commission can make findings to support the recommendation. Further,
Staff would not support the office complex on Washington Street within
150-feet of the property line because the buildings are too massive, to
close to the street and, would degrade the Washington Street corridor.
The City's General Plan (Urban Design Section) states the City should
encourage appropriate building heights along primary corridors t
enhance the City's image and enhance its character. The City has felt
that all buildings should be single story in character but the height o
the structure has varied based on the project design and its
relationship to abutting projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-019, subject to the
findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the Plannin
Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91-466, subject to
the attached conditions; or,
2. That the Planning Commission approve Variance 91-019, subject to
the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the
Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91-466,
subject to the attached conditions; or,
0 '!
STAFFRPT.070/CS -8-
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Large Plans dated ,January 6, 1992
3. Past Staff Report (December 10, 1991)
5. Draft Resolution 92- , Variance 91-019 (Denial) (Approval)
6. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91-466
STAFFRPT.070/CS -9-
PLANNING COMMISSION PH-3
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1991
PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-466 & VARIANCE 91-019
REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE
A RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE
STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE
WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED
STRUCTURES.
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON
STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT,
+5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE
EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY
111.
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT
ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH
OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL
EXISTING
ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE:
NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven
La Quinta Shopping Center)
SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington
Square Commercial Center)
EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors
WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta
Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-211 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATI(
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.
BACKGROUND:
The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the developmen!
of Simon Motors Automotive Dealership as well as to establish
commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial
land uses. On October 22, and November 26, 1991, the Planning
Commission continued action on this case because the traffic study
had not been completed.
.. , n i .... - t -
DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The proposed +5.5 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat
and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under
Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on 3 streets
with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111,
and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washingtol
Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level.
The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional
widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the
City's adopted Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment program.
future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street
and Highway 111.
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (Prior to November 27, 1991):
Prior to November 27, 1991, the developer had proposed a mixture of
building types similar to the attached plans. However, the
applicant was pursuing a six level parking structure on the propert!
versus the new proposal five level structure (basement, 3 covered,
and open parking on the top level).
NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A. Bank/Restaurant
8,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
B. Fitness Center
12,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
C. Restaurant/Bowling Alley
42,240
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
D. Office Buildings
105,560
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
167,800
sq.
ft.
total floor space
PARKING ANALYSIS:
* A. 2 Restaurants
(20 sp/1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)=
130
pk.
space:
**B. Fitness Center
(1 sp/150 sq.ft. pub. area)=
53
pk.
space:
C. Bowling Alley
(3 sp/Alley)=
120
pk.
space;
D. Office Building
(1 sp/250 sq. ft.)=
---------------
422
pk.
space;
Approximate Total Required
725
pk.
space;
Total Provided
571
pk.
space:
* Assumption - Half
the restaurant will be used for
public dining.
** Assumption - 2/3
of the Fitness Center will be for
public
purposes.
The new development plan has deleted approximately 96 parking space
by eliminating one level of the parking structure. This change has
impacted the parking ratio of the project because the square footag
of the building complex has not been reduced proportionally. The
new parking ratio for this project is one on -site parking space for
every 293 square feet of leasable floor area (167,800 squa
feet/571 parking spaces). This ratio would vary depending upon
whether the building at the intersection was a bank instead of a
restaurant as noted above. One way to resolve this problem would b
to increase the below ground parking or reduce the total square
footage of the commercial center to correspond to the proposed
parking program.
E
STAFFRPT.060/CS -Z-
INITIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS (Prior to November 27, 1991):
The proposed building heights for the project were:
1. Restaurant/Bank:
26-foot building + 22-foot tower = ±48-feet
2. Offices along Washington Street: 29-foot building
37-foot building & tower
3. Offices along Simon Drive: 22-feet (2 st.) & 49-feet (4 st.)
4. Bowling Alley & office: 26-feet to 40-feet
5. Parking structure: 47-feet
NEW DEVELOPMENT REQUEST:
On November 27, 1991, the applicant submitted a new development pla
for the site. It includes revisions which include reducing the
parking structure to four levels (with one story below grade),
reducing the four story building on Simon Drive to two stories
overall, minor architectural modifications, reduction in the amount
of office square footage, and a reduction in the number of on -site
parking spaces.
The proposed building heights for the project are:
1. Restaurant/Bank:
26-foot building + 22-foot tower = ±48-feet
2. Offices along Washington Street: 29-foot building
37-foot building & tower
3. Offices along Simon Drive: 28-feet to 31 feet (2 story)
4. Bowling Alley & office: 26-feet to 40-feet
5. Parking structure: 37-feet (four levels above ground)
ARCHITECTURE:
The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepare
a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the sit
with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure
will be located on the east side of the property.
The proposed Mediterranean design (Spanish style design motif) is
consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rougt
stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.).
STAFFRPT.060/CS -3-
CIRCULATION/PARKING PLAN:
The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public
street. The driveways on Highway Ill and Washington Street will
service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 91
parking spaces). The driveways lead to the parking garage located
at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house
approximately 480 cars. The developer has prepared a traffic study
to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting Cit,,
streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the
future level of service of Washington Street/Highway Ill.
Discussion on the traffic study will occur later in this report.
VIEW CORRIDOR:
The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important elemen
of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City.
Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary street
Image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building heigh.
limits to assure a Low Density character and appearance". The
City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in
height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property
line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and
has been a condition on all of the development cases alon
Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision,
and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter
from Best, Best and Krieger is attached to justify the request.
STORMWATER RETENTION:
The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is
attached to the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that
much of the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and
parking). The developer has requested that the City assist them in
the development of an off -site drainage system.
VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED:
In the initial submittal, the architect did not meet the side yard
requirements of the CPS Zone District for the east side of the
project (i.e. parking structure). The standard states that any
building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a
minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each on
foot above 35 feet. However, the new submittal (dated November 27,
1991) would meet the CPS requirements. The only outstanding setbac
problems are on Highway 111 and Washington Street because the
General Plan and Off -Site Parking Code requires a 50-foot setback o
Highway 111 (after dedication) and a 20-foot setback on Washington
Street (after dedication).
STAFFRPT.060/QS -4-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS:
The Design Review Board met on October 2, 1991, and although, there
was not a lot of discussion of the overall project, the Committee
did express their views on two items:
A. WASHINGTON STREET BUILDING HEIGHTS
Staff recommended a one story (22-feet) height for the
buildings along Washington Street within 150 feet of the
future property line. The Board however felt
differently and justified a height higher than that
recommended by Staff because the value of the land
dictates a need to develop a dense project and the
two-story building will buffer the proposed parkin
structure. The Board's recommendation is noted below.
B. PARKING STRUCTURE
A few of the Board members voiced an objection to the
six level parking structure because they felt it was out
of character with this area and with the City's design
parameters. A few of the members thought the developer
should pursue a subterranean parking structure under the
Bowling Alley. That discussion did not become part of
the final motion.
The Design Review Board's other recommendations were:
1. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meanderin<
pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the
Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscapf
plan by the applicant/developer.
2. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a
variation of planting materials, i.e. palm trees, accent shade
trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature
California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle,
Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be
encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas
Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be
utilized. Illative (low water use) plants should be used, and
the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley
Water District's plant materials list prior to designing their
proposal. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered alon(
Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light
fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt).
3. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped wit)
materials -which will support growth even though they are
accepting water run-off from paved surfaces.
STAFFRPT,060/CS -5-
4. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by
the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A
photometric study should be developed which analyzes t
lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting
Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160
(Off-street Parking). The height of the light poles should
not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor
should reduce this height if physically possible during revie
of the project.
5. The developer should contribute to the landscaping and/or
hardscape program of the future median island on Washington
Street and Highway ill.
6. A two story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained
along Washington Street and Highway ill within 150 feet of tl
ultimate property line (after street dedication has be
included).
7. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for a]
two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete shoulc
be stamped and colored to accentuate the propo:
development. The color, design and location of the concrete
should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final
plan check review.
8. The final plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Boar(
prior to the submission of the plans to the Buildin(
Department for final plan check consideration. The final
plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and
irrigation, buildings, signs, mechanical, etc.
9. Bike racks should be provided at convenient areas within the
site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50
parking spaces should be provided as noted in the Off-street
Parking Code.
10. The landscape setback on Washington Street should be a minim,
of 20 feet from the new property line.
11. All open parking stalls should be screened by walls, landsca
hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42
inches.
12. A master sign program should be submitted during final plan
check review.
It should be noted that the Design Review Board did not review the
latest submittal of the applicant, since it was submitted after
their November 6, 1991 meeting, but not early enough for their
December 4, 1991 meeting.
STAFFRPT.060/CS _6-
STAFF COMMENTS (Issues):
A. PARKING STRUCTURE
Staff is more comfortable with the applicant's latest
submittal because it has reduced the building mass from +47
feet to approximately 37 feet, but part of the building will
be within 150-feet of Washington Street. This new height
would be in keeping with the height of some of the existing
buildings in the area. However, this site is not large enough
to support a four level above ground structure and maintain
the character of the area (e.g. La Quinta Shopping Plaza)
which is across the street to the west. There might be some
merit in allowing the parking structure 50 to 100 feet from
the property line because of the irregular shape of the lot,
the fact that the developer has to contend with three street
frontages and the site is zoned for a commercial verses
residential usage.
The Applicant has stated that they believe the two story
office building(s) on Washington Street will block the
exposure of the parking structure if they are permitted to
have their multiple story structures approximately +20-feet
from the new property line.
B. WASHINGTON STREET ALIGNMENT PLAN
The Washington Street Specific Plan (86-007) was adopted in
1988. The approved document set the street alignment schedule
for Washington Street from Fred Waring to 52nd Avenue. The
plan included provisions for a 120 foot right-of-way (six
lanes) and 140 feet right-of-way (six lanes + four turn
lanes). The intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 is
scheduled to have a minimum right-of-way of 140 feet. The
northbound lane on Washington Street is to include three
through lanes, two left turn lanes, and at a minimum one
right -turn lane (see the attached Exhibit). The development
will be conditioned to meet these Specific Plan requirements.
C. BUILDING & PARKING SETBACKS (Washington Street/Highway 111)
The developer is proposing variable setbacks for both primary
street frontages. The setbacks based on the November 27, 199:
submittal are:
Washington Street: 10-feet (minimum) to 37-feet (maximum)
Highway III: 17-feet (minimum) to 35-feet (maximum)
The setbacks are consistent with the CPS Zoning provisions
because no yard requirements are required if the buildings arl
less than 35-feet high which these buildings are and the site
is not governed by an independent specific plan of developmen.
because the site is less than 20 acres in size. However, the
General Plan and Off -Street Parking Code for the City require;
a landscape setback of 50-feet on Highway ill and 20-feet on
Washington Street. Therefore, the proposed setbacks o;
Highway ill and Washington Street are less than required. Th,
applicant has requested a variance to resolve this problem.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -7-
One way to rectify the setback problem on Washington Street
would be to shift the buildings to the east onto the proposed
property line.
D. SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET
The City's General Plan currently has a policy which encourages
single story buildings along major arterials within the City. This
policy has been utilized for the projects along Washington Street.
Generally, the City has conditioned projects to be one story but th
height of the structure has varied on a case -by -case basis. As
noted earlier, the Design Review Board has indicated they feel
comfortable with allowing a two-story project which should not
exceed 28 feet in height. This type of recommendation would
definitely set a new precedence for the City and for Washington
Street in general. Staff would rather have the Planning Commission
debate the merits of the height of a building but not allow a two
story building on Washington Street within 150 feet of the new
property line. In order to facilitate review of this matter, staff
has prepared a city wide building height survey which lists the
development approvals for the City of La Quinta.
E. TRAFFIC STUDY:
The traffic study by MGA, was initially submitted on October 18,
1991, for the project proponent. A copy of the report was also
mailed to the District 11, Caltrans office. The Engineeri
Department requested revisions to that report and a revised documen
was submitted to staff on November 71 1991. The original document
was revised because the report showed left -turn movements from
Washington Street into Simon Drive (not permitted by Specific Plan
86-007), the Level of Service design parameters did not meet the
City's minimum requirements, and the travel lane design for Highway
111 was greater than needed. Based on these comments, the study wa
revised. The revised report has been incorporated into th
Environmental Assessment. The new study addresses the City
ultimate roadway improvements for this intersection per the City's
adopted General Plan and Specific Plan of Alignment for Washington
Street as well as the effects this project will have on traffic
levels on this area. The traffic consultant has reached the
following conclusions:
1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day.
2. The existing Level of Service at Highway 111 and Washington
Street is "F" or an ICU value of 1.60.
3. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative
traffic (including project traffic) will allow tk
intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to operate
at an ICU value of 0.82 or at LOS "D".
4. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at
ICU 0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate
geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic
(including project traffic) will allow the intersection to
operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS "A". The southbound approach is
assumed to exist for this study.
STAFFRPTe060/CS -$-
5. The project access (driveways) on Highway 111 and Washington
Street should be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out
only, along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes
6. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as
intersection with full access (left turns and right turns) foi
entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be
provided for exiting vehicles (right and left turns).
7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of
flow at all three driveways, along with suitable traffic
controls installed per City guidelines.
8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires
periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, an4
phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D: or ICU
value below/equal to 0.9.
9. The intersection of Highway ill and Simon Drive, with
cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants.
On November 18, 1991, Staff received comments on the proposed
traffic study from Caltrans. A copy of the letter is in the
Environmental Assessment. The letter was based on the initial
traffic report. However, many of their comments are still
appropriate. One major change since the initial report was the
number of travel lanes on Highway 111 has been reduced from 8 to 6.
This change is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and
Washington Street Specific Plan. Another comment was the proposed
driveway location on Highway 111 and its relationship to Washington
Street. The driveway is approximately 300-feet from the
intersection. The recommendation of Caltrans was to permit right
turn movements into the site or to move the driveway to the easterl,
side of the project. In discussion with the developer, they state
that since a raised median will be developed on Highway 111 a
right -turn in and right turn out access driveway would not affect
traffic circulation in this area. The City is comfortable that the
plans as proposed will work adequately provided deceleration and
acceleration lanes are installed for each driveway entrance and
certain measures are taken to prohibit vehicle parking along the
north/south through driveway to insure traffic stacking will not
block vehicle movement from Highway ill into the site.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the attached document and
will present their comments at the meeting. However, their
recommended conditions are attached.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTION:
One avenue for the developer to consider would be to shift the
development to the easterly property line. This would eliminate th
setback problem on Washington Street. Another design change we
would encourage would be to eliminate the two story office building
on Washington Street, this would reduce the overall project size fc
167,800 square feet to approximately 135,000 square feet, thus
bringing a majority of the project into conformity with the General
Plan policy of "Low Density" development on primary and secondary
image corridors but the parking structure would still have a portic
of its structure inside the 150-foot height limit standard. nI
STAFFRPT.060/CS -9-
A one story structure will create view windows through the site
thereby enhancing the City's desire to encourage low density
development along primary image arterials. Staff would further
request that the developer explore other subsurface parking areas,
off -site parking arrangements or reduce the building square footage
to conform with the City's minimum standards.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However,
the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City can
consider trade-offs in the setback requirements provided imaginative
designs are considered. The Planning Commission could permit a
variance if the Commission can make findings to support the
recommendation. Further, Staff would not support the office
complex on Washington Street within 150-feet of the property line
because the buildings are too massive, too close to the street, and
would degrade the Washington Street corridor. The City's General
Plan (Urban Design Section) states the City should encourage
appropriate building heights along primary corridors to enhance the
City's image and enhance its character. The City has felt that all
buildings should be single story in character but the height of the
structure has varied based on the project design and its
relationship to abutting projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-019, subject to
the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the
Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan
91-466, subject to the attached conditions; or,
2. That the Planning Commission approve Variance 91-019, subject
to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that
the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan
91-466, subject to the attached conditions; or,
3. Continue the project until the Applicant can restructure the
development to meet the design guidelines of the City.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Large Plans
3. Reduced Plans
4. Environmental Assessment with Agency comments
5. Traffic Study date stamped November, 1991
6. Letter stamp dated September 9th from Best, Best and Krieger
3. Zone District Excerpt (CPS Zone)
8. General Plan Excerpt
9. Design Review Board Minutes
10. City wide building height survey
11. Draft Resolution 91- , Variance 91-019 (Denial) (Approval)
12. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91-466
STAFFRPT.060/CS -10-
Yacant
�v Existing,Traffic Signal
` Vacant Land
Plaza La Quinta Parking
Beef 6
Brew
Point Happy Ranch
Existing Tract Homes
Washington Street Frontage
Road �...
Raised Median
CASE MAP
CASE Nm
SIMON PLAZA PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
4� Vacant Building
ORTN
SCALE:
NTS
It life I ! .•
Q veivue
` YI
1oortv
to Pox
.� a1
•o v '•
I a
(01
V.
t sTrfiier Py+ 10
t� ••rfdtr PYM
• • welt . ,
` ® 31 I 32 �a
v1 •�`� CO),1 '' �► LXN�BtT
• G4SE N! " 4 O yp o
•'. : 4y.
Q
X.
_ Well + Well • 0' ' • '
3 1V I e �.••-a V•
\/ Q y • we
•irs..• • .. • \ f '�•
.•: o� b .....,. LA QUL�VTA; AL
" ' oier •
• ... NE/4 PALM GESERT ISAORI
• • M3337.5—W1161 /7.!
• i f �� A '• • 1959
1; ; .- . •• ''"`" PHOTOREVISEO 1081
• • • • DMA 2751 111 HE -SERIES Y'
.t _ 38 '� ,
11
11
11
1�
II
11
11
11
RIONT
1 1
1
TURN
ONLY
LAN(TYP CAL)
t 1
1
1 1
It
-
L
FAR
~
ME
®Us
ZONE
(TYPICAL)
IL
10'
1f 0 3 3
TYP.
Yp.
C
14�
�t
It
p.
as
-CR
EC ION
11
11
i l
I
1 31 3
1 1
1
1
t 1
1
1 �84__ �Z•
�t
sECT10N
CASE MAP
CASE No. Plot Plan 91-466
Specific Plan 86-007, Resol. 86-14 (Exhibit)
WASHINGTON STREET/HIGHWAY III
INTERSECTION WIDENING
ORTH
SCALE:
all 9 t/
� F i
.�• � rr
i 1 V
.� -�.� •'••►-G�J at1•j1•.♦.w�'�v s� ��t. � .psi}.•-sii�Y-r`,
NXI
Z
N
m
X
W
Q
x
cn
Q
`LA N
t-`
o
f7lirlififir,
0
- -4
T--..- '77.
4
mumm
Ulu 111111A!O )11.115.l....
1
0 Mi
r _
C"
SO
�r t�
M_J,i. N
W
v:
r lalm
cr)
►•
ap
:j
W
a.
J�
--'v'7V'%-VfiCrei— mill 1 alsesn'-j 11114
LAJ
s
�ml
8.014ww ■... -
gum
iim lls
1j111't t111�R.�JILJt 1? �,�
taiw ..urtaaQ�rs�-�•
Y! d
-4 . I Ilu I
,
_ 1
�
N
.r
LI.LL
() '3
1
I
1
1
i
I
3,
1
r lit"'�glilgX
9
1
I
,,.,llllll
=w 9914— m umiiMI8 )�
s��
17
¢D
i•:G i
W
7
um I lu1us� t11a1a.
Y
C
ov
41
C
A
4J
PA
\/
c
. / xv,
x
dd
>r-*
oaC
ao�'
V 'r O
NV-r
V- dl
N O DO
m
'IF—Moze -
I
I
,�- CM or U QMR1 773 —.� 3 �5
ENVIRONMEMAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: 6/MO-V
2. Address and Pho a Number of Pro onent: '0- �G
/I dqw C
3. Date of Checklist. D -/ - / 11
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: ell y T S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Spieta
II. ENVIRO*IENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No
a. unstable earth conditions or in changes in /
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil'.—
c. Change in topography or ground surface -
relief features? —
d. The destruction, covering or modification of /
any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
S. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? _
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? —
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? f�
c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood /
waters? L
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? A
S. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? _
Yes /bybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
_ A'
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
S.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
/
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7.
Li t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
/
light or glare?
S.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
s/
resources?
_
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
natural resource?
10.
Risk of qset. Does the proposal involve a risk
'Ef an explosion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
(/
of an accident or upset conditions?
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
ism ution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
_ —
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
/
demand for new parking?
14.
15
16.
17.
Yes Maybe No
-r—
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
V
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
/
_i C
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
✓
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
_
f. Other governmental services?
Energy Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
_ t�
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
1�
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
_
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
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?
_ ✓ u
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon tie quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result
in an alteration of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
_
Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(S)
III
IV
Yes Playbe No
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long -tern, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
— I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
— effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
i�ind that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
-- I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date:
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP91-466 (EA91-211)
SIMON PLAZA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed complex will include a mixture of
offices, restaurant/bank, and other recreational facilities (e.g.
40 lane bowling alley). The vacant 5.6 acre property is located
on the east side of Washington Street, south of Highway 111, and
north of Simon Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as
Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid permeability and
it can be used for crop production, homesite or other urban
development. The property (6 lots) is flat and vacant at this
time.
The general elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above
sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic Hazard area as
noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A
Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe
than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on
people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of
shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused
by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of
light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." Earthquake damage should
not be a major problem at the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: Grading of the site shall occur pursuant
to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the
City°s Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a
manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless
off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading
quantities have not been submitted, it is assumed that most of the
earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises
and limited importation will occur. All building structures shall
be designed pursuant to the standards as prescribed by the Uniform
Building Code based on the code which is in affect at the time of
plan check consideration, and the plans shall be prepared by a
licensed architect or structural engineer.
2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert
Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed
construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may
deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and
mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission
f rom on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion.
Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting
from short term construction activities and long term generation
associated with the project.
It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed
project there will be an increase in the overall mobile emission
releases because of personal vehicle usage by employees or
customers. The levels will be consistent with other projects in
the area and no abnormalities are expect by the implementation or
development of this project. It is assumed that vehicle trip
generation figures would be lower for this type of project if
public transportation was utilized more and people did not rely on
their private automobiles to get from place to place. Public
transportation is available in this area along both street primary
streets.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially
mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust.
2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be
planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open
space subject to wind erosion.
3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City
Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan.
4). Public transportation should be encouraged.
3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that
there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious
surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water
run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site
retention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the
collection of storm water and nuisance water run-off. The project
engineering firm, Sanborn and Webb, has prepared a preliminary
study which identifies the on -site needs of the facility. The
plan does is not proposing on -site retention but the developer
would like to work with the City in developing a joint project
between abutting owner's and the City to install an off -site
drainage system in the area to meet the anticipated needs and
future problems this area will experience from seasonal rain
storms. This program will be subject to Planning Commission and
City Council approval.
This area is not subject to liquefaction (similar to the problems
of the Downtown area). Liquefaction is the term which is used
when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and
during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building
structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing
failure and other adverse side -effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall comply with all
applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance
water. The drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer.
4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of
any significant plant life. The site has been graded and it is
assumed that the grading occurred during the construction of the
off -site improvements in the early 19801s. No impact is
anticipated by the development of this site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
5. ANIMAL LIFE: The subject site is located in an area defined
as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected
species) and it has been determined that a mitigation fee shall be
paid to the City of La Quinta if the site is developed. The City
is required to contribute the money to the Valley's Nature
Conservancy, and the Conservancy is required to use the money at
their Thousand Palms preserve (1300 acres) to protect and maintain
this endangered species. All the valley cities contribute to this
preserve through contractual arrangements which were made in the
early 1980's and, although all properties in the City do not pay
toward this fund at such time as they are developed, this project
is required to contribute funds toward the continued preservation
of this federally protected species since the property is
designated as property that might have (or currently is) supported
refuge for the lizard in the past.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The applicant/developer shall contribute at the time a
building permit or grading permit is issued money in the amount of
$600.00 per acre which shall be used by the Nature Conservancy to
mitigate the development of this parcel to an urban use.
2. All the requirements of the State Fish and Game Department
shall be met. This shall include, but not be limited to, the
payment of fees for necessary environmental filing paperwork with
the County of Riverside (i.e. Negative Declaration processing,
etc.). The fees shall be collected after the project has been
reviewed by the City Council.
6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent
operation of the commercial center, it can be expected that there
will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site.
Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming
to and from the site since the use of the property will be for
indoor commercial activities (offices, restaurant, bowling alley,
etc.). It is anticipated that no internal noise will be projected
externally outside of the building mass, however, a noise study
will examine both projected noise and external noise and its affect
on the project and on abutting properties.
MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this
project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on
surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for
indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. The study shall examine
all proposed commercial uses, especially the proposed bowling alley
which might require special acoustical walls to mitigate sound
transmission to the property to the east (Simon Motors Auto
Dealership). The study shall be completed prior to acquiring a
building permit from the Building Department.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or
parking lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this
time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff but it
is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the
future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this
material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and
Building Department prior to construction permit issuance.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky
Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to
eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or
developed properties. Exterior pole light fixtures should be low
level fixtures in order to maintain both human scale to the project
and reduce glare from the fixtures on to abutting City
thoroughfares.
2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking
lot and the plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting
which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as
identifies the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type
of lighting fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is
necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off-street Parking
Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. Light poles less than 20
feet in height shall be encouraged.
8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as
fit for commercial development. The plan is consistent with this
intent, and the Planning Commission will review the development
plan in the next few months.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required because the project, if
approved, will be conditioned to meet the City's requirements for
on and off -site improvements commensurate with the level of
development which is proposed.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated
with by the construction of this project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant
shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies
as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during
construction plan implementation. This shall include compliance
with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code relating
to conserving energy resources which is handled by the Building
Department during plan check review.
10. RISR OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to
explosion or release of hazardous substances.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all
construction activities whether or not they are permanent or
temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal,
State and local government requirements.
11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project
will have an adverse or significant impact on population
distribution, density or growth rate in the area. However, the
development of the site will increase the need for the City to
provide housing opportunities for its residents to support this
commercial venture. At this time, the City has approximately 55
percent of its land designated for residential needs.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an
incremental demand for additional housing for employees of the
development. However, due to the size of the commercial center
any demand would be insignificant because the City presently has an
overabundance of land either vacant at this time, but slated for
residential development, or developed at this time with housing
units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at
this time, however, multiple family housing projects will be
forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future.
Approximately half of the City is designated for residential
development or growth.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The site is located at the
southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 (a State
roadway). With the proposed project it can be anticipated that
there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement
in the immediate area. The project is fronting on two existing
partially developed major arterial streets of the City which are
planned to have divided median islands to discourage cross traffic
vehicular movements. This intersection is one of the primary
areas of the City which is currently impacted by vehicular traffic.
Studies have shown that the Level of Service at this junction are
functioning at a Level D (A being the best and F the worst) . This
rating means that the intersection is experiencing traffic delays
because of traffic congestion and, projections for this area
indicate that in the next ten years this intersection will be
operating at a lesser level if the population of the city gets
proportionally larger at a constant rate. The Engineering
Department (and Caltrans) has expressed a need to mitigate traffic
problems in this area through various means, which can include:
additional traffic lanes, right -turn medians, center island
(� A,
medians, and other options which might assist traffic through this
area in a faster pace thus reducing delays for either north/south
or east/west travel. At the request of the Engineering
Department, the applicant is in the process of preparing a traffic
study to analyze their project as it relates to this major
intersection and to future growth in the future.
The site is served by the Sunline Transit bus system and no impacts
to the Sunline serves are anticipated by the development of the
project.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding
street improvements of adjacent street(s).
2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to
accommodate the proposed use of the property.
3). A bus stop (with turnout) and shelter shall be install along
the frontage of the site along Washington Street and Highway 111 in
a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering
Department unless another site can be developed which is more
effective to Sunline. Discussions have been made which indicate
that Simon Drive might be more appropriate for a transit site
and/or facility than Washington Street or Highway 111 because a bus
stop on either of these streets could hinder or impede traffic
circulation in this area. A transit site on Simon Drive should
be pursued. The developer should contact Sunline Transit in order
resolve the Transit Authorities problems in this area. A solution
had not been secured as of the writing of this report.
4). Any work on Highway 111 shall require permission by Caltrans
since the roadway is a State Highway.
5). The requirements of the traffic study shall be met as
determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Commission/City
Council. This could include such features as: additional travel
lanes on Washington Street, street island medians, deceleration and
acceleration lanes, right turn in and out driveways, traffic signal
modifications, transit facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalk, or
other improvements which are commensurate with the proposed project
and, as condition, will improve transportation in this area and
assure the level of service at this intersection will not be
reduced less than Level D.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for
additional fire protection, police protection, solid waste
collection, and maintenance of public roads in the area. However,
it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be
incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on
existing personnel or services.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will
be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6,000.00 per acre.
This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above.
2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and
Riverside County Sheriffs Department prior to building permit
issuance.
3). The School District mitigation fees shall be paid prior to
permit issuance pursuant to the adoption of AB1600 in 1986.
4). The project developer shall make provisions with Palm Desert
Disposal/Waste Management to have the project serviced to assure
waste products are disposed of without creating health hazards to
the community. Necessary facilities shall be built to dispose of
product waste.
16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no
significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which
include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid
waste.
MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure
improvements has mandated by the City or any other public agency
shall be met as part of the development of this site. Copies of
the Agency Comments are attached.
As mentioned before, the site will be required to install
appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-
off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from
both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings,
etc.). The preliminary hydrology study has been submitted and the
recommendation of the project engineer was for the developer to
pursue and off -site drainage system for their water runoff.
The City Engineer is examining the study at this time and his
recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission.
18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant, the construction of
buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of
this area because the applicant is proposing multiple story
facilities. The City presently has a policy which discourages
multi -level building along Washington Street which are greater than
21 feet (average) within 150 feet of the future property line.
The applicant has proposed a plan which does not meet this
provision, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City
Council to determine if an exemption should be granted.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements
of the City's Zoning Code or CPS District mandates unless otherwise
approved by a Variance application.
2). Buildings along Washington Street should be low level
111, t..
facilities pursuant to the policies of the General Plan which
encourages "low density" development along image corridors. The
City policy has been to encourage single story facilities within
150 feet of the property line.
3). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program
should take into consideration the unique setting of this property
as it relates to the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. The developer
should consider vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and
the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create
view "windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the
west of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be
pursued and accent lighting on the landscaping should be
encouraged. Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever
possible without sacrificing pedestrian security.
19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in
this area.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the
City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of
the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the city by
qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to
activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading).
Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be
required. The City shall review and approve the study prior to
the acquisition of a building permit or grading permit.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipate
Attached: Agency Comments
Letter from Best, Best and Krieger
Applicant prepared Hydrology Report.
Applicant's prepared Traffic Study
d
TRAFFIC IlVIPACT' STUDY
FOR
A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE
SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA"
IN THE.
CITY OF LA QUIM
REVISED
NOVEMBER 1991
I {
m m Mohle, Grover&
OA/ F�
INOV 0 7 1991 D
CA E N0
»T
SunLine Transit
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Plot Plan 91-466
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
August 21, 1991
V It-4
`• ,
C11 Y ur �vYP�,
+�INN1PlC t• 0.. �l
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the commercial
development to be located on the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Highway 111. As you may know, SunLine operates Line 19 on
thirty -minute headways (fifteen -minute headways during peak hours)
alone Highway 111, and Line 4 on sixty -minute headways along
Washington Street in the vicinity of this project. Beginning in the
fall, SunLine will operate Line 4 in the La Quanta area on
thirty -minute frequencies during peak hours.
We request that bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters be
included in the project. These amenities should be located on
Washington Street and on Highway 111. SunLine has suggested standards
for bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters. As an alternative,
we would like to see a transfer center on Simon Drive.
In this vicinity, SunLine currently has a large volume of passengers
utilizing Lines 19 and 4. A project of this size can only increase
the number of ridership, therefore, a transfer center would be most
advantageous. We request an opportunity to meet with the city and the
developer to discuss our needs.
We will contact you the week of August 26th to schedule an appointment
date that will be convenient for all parties.
I apologize for the delay in my response but please be assured we are
very interested in this development.
Yours very truly,
41A� &ZZ
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/kh
32.505 Harry Oliver Trail . Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343-3456 • FAX (619) 343-3845
A Public Agency
78-106 CALLS ESTADO — IA OUINTA. CAUFORNUI 92263 - 16191 $64.2244
FAX (619) 664-6417
FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE:
0
3�P%4blic
y Manager a Management incipal
-z4r
Works/Engineering �ral Telephone 03-2nner(s)
�f Marshal (OmuE� t/ �r Cable Vision �Aasociate
wilding & Safety _�orunllne Transit Planners)
_&Ch r of Commerce yCbltrans (District III Assistant
Agricultural Commission P or
utrial irrigation City of Indian Wells tanning
hern California Gas Cj.ty of Indi® Director
sert Sands School Dist. t-AS Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County:
�CV Archaeological Society ____Planning Department
Property ironmental Health
E
Owner's Association heriffIs Department
/Lc T �l�.},1 9i '(6
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): '"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: nun S 7- /h AVelop � Ifo zae Use
i�(�g l%4
PROJECT LOCATION:
r
a
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial
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:
2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti-
gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project
design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns
which your agency is responsible; and
3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse
effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions,
please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which
may be helpful.
Please send your response by 46U.s 7_ IBO 1!01 and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files. Yo are invited to attend the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: /�/o%�51 Time:
Contact Person: aspe - Title: Ag—o— A%' �f!r9�'.•t.Z
Comments made by: OTitle:.6'Ta L f41"'"' Sr,
Date: /Z'q/ Phone:(74)fff--VYt i Agency/Division l%S PS,
a cavHrr
R/VERSa
GLEN D. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quints
Planning Division
Attention: Greg Trousdell
RIVERSIDi, COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN 14CIM AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 9237D
(714) 657.3183
August 13, 1991
� CENEtJ
AUG 15 lac -
Re : Plot Plan 91-466 t+� 1 Vt
Simon Plaza, Inc. Lh�VINTA
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced V19 In,
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 3500 gpm for
a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available
before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based
upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" x 4" x 21" 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 shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
3. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant/developer shall furnish one
blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approva
Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the
system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved
by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance
with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to the start of construction.
4. 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.
M 1ND10 OFFIa
M733 Ccuntrp CIA Driv4 Suite F, lndiq CA 92201
(619) 342AM 0 FAX (619) 775-2072
PLANNING DIVISION
O TBAECLIA OFFKI
41002 Cam y C-9- DrIM Suite 225. Tend,, CA 92l'
(714) 694-5070 a FAX (714) 694.5076
376012th Sacd. Rivcm* CA 92501
(714) 275.4777 0 FAX (714) 369.7451
& prtnred on recycled pa,
City of La Quints 8/13/91
Re: PP 91-466 Page 2.
Simon Plaza, Inc.
5. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the
Uniform Building Code.
6. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans
must be submitted, along with a plan check/ inspection fee, to the Fire
Department for review.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 110, but not
less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
8. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
1503.
9. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire
lanes.
11. Install a Class I Standpipe System.
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 b Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
BY
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
United States
Postal Service
fjO gel - e146
The United States Postal Service requests that the final map shall show
easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized
mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department.
1
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92'23d - TELEPHONE (619) 30M61
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMASE LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT SERNARDME SUTTON SECRETARY
JOHN W MC.FADDEN August 12, 1991 OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M NICHOLS RE DIVINE AND SHE RRILL. ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
File: 0163.1
RECElutu
AUG 16 loc-
01 V ur ui VUINTA
Subject: Plot Plan 91-466, Portion of rorthIING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Quarter, Section 30, 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 % 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,
&'Ja .--kc el'a,4L
m Levy
Geoneral Manager -Chief Engineer
RF:lmf/e8
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Ot 44� (49W40
78-106 CALLS ESTADO — to CWNTA. CAUFORNIA 92263 • 1619) 564.2244
FAX (819) 684-6417
FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATBi
qbi�C y Manager _� a Management �incipal
lic Works/Engineering �ral Telephone �anner(s)
f Marshal (No!) t/ .,,� r Cable Vision vAasocIata
wilding i Safety un_Une Transit Planner(s)
E
:F
r of Commerce i_- ltrans (District II) Assistant
Agricultural Commission P er
EFal Irrigation City of Indian Wells �ing
hern California Gas Cjty of Indio Director
sert Sands School Dist. S Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. .,'.;- Riverside County:
CV Archaeological Society '""'-'"' Planning Department
PropertyUG 1 Environmental Health
+
Owners Association sheriff Is Department
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S):
CITY Ur
_ '-),CITY
WNU^ & r
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
PROJECT LOCATION:--)CuT# As 1- , ,•:f1:v4V /1< S_
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initia
environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information
i3k,, submitted by the project proponent.
v Your cormnts are requested with respect to:
I. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities,
and/or services;
2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti-
gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project
design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns
which your agency is responsible; and
J 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse
effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions,
please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which
may be helpful.
Please send your response by Ayew s7— IR, IV I and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files. 'Yod are invited to attend the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: /1/077 ,1557- J�SLk1 Time: j�?(�
Contact Person: o SA.!5"-_ Title: Awes gr*_ ��i�•'.•
Comments m e by: itle:
DateaO t*/ Phone:JT X /,4/L Agen /Division
X 1-o Z_
to
78.106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA. CAUFORNIA 92263 • (6181 664.224
FAX (618) 64 U1
FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DATE:
V00
Cjk y Manager v�a Management �incipal
2g blic Works/Engineering vTelephone Planner(s)
�f Marshal (CMAJ t/ r Cable Vision vAssociate
wilding i Safety unl4ne Transit Planner(s)
irrial
r of Commerce iCbltrans (District II) „Assistant
Agricultural Commission P e
Irrigation City of Indian Wells annin9
hern California Gas y of Indio Director
�Fsert Sands School Dist. S Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County:
�CV Archaeological Society Planning Department
Property—Eyvironmental Health
Owner's Association —sheriff's Department
LA QUINTA CASE NOW:
ri 0
i•�L �id r
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ��►� S i %"�('/n% /`1ull1�L� l�+E
AUG 6Igl"
Cl1Y U� N7A
T1oQ¢ATIOid:
'IANNiNG & G
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initi
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;
2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti-
gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project
design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns
which your agency is responsible; and No.vt!r
3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse
effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions,
please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(Les) which
may be helpful. Ae-o^.er-
Please send your response by &emrT /g, 1!01 and return tt,
maps/plans if not needed for your files. YoU are invited to attend tl
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled fox
Date: /�/o% ,�s.F'�si�E'%i Time:
Contact Person s e� uSu— Title: �,ctf��= ��•�.•r�
Comments made by: Title: , rze�`'
Date: Phone: 77 Y gency/Division•
STATE OF CALfa*M - BUSPIEM TRANVORTATIM AND HOWN0 AGENCY
PETE WRAM ODOM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11. PA. BOX 05406, SAN DIEG O. 92IMSM
(619) 688-6968
November 14, 1
City of La Quinta
Planning and Development Department
P. 0. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell
rp R4�
e '
U�; NOV 18 1991
ANT
PM 33.1/34.2
Simon Plaza
We have reviewed the traffic impact study report for the proposed Simon Plaza
development located in the southeast comer of the State Route 111 (SR-111) and Washington
Street intersection in the City of La Quinta and have the following comments:
On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) for improvements on
SR-111 between Washington Street and Adams Street was approved by the District. The
proposed improvements were designed to accommodate Year 2010 traffic generated by
proposed commercial developments north of SR-111, but did not include traffic generated
from the proposed Simon Plaza development. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing
four lane highway to a six lane conventional highway through this area was Included in that
report.
The traffic impact study report contains several significant differences in the Year 2010 peak
hour turning volumes at the SR-1 11/Washington Street intersection when compared to those
shown in the PSR/PR. Of particular concern is the eastbound SR-111 to southbound
Washington Street right turn volume; the eastbound SR-111 through volume, and the
northbound Washington Street to westbound SR-111 left turn volume. These volumes, as
shown in the traffic impact study need to be resolved since they are approximately twice as
high as those in the PSRIPR. The traffic growth rate factors used by the consultant may need
to be adjusted at this location.
The traffic study includes an intersection schematic for SR-111 at Washington Street
(Figure 7) showing eight lanes on SR-111. This is not consistent with the Route Concept
Report (RCR) for SR-111 and is probably unnecessary because the traffic volumes assumed
in the study may be unable to reach the intersection due to upstream controls. The City may,
however, elect to reserve additional right of way to allow for additional channelization on SR -
I I I in the vicinity of Washington Street. The developer should be required to mitigate traffic
impacts on SR-111 associated with the proposed development.
Driveway access location from SR-111 to the proposed development should be prohibited,
if ;possible, or limited to a single opening for right turning traffic only and should be located
midway between adjacent intersections.
0 r
City of La Ouinta
November 14, 1991
Page 2
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.
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
BY
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
cG CRWest
AKosup
JBuksa
T/P File
STATE Of CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WILSON. Gan
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DNSTRNCT t i. P.O. BOX MAN, SAN DEGO, 021WS"
(619) 688-6968
September 11. 199 11% 11 Y Ur t_h VuINTA
'► �N"�'N., r, jpu�,i ipuw nEFt i-RN-111
Washington Street
PP 91-466
City of La guinta
Planning and Development Department
P. O. Box 1504
La 9uinta. CA 92253
Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell
We have reviewed Plot Plan 91-466 for Simon Plaza located at the corner of
Washington Street and State Route I I I (SR-111). We have the following
comments:
A traffic study should be prepared for this development which identifies
impacts and appropriate mitigation.
On March 14, 1991. a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR). for
improvements to SR- I I I (PM 33.1 - 34.2) was approved by Caltrans District 11.
The proposed improvements were designed to accommodate traffic generated by
proposed commercial development north of SR- I I I between Adams and
Washington Street, as well as the anticipated growth to the year 2010. A
conceptual plan for upgrading the existing highway to a six lane conventional
highway through this area was also included in this report.
Any improvements necessary to SR- 111 due to the proposed development must
meet Caltrans standards and also be in conformance with the PSR/PR referenced
above. Access to this development from SR- I I I should be restricted to one
driveway located midway between Washington Street and Simon, with right turn in
and right turn out only.
A bus turnout should be considered, to conform with the bus turnouts being
proposed on the north side of SR-111.
Additional right of way may be required. We have specified a 30 foot setback to
the right of way line from the ultimate edge of the travelled way for the commercial
development on the north side of SR- 111.
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 Ofilce 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 Project Engineer Paul Hardin at (619) 688-6712.
r: r
City of La guinta
September 11. 1991
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of
our stab'. at (619) 688-6968.
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
BY
BILL DILLON, Chief
System Planning Branch
cc: CRWest
JBuksa
T/P File
September 27, 1991
Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estrado
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
Re: Simon Plaza
Dear Mr. Herman:
�=11100
5ANBORN%WEBB INC.
Civil Engineers • Lav surveyors
Architects • L&v Planners
91-224
IYE
O
rEP N
C)TY OF t�l OVINTA
PIANIO NG OEPAATAOL4T
Attached are two (2) copies of the hydrology report for the
Simon Plaza project.
Based upon the proposed project and the on going area wide
drainage problems. We recommend that the City and the project
proponents work together to solve there collective problems by the
installation a storm drain system along Washington to the
Whitewater River.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
S R / EBB, INC-
N'
n L. Sanborn
JLS:lm
Encl.
c.c. Fred Simon - W/Encl.
255 N. El Cielo Road • Suite 315 a Palm Springs, California 92262 • (619) 325.2245 • (619) 325.9426 • FAX (619) 325-5130
FOR SIMON PLAZA
CONDITIONS
�i'Lo. 9 D
SEP 2 7 a91
CITY OF LA OUNTA
PUIhN.hG OEPARTMENT
The project is a 5.7 acre Office/Retail complex located at the
southeast corner of State Highway ill and Washington Street in the
City of La Quinta. A site plan is attached.
PURPOSE
To determine the peak run-off and the required volume of retention
for the 100 year storm.
METHOD
Peak run-off and volume of retention were calculated using the
01Unit Hydrograph Analysis". The analysis is attached.
CALCULATION RESULTS
The results of the Unit Hydrograph Analysis are as follows:
1. The peak run-off rate is 2.58 cubic feet per second.
2. The required volume of retention is 1.34 acre feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the configuration of the proposed site, the ability to
retain storm run-off on -site is hampered. It's recommended that
the developers of Simon Plaza attempt to participate in a
redevelopment type program to eliminate their problem as well as
larger regional problem of storm water flooding at the corner of
Washington Street and Highway 111. Currently approximately 150,
acres drain to this corner and preliminary hydrology studies
suggest that the peak run-off of a 10 year storm could be as great
as 150 c.f.s.. There exists a small sump pump to handle nuisance
water at this location but the capacity is inadequate during
significant storms. It is recommended that the City enter into a
redevelopment program to install•a gravity storm drain from the
Simon Plaza project north under Highway ill to the Whitewater River
Channel.
Qtpf ESSIpNq
cc A
NO. 43880
�c cep• C • 30.93 * �� � � .
sl�lE �i CA ; O���P
727
U n i t H y d r o g r a o h n a 1 v s i s
Comyriaht (c) CivilCadd/CivilDesign. 1990. Version 2.1
Study date 9/26/91
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++..4..++++++..4-1......+++++++++. 4
Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hvdroloo Method
RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Drainage Area 5.66 Acre=_ _-).c:)09 S,:3. Mi. --~
Length along longest watercourse 6,:)(-.).00 Ft.
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 400.00
Length along longest watercourse = 0.114 Mi.-
Length along lonc,est watercourse measured fo centroid = 0.076
Difference in elevation = 1.50 Ft.
Slope ;long watercourse = 1
Av race Mannino'= 'N' = (:).(:)15
Lag time = O.oZ.6 Hr.
17,
Lac time = ._. 17 Mir..
-`_`': of l dG time. = ". 54 Mir..
40". of lag time = 0.87 Min.
Unit time Min.
Curation of storm = 24 Hour(s)
Area rainfall data:
Area(Acres)CII
Rainfall(In.)C23 •Weighting[!*2]
5.66
3.50
19.81
Point rain (area 'averaged)
3.5o(:) (In.)
Area! adjustment factor
= 100.00
Adjusted average point
rain =
3.500 (In.)
RI Infil. rate
Impervious
Adj. 'Infil.
Rate Area% F
(In;'Hr)
(Dec.%)
(In/Hr)
(Dec.) (In/Hr
7{.(? 0.^79
1.000 (l.t_)2t
Sum (F) = 0.0""28
Area averaoed mean
soil loss (F)
(In/Hr) _
0.028
Minimum soil loss
rate (In/Hr)
0.014
(for 24 hour storm
duration)
Soil low loss rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
(decimal)
0.800
U
n i t H y d r
o g r a p h
Foothill
S-Curve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit
Hydrograph
Data
-------------------------------------------------------_------------
Unit time period
Time % of lag
Distribution
Unit Hydrograph
(hrs)
Graph %
cfs--hrs/in
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.250
690.666
80.717
4.6
2 0.500
1381.332
19.283
1.1
------------------•-----------------------------------------------------
Sum
= 100.00
Sum= 5.7
(Hr.)
Percent
(in./hr.)
Max
Lou,
(in./hr. )
25
0.20
0.028
0.049
0.022
0.01
2
0.50
0.30
0.042
0.049
0.034
0.01
3
0.75
0.30
0.042
0.048
0.034
0.01
4
1.00
0.40
0.056
0.048
---
0.01
5
1.25
0.30
0.042
0.047
0.034
0.01
6
1.50
0.30
0.042
- 0.047
0.034
0.01
7
1.75
0.30
0.042
0.046
0.034
0.01
8
2.00
Q.40
0.056
c:► . c745
---
0.01
9
2.25
0.40
0.056
0.045
---
0.01
10
2.50
0.40
0.056
0.044
---
0.01
11
2.75
0.50
0. c i70
0.044
---
O. i z
12
3.00
0.50
0.070
C). 043
---
0 . 03
13
3.25
0.50
0.070
0.043
---
0.03
14
3.50
0.50
0.070
0.042
---
0.03
15
3.75
0.50
0.070
0.042
---
0. 0
16
4.00
0.60,
O. ci84
0.041
---
0.04
17
4.25
0.60
0.084
0.041
---
0.04
18
4.50
0.70
0.096
0.040
---
0.06
19
4.75
0.70
0.098
0.040
---
0.06
20 '
5.00
0.80
0.112
0.03S
---
0.07
21
5.25
0.60
O ; C ►S4
0.039
---
0.05
22
5.50
0.70
0.098
0.038
---
0.06
23
5.75
0.80
0.112
0.038
---
0.07
24
6.00
0.80
0.112
0.037
----
0,07
25
6.25
0.90
0.126
0.037
---
� � , 01
26
6.50.
0.90
0.126
0.036
---
0. Al
27
6.75
1.00
0.240
0.036
---
0.:,:!
28
7.00
1.00
0.140
0.035
---
0. 10
29
7.25
1.00
o.140
0.035
---
0. 1 1
30
7.5o
1.10
0.154
o.034
---
0.12
31
7.75
1.20
0.168
0.034
---
0 . Q
32
8.00
1.30
0.182
0.033
---
0.15
33
8.25
1.50
0.21 C!
0.033
---
0.18
34
8.50
1.50
0.210
0.032
---
0.18
35
8.75
1.60
0.224
0.032
---
0.19
36
9.00
1.70
0.238
0.031
---
0.21
37
9.25
1.90
0.266
0.031
---
0.24
38
9.50
2.00
0.280
0.031
---
0.25
39
9.75
2.10
0.294
0.030
---
0.26
40
10.00
2.20
0.308
0.030
---
0.28
41
10.25
1.50
0.210 D
0.029
---
o . 18•
4.2
10.50
1.50
0.210
0,029
---
0.18
43
10.75
2.00
0.2BC*,
0.028
---
0.25
44
11.00
2.00
0. 28o
0.028
---
0.25
45
11.25
1.90 i
0.266
0.028
---
0.24
46
11.50
1.90
0.266
0.027
---
0.24
47
11.75
1.70
0.236
0.027
---
0.21
48
12 . oO
1.80
o.252
0.026
---
0.23
49
12.25
2.50
0.350
0.026
---
0.32
50
12.50
2.60
0.364
0.026
---
0.34
51
12.75
2.80
0.392
0.025
---
0.37
52
13.00
2.90
0.406
0.025
---
0.38
53
13.25
3.40
0.476
0.024
---
0.45
54
13.50
3.40
0.476
0.024
---
0.45
55
13.75
2.30
0.322
0.024
---
0.30
56
14.00
2.30
D.322
0.023
---
0.30
57
14.25
2.70
0.378
0.023
---
0.36
58.
14.50
2.60
0.364
0.023
---
0.34
59
14.75
2.60•
0.364
0.022
---
0.34
60
15.00
2.50
0.350
0.022
---
0.333
61
15.25
2.40
0.336
0.022
---
0.31
I- "
4 �, C, ! 1
n *7 (1
f l � "
n • (-)?I
- -- -
ji o
61 16. 7t
Q.
0. 042
0.0 '0
---
0.01,
68 17.00
c i . 3("
0.042
0.019
---
J.O�
2
69 17.25
0.50
0.070
0.019
---
0.05
70 17.50
0.50
0.070
0�019
---
0.05
71 17.75
0.50
0.070
0.019
---
0.05
72 18.00
0.40
0.056
0.018
---
0.04
73 18.25
0.40
0.056
-
0.018
---
0.04
74 18.50
0.40
0.056
0.018
---
0.04
75 18.75
0.30
0.042
0.017
---
0.02
76 19.0O
0.2i)
(.i , 028
0.017
---
':? . C)1
77 19.25
i).7;('
i).042
0.017
78 19.50
t.) . 4c i
C) . (D56
0.017
---
0. 04
79 19.75
0.30
0.042
0.017
---
i .03
8i) 20.00
0.2C)
i ) , c i28
0.016
---
0.01
81 20.25
0.30
0.042
0.016
---
i) . 0Z-1
82 21C). 50
0. 30
0.042
0.016
---
(:). i )3
63 20.75
i).042
0.016
---
,(:);;
84 21.0(::)
(?.02P
0.015
---
85 .21.:5
(_!.�(.
c),042
-0.015
. fi;;;
86 21.50
i.).2i)
0.028
i).01-5
---
Q.(:)1
87 21 .75
0.30
0.042
0.015
---
0.03
88 22.00
0.20
0.028
0.015
---
i) , i )1
89 22.:5
0.042
i).015
---
r,.;?
=1
91ii.ii14
2�.0C
ir,014
---
`C
5,.; :�.• J
(.. r.!.
LL
_. _.. LI
'-1 , 111 4
94 23 .5ti
i).6
:�,�)2E;
,C 1
95 23.75
0.20
{, , i r2E.
0.014
---
t i , () l
96 24. 00
0.2i)
C.". ()2S
0.014
---
C) . 01
Sum =
100.0
Sum =
11.4
Flood
volume =
E`-�ective
rainfall
2.85 (in.)
times
area
5.7 (Ac.)/12
=
1.3 Acre Feet
Total
soil loss
= 0.65
(In.)
Total
soil loss
= 0-305
Acre Feet
Total
------------------------------------------------------------------
rainfall
= 3.50(In.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
+++++++++.+++++++++++++++
4 .++++++++++++++++++++++++++++4+++++++++++-
24 -
H O U
R S
T O R M
------------------
R
u n o f
f
H v d r
o g r a p h
�!-droGraph
7------------------------------------------------
in
15
Minute
intervals (CFE)
Time (h+m) Volume
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AF)
CF5'
------------------
---------.-------
--
0+ 15
0. (:)005
i) , i )�-
Q
C) + 1-Tj i)
C) . 0015
0.04
Q
I
1
0+45
0.O02 4
0.05,
0
1+ 0
0.0034
O.o5
Q
1 + 15
0.0044
0.05
0
I
1 +30
0.005 4
0.05
Q
1 +45
0.0064
0.05
Q
2-� 0
0.0076
0.06
Q
2+15
0.0089
0.06
2+30
0.0103
0.07
2+45
0.0130
0.1:;
Q
3+ 0
0.0162
0.15
Q
3+ 15
0.0194
0. 16
3+30
0.0227
0.16
Q
3+45
0.0260
0.16
Q
4+ 0
o. o-707
(). 11-
r)
5+ 0
0 . 0575
0.40
; 0•
'
6+15
0.0634
0.29
;O
,
5+30
0.0702
0.33
.QV
,
5+45
0.0786
0.41
1 QV
,
1
1
6+ 0
0.0874
0.43
:OV
6+15
0.0977
0.49
1QV
1
1
°
t
6+30
0.1082
0.51
.1 QV
6+45
0.1202
0.58
i QV
1
1
t
t
t
t
7+ (:)
i? . 1,326
0. 60
QV
t
7+15
o.1450
i,;.6ti
0
V
t
t
'
7+3c:)
i;.1588
0.67
Q
V
'
7+45
i;.174:7
0.75
Q
V
8+ C;
0.1915
0.83
0
V
8+15
0.2117
7.9E
Q
V
'
8+ 0
o. 2327
1.01
Q V
'
,8+45
0.2550
1.08
:
Q V
9+ i;
c:; , 279C )
1.16
:
Q V
'
9+ 15
> . ;,i;60
1 . 171 1
Q V
9+ ;i;
!i.3 51
1 .41
1
Q v'
9+45
0.3659
1.49'
1
Q
V
10+ Cll
i . ,964
1.57
Q
V
10+15
i>.4219
1.14
:
Q
V
1
'
t
1ii+;;i�
�;.44:�2
l.ci:.;
,
O
t
V 1
t
1Cr+45
0.471Z
1.`:P6
Gl
`.% 1
t
11+
1.44
C>!
v
11+15
r-,294
1.:�B
7
V
t
1 1 4 •_
'
12+ c:;
i i, bc:�9 =
1. 7
2
,
1
Q
1
�
v1
t
12+15
0.6453
1.74
:
V
12+30
c i . 6848
1.91
Q
V
12+45
C).7274
2.06
Q
V
1
0
v
13+30
0.8769
2.58
0
V
13+45
0.9156
1.87
0
V
14+ ()
0.9508
1 .7o
0
V
14+15
0.9913
1.96
0
V
'
Ti �
14+,,.
1 .0319
1 .96
�
Q
�
V
'V
'
'
14+45
1.0721
1.95
:
Q
1 5 + C;
1.1111
1.89
:
Q
V
'
15+15
1..465
1.81
O
V
15+3i;
1.1842
1
Q
15+45
1.2144
1.46
O'
16+ c:,
1 .2-4 ::
A .4f'
0
V
V
16+15
1. -522
U.43
:Q
V
16+3i.;
1 .. 565
Q . 21
Q
1
V
'
16+45
1.2594
0.14
0
17+ 0
2 .9
1 . 6� 1
0. 1:S
Q
'
V
17+15
1.2674
0.26
Q
V
t
17+3 �
1 .2735
0.29
1 Q
V
;
t
17+45
1.2795
0.29
1Q
`
'
V
'
18+ 0
1.2843
0.23
Q
'
18+15
1.2887
0.22
Q
'
!
V
18+30
1.2933
0.22
Q
V
18+45
1.2965
0.16
Q
V
19+ 0
1.2980
0.08
Q
!
V
19+15
1.3007
0.13.
Q
V
;
•19+30
1.3050
0.21
Q
6'1��V
19+45
1.3083
0.16
Q
V
20+ 0
1.3100
0.08
Q
1
,
'
V'
0.13
Q
21+3p
1.3253
0.09
0
;
;
;
Vi
21+4:5
1.3282
0.14
0
;
S
;
V;
22+ 0
1.3301
0.09
Q
VS
22+15
1.3330
0.14
Q
V�
22+30
1.3349
0.09
Q
V
22+45
1 .3365
0.08
Q
V !
23+ 0
1.3381
0.08
Q
;
;
;
V ;
2'%Ti+15
1.3397
0.08
0
V;
3+3()
1 .3413
0. i �8
Q
V S
+45
1 .342S0
0.08
Q
;
;
;
V ;
24+ 0
1 .3446
c.i , 08
Q
V ;
24+15
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.345i)
O.o2
Q
;
;
;
V;
BEST. BEST
dl KRIEGER
A PMEKAImp 04N1004 ~C=-0ft L Dow*" a
LAWYERS
600 EAST TA)IOMTZ CANYON WAY
PRIMA L LJTTLEWORIN• DOUGLAS $- PHILLIM°
ANTONIA GRAPH"
WILLIAM O DAHLINO. JR.
TERESA J. P"TOJKOVIC
KENNETH R WC1SS
J. CRAIO JOHNSON
POST OFFICE 80x 2710
PALA4 SPATNW. CALIFORNIA W261
OLEN C. 51LP"CMS•
wKUAM R. t•
WTMNE S. FURT"i NSOMI
MMATT"A�I�
SUSAN R DOOM"
T�
TELEPHONE (619) $25-7264
AUT*
BARYON C OAUT
►AUL T "LIEN.
DAVID L. BARON
A1FMCT V DUN"
6T[V[N C O•BAUN
MARK R "Owl
BCRMK L WKAIAMSOM
TE)^ECOPIER (619) 325-03669
OAIIAs ICOLM[S VIRGINIA A PNILLIPS
CHRISTOPHER L CARPENTER' EUGENE TANAKA
GRANT N DVCIRIN
ERIC L GARNER
[WNE [ NKl
WILLIAM J ADAMS
RICHARD T ANDERSOM•
JOHN O WAHLIN'
BASK 1 CHAPMAN
TIMOTHY M CONNOR
DENNIS M COTA
HAYWARD BIGOS
WANDA S MCNCK
KEVIN K RANDOL/H
MICHAEL O. HARRIS•
w CURT EALY'
VICTOR L WOLF
DANIEL E OLIVIER
JULIE
RACHELLE J NICOLL[
ROBERT W HARGREAVES
EUGENIA J MORE[[I
JAMES S GILPIN
Of CAUNS[l
B COMMON
TNOMAS S SLOVAK•
JOHN E. BROWN'
DANIEL J MCHUGH
HOWARD B GOLDS
JANICE L WEIS
CH��
JAMES M KEARNET
UDOL/H
JAMES
RICNAAO A OS//t Ns'
MICNAEL I. RIDDELL'
Y[RL01TN A JURY'
STEPHEN P DEITSCH
MARCJOHN E EMPTYROTIS fER
SM WALKER
MARSH® REVS
pONALD T. VERA
.AOmY'tE0 r Kw W006 Mtva"
MICHAEL GRANT*
TRANCIS J BAUM•
I�AAHRTitN AOMUECLLE
MICHAEL SUMMEROUR
KRK W SMITNARCE
KLYSTA J. POWELL
MAR EA GKSTRA/
GINEVRA C MARUM
Ww w om Os. COLA" OF CU494
ANNE 1. THOMAS'
D MARTIN NETHERY•
J.
DALL
RAYON DASANEINER
JR.
DANI EN OPMAM
M.W FR.
YCS
WILIiAM LOYO. JR
WILLIAM
SCOT? C SMITH
JACK B CLJUIKE
DAVID A. PRCNTICE
KYLE A SNOW
PAVI 0 Ot
CRAIG S. ►YN[$
MICHAEL A CRISTE'
JEANNE77E A PETERSON
BRIAN M LEWIS
MARK A EASTER
CHARLES [ KOLLER
OFFICES W
ICES I86.1190
GREGORY L. HAROKE
KENDALL H M.CVCY
BRADLET E. WILLIS
K WILLIS
DIANMICR l FINLEY
MICNELL[ OUf LLCIK
BEST
RIY[RStOE
RANCHO MIRAGE (619)D68.2611
CLJIRK H ALSOP
DAVID J ERWIN°
GCOf/RCY
KANDY LEE ALLEN
PETER M BARMACK
DAVID P PHIPPEN
R 41913-19
JAMCS N KRIEGER 1197 >!-l9701
JAMES H
EUGENE BEST (1993-1981)
ON TARIO (7141 989.$56/
MICHAEL J. ANOELSON'
ELISE K TRAVNUM
jw
September 5, 1991
John
J. Pena, Mayor
�LAhIN!11,: o r,c►,r'
City
of La Quinta
P.O.
Box 1504E
La Quintal California 92253
Dear Mayor Pena:
As you are no doubt aware, Simon Plaza, Inc. has a design
review application pending before the City to allow construction of
a restaurant/banking facility, a three story medical office
building, a two story recreational facility, as well as an
attendant parking structure to service each of the foregoing
buildings. This parcel, currently in escrow, is owned by 3S
Partnership which consists of Fred Simon, John Sanborn and myself,
and Pomona First Federal. In general, the proposed development has
been well received by the City staff, as well as many other
residents and officials of the City with whom we have shared it.
The staff has requested additional information which is currently
being assembled and will be forwarded to them promptly. In
addition, Simon Plaza and City staff are having ongoing discussions
dealing with the City policy, contained in the General Plan, which
provides that the City should pursue low density (low level)
structures along major arterials. We understand that the City
policy is to require one story structures within 150 feet of the
property line. It is further our understanding that under
appropriate circumstances the City Council may modify that policy
if such modification, on balance, serves the interests of the City.
I. an writing this letter to you because of the long
history of discussions and correspondence you, Mr. Simon, Pomona
and I have had with respect to the property and the Washington
Street Corridor Plan of the City. The purpose of this letter is to
review that history and to point out why we believe a modification
IS15482
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST, BEST 6 KRIEG`.,
John J. Pena, Mayor
September 5, 1991
Page 2
of the City policy with respect to building height, in this case,
serves the interest of both the City and the developer.
As you will recall, this property was subdivided pursuant
to the terms of Parcel Map 18418 in 1982, shortly after the
incorporation of the City. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of
that Map, the 3S Company, and Pomona, the owner of Parcel 6 of that
Parcel map were required by the City to make certain dedications of
rights of way along Washington Street and Highway ill and to
improve those rights of way with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
and traffic light modifications. In addition, of course, we were
required to install water and sewer improvements to serve not only
our property, but also other properties in the area. Those
improvements were later installed at substantial expense to us.
In early 1986, we became aware that the city was
considering an amendment to its General Plan which would adopt as
a part thereof the Washington Street Corridor Plan which would have
a significant impact upon our properties. As the attached
correspondence will attest, we violently objected, and informed the
city that we believed that they city could not exact additional
rights of way and improvements from us, and that if it adopted and
implemented the proposed plan, it could not count on our project to
voluntarily, or as a condition of development, dedicate or improve
the rights of way which would have been required to implement the
plan. We had several meetings with the staff at that time, and
went to considerable time and expense in preparing and presenting
plans which were alternatives to those set forth in the Washington
Street Corridor plan. We were assured that nothing would happen
without further discussions with us.
Unfortunately, in 1987, and without notice to us, the
City adopted a plan which resulted in a proposed widening of
Washington. When we became aware of the change, we immediately
contacted you and the City Manager, and again reiterated our
position that we did not intend to dedicate or improve any addition
right of way along either Washington Street or Highway 111; that we
had an absolute vested right to develop our property in a fashion
consistent with our approved Parcel Map and the zoning applicable
to the property at the time we began development, and that if the
City really intended to implement its plan for Washington, it
should plan on condemning the property, because we would not
dedicate it. We also pointed out that with the Washington Street
Plan in place, and the set backs required along both Washington
Street and Highway 111, the parcel owned by Pomona, and our parcel
situated adjacent to Washington Street had become virtually
undevelopable, and would result in a claim by us and Pomona that
the remainder of those parcels not taken for street expansion had
PTS15482 �} "
&AW O«IC[! 0/
BESTS BEST & KRIEGE.
John J. Pena, Mayor
September 51 1991
Page 3
been rendered virtually useless resulting in a claim by us and
Pomona that the remainder had been taken by inverse condemnation.
Thereafter, we had several meetings with both you and the
City Manager. At a meeting held on October 1, 1990 with
Mr. Kiedrowski, the City Manager, we informed him that we had
several potential buyers for the property, but that we were unable
to proceed with any one of them until the issue of the Washington
Street right of way and set backs had been resolved. He told us
that it was unlikely that the matter could be resolved without
specific development plans being submitted to the City, and he
encouraged us to prepare a plan which would accommodate the needs
of both the city and the owner of the property. He specifically
told us that he thought that the matter could be resolved to the
satisfaction of both the city and us if each of us was mindful of
the concerns of the other. He acknowledged that the right of way
issue was of concern to the city, and suggested that if we were
willing to compromise with respect to the dedication, the city
might very well be willing to compromise with development standards
which might otherwise be applicable to the property. He urged us
to keep in touch with the City as our plans progressed.
Based upon our discussions with both Mr. Kiedrowski and
you, we have worked assiduously to plan a development for the
corner which will serve the interests of both the City and
ourselves. That plan is embodied in the documents which we have
submitted to the City for review and approval, and includes the
dedication by us of Washington Street to its planned width as
desired by the City. It should be noted that in order for us to
accomplish the plan, we have agreed to purchase the Pomona parcel
so that we can offer the dedication and develop the property as an
integrated project. In return, we are requesting that the city
policy regarding height in this area be modified. We believe that
our proposed development will be a significant asset to the city
and will result in a project on this most important intersection at
the entrance to the cove in which the city may well be proud. We
think that this is truly a win -win solution to our mutual problem.
The City gets its right of way, and both we and the city get a
quality development with which we may both be very pleased and
satisfied.
In the event the city is unwilling to modify its policy
regarding height in this area, we will have no alternative other
than to return to development of our portion of the property within
the parcels as set forth in our approved map, and consistent with
the applicable zoning ordinance and policies in effect at the time.
in such event, we will not be in a position to purchase the Pomona
parcel or to dedicate the Washington Street frontage. Pomona will
,154W
♦AW OFFICES OF
BEST, BEST & KRIEGE..
John J. Pena, Mayor
September S, 1991
Page d
undoubtedly develop its parcel independent of us. Furthermore. we
are of the legal opinion that the City may not, in such event,
require the dedication as a condition of the development. We
believe that this alternative is a lose -lose proposal. The city
does not get its right of way, and both the city and we get a
development which will not match what we are currently proposing in
terms of quality. We hope that we are not left in this position.
As always, we remain ready, willing and able to meet with
you, the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff at any
time to discuss the matter further. If additional information is
desired, please give me a call, and we will respond immediately.
We are most anxious to have this matter resolved at the earliest
possible time. Since 1986, we have entered into agreements to sell
the property to three separate buyers. Each one of them has walked
away from the transaction because of the uncertainty surrounding
the dedication and set back issues. We hope that we can finally
put this matter behind us.
matter.
Thank you for your consideration of this most important
Yours very truly,
C� __�
Paul T.
P°TS/ ssk
Enclosures
cc: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
✓Jerry Herman, City Planner
Gilbert F. Smith, Pomona First Federal
Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc.
Fred Simon, 3S Partnership
John Sanborn, 3S Partnership
►tsts U
July 22, 1986
Mr. John J. Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear John:
I would like to acknowledge your correspondence of July
18, 1986, in reference to the road design of Highway Ill/
Washington Street Intersection.
We are in the process of the final negotiations of selling
the property to a developer and it would certainly be
beneficial.to get some commercial property established
on that corner as soon as possible. I am sure that with
the interest you have expressed in your letter, once we
have a Developer's Plan suitable for submission, we can
move ahead for final consideration.
I will continue in my efforts and hope we can get develop-
ment started with the City s assistance., •
Sincerely,
SIMON MOTORS, INC.
red J. Simon
President
FJS:mec
CC: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Community Development Director
Robert Weddle, City Engineer
• ' John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb
Paul Selzer, Best, Best & Krieger
Bob Nichols, Pomona First Federal
"The Nome of Personal Service � � -
P. O. Box 1461, 78-611 Highway 111, La Quints, California 92253 (619) 346-2345
NOW
78.105 CALLE ESTADO - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564.2246
July 18, 1986
Fred J. Simon, President
Simon Motors, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1461
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Fred:
Pursuant to your request, the Community Development Department has
reviewed both of your proposed revisions to the road design at the
Highway 111/Washington Street intersection. The City appreciates
your efforts in preparing alternative designs for the area which
take into consideration both your concerns about additional
right-of-way and community concerns relating to traffic safety.
With regards to the designs proposed by Sanborn/Webb, they represent
acceptable design possibilities for the Washington Street corridor
near the Highway 111 intersection. Each generally provides for
adequate capacity and uses accepted traffic design standards. Each
would also be considered as consistent with the adopted Washington
Street Specific Plan.
You should be aware that it was not the purpose of the Washington
Street Specific Plan to select a precise road design and no such
design has been determined at this time. The Specific Plan was
intended to provide general design and right-of-way criteria for
the corridor and any number of design alternatives, including those
prepared by Sanborn/Webb, will be considered in the upcoming phases
of plan implementation. While it is premature to select a particular
design at this time, please be assured that it is certainly the
City s intent to minimize potential right-of-way acquisition to give
due consideration to existing improvements, to carefully evaluate
impacts on affected property owners and to minimize road improvement
costs in the ultimate improvement of this important road corridor.
The City is currently preparing a precise alignment study and a
financing feasibility study and, following that, experts to prepare
.improvement plans in its efforts to improve the Washington Street
corridor to at least a four -lane condition as soon as possible.
In the event that your desire to secure approvals for and develop
the Washington Street frontage parcels would occur prior to the
completion of these studies, the City will attempt to resolve the
07
MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. sox 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92?s?
Fred Simon, President
Simon Motors, Inc.
July 18, 1986
Page 2.
precise design issues as part of any development application that
would be submitted for the affected parcels. It is expected that the
general comments on the Sanborn/Webb revisions would provide adequate
guidance to prepare site development designs suitable for submittal.
In preparing those plans, you should feel free to work with Larry
Stevens, Community Development Director, and Bob Weddle, City
Engineer, in order to minimize the impact of changes that typically
occur through the development review process.
It is hoped that this response gives you adequate assurance that we
can work in concert in resolving mutual concerns along this very
important corridor. I believe that we can achieve our common goals
best by continuing to work together. Your interest in resolving any
differences and continuing to progress towards mutually acceptable
solutions is appreciated.
Sincerely,
(?4n qena /r
Mayor
JJP:LLS:dmv
cc: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Community Development Director
Robert Weddle, City Engineer
John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb
Paul Selzer
Bob Nichols
Pomona
Since 1892
First Federal Savings and loan Association
July 3, 1986
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, Calif. 92253
Re: Widening of Washington Avenue
Dear Mayor Pena:
Pomona First Federal has received a copy of the
plans submitted on behalf of Simon Motors, Inc. in regard
to the proposed Washington Avenue widening. Although this
would still have a detrimental affect on our property, it
is much more acceptable than the previous action taken by
the City. It appears that the Groves traffic study, includ-
ing projections for traffic through the year 2035, is more
realistic than other reports received by the City.
The Plan submitted by Mr. Simons substantially re-
duces the cost to the city and permits property usage which
would result in additional taxes for the city. It also
renders our property as being immediately usable rather than
unuseable as will result under your present plan and would
result in a lower acquisition costs.
Our Board of Directors has not had a meeting to discuss
the amended plan submitted by Mr. Simon, but I feel confident
that it will meet with much more approval by the Board than
the present plan.
Thanking you in advance for consideration of the pro-
posed plan by the La Quinta City Council, I remain
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM G. BERGMAN, ta'
Vice Chairman of the d of
Directors of Pomona Firs Federal
Savings and Loan Association
WGB,JR:ps
O '7
Aomintatretive Offices: 350 South Garet Avenue . P.O. Boa 1520 • POMOne, Ca00018 91769 • (714) 623.2323 • (213) 625.7666 . (818) 464•7800 . (714) 972.OS21
PONTIAC
CR m6khft �Tl(l((( Rl� TB7l�iutyW ®TAYCK•
June 26, 1986
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA 00
Post Office Box 1504 L O .
La Quinta, CA. 92253 405v A
Dear John: S
Enclosed is a work -up that Mr. John Sanborn has completed
after visiting with Judith Cox and Larry Allen of the City
Council, and Larry Stevens of your Planning Department. The
plan submitted to you on June 13, 1986, revised the original
plan developed by B.S.I. and your Planning Department, which
severely cut the property on the corner of Washington and
Highway 111. After submitting our revision and attending
the projected traffic study by the Groves, Mr. Sanborn and
Mr. Selzer visited with the three individuals mentioned
abl9ve, and from their discussions, Mr. Sanborn made several
additional revisions which show adaquet lanes to accept the
traffic patterns as outlined in his correspondence dated
June 24, 1986, a copy of which is attached along with revision
number 2 by the property owners.
I think this plan makes alot of sense because the median
islands are sufficiently wide at six feet, and would seperate
the traffic patterns adaquetly. The end results are that less
property is needed to accomodate the traffic patterns than on
our first revision and therefore less cost to the City would
be necessary in acquiring this land.
Even with this revision, Pomona 1st Federal would lose -
4050 square feet and 3S loses 6400 square feet, in comparison
to the original plan submitted and approved by the City Council
which would be well over an acre or close to 50,000 square
feet.
I hope you will all take this into consideration and allow
us to discuss this matter with you if there are any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
SIMON MOTORS, INC.
a/ad 6
Fred J. Simon
President
"The Nome of Personal Service" cc: Nichols
P. O. Box 1461, 78-611 Highway 111, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 3 yWn
Selzer
Stevens
June 13, 1986
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA. 92253
Dear Sir:
This letter is to conf irm our telephone conversation of June
12, 1986, relative to the changes adopted on the corner of Highway
111 and Washington Street, that have taken such a large protion of
the land from the East side of the corner, that it renders the
parcels owned by Pomona 1st Federal, unbuildable. It also severely
Bisects the parcel owned by 3S on the corner of Simon Drive and
Washington Street, which again would make it questionable as to
whether or not it would be useable as a commercial site.
I have submitted a revised plan to you that has been worked up
by Sanborn Webb, Inc., which we think works. It also limits the
loss of property to the two owners and would reduce substantially,
the cost of acquiring the parcels, by the City of La Quinta, in
order to do the plan that was originally adopted. We have included
a study done by the Groves that was submitted to the City and was
accepted by you as a traffic study for Washington Street. It varies
quite drastically from the one B. S..I. is now submitting for the
Washington Street corridor. The groves projection, projects
considerably less traffic than the B. S. I., and we, for the sake
of common sense, can not see Washington Street carrying more traffic
than Highway 111 in future years, and that in essence, is what their
study and your planner have done with the configurations on the
current plan.
Our recommendations have many advantageous points that should
be taken into consideration.
1) Adequately covers the traffic project for Washington Street.
2) Allows for stacking on the corner.
3) Eliminates severe loss of property by owners of corner.
4) Reduces cost to City tremendously.
5) Logically allows solutions to problem, so we can proceed
with developing the corner immediately. ,
6) With the corner developed, we can begin to bring revenue
into the City, rather than taking revenue out of the City's
coffers.
7) Continues to solve the problem for the people at "Point happy".
"The Home of Personal Service"
P. O. Box N61. 78-611 Highway i i i. La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346-2345
Mr. John Pena
June 13, 1986
Page Z
All in all, this alternative plan resolves the problem at
"Point Happy". It resolves the problem of traffic stacking. It
resolves the problem logically for all concerned and limits the
need for acquiring entirely the two parcels affected.
I hope you can personally participate and I am asking Mr.
Bob Nichols of Pomona 1st Federal, Paul Selzer and John Sanborn
of 3S, to personally participate with your Planning Department
and your City Council to correct this problem as quickly as
possible so that we may proceed to develope the land and bring
revenue into the City!!
Sincerely,
SIMON MOTORS,kANC.
Fred J
Presid
FJS:mer
cc: Bob Nichols
Paul Selzer
John Sanborn
Larry Stevens
LAW orrlccs or
�.•. :�•
vci•:.lV.G.1
.t,.
r: .♦ C f.:
CON41. f :t•M1110
•Jirl� f t•
IA t. r I&;.t C+.O%t•t
J•.r. J
1'r:. n C.
i.• ,
r t C t
•,i � V G'
.t'•�:rt I. Ci !•.ter .(
•l: : •• r. r :4. 1
•.:ir C $Ill: r.
..ynv L .�e
JACA a CLA'•rC
,frt. L.tiC.
•l!•.!'T1t A (!,t=•SON
..J, !:• f...rt
Cam':•".! V. ♦^r'N
•A rr•L.*!hticv. CCvc GrAt16•i
Apt: 1 25, 1986
Ci.t'; Council
City of La QAnta
La Q-Jinta, CA 92253
rir5'r. DEST C. KRIEGEr.
r 0.6•4t1tr.0 M.1kc.%G •�(I t>♦ OM. {YI.�r11.(r7
COO C/.:•T TA► O;.,11Z"• V[CA:LUt•1 W T
P. C•Gif. 2710
r/•:1/ :,FrM:Sr'.CAL1r'Oti1J1A 92ZC.4
1 E L E P11ONE'•4f 19; 3.'5.7264
1tLE7 7Si73C
Dea::::a�•or end ;1ei::bers of the Council:
Ptvcnat.c er►::c
„tvtRj'•Of.:aL1+C. •• ( t?:t:i
(7 a,<LC•Ia; S
PAIISI<: 1"PAOc e'rOU
397JG Lt. �•L C' 1Ji1:
I C
A .. �.:
C,cc.c (tir pc;.•lal.1
This office represents the 3S Company and Simon Family Part T:cY:,'..L
tah,D are the o:,mers o;: Pcrcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and Parcel E*ap
1841 S respect an-' this letter is written in connection
you. proposed Washington S::reet Corridor Amendment to the Genera-'
Pla:z.
W.e hav- been i.nforned the-*- both the City Council and the Pla~r..nq
Co:- .:_ssiell have held Publi ;. Fearings in connection with the
i'la:i :,-:e1:�;.:ier.t i1u that ti•e City Cou:;cil has adopted that
CoGen�,rai Plan. 17:iTo_'runately, neither the 3S Co^partV T:o:
the received notice of any Public ]:c::•1:'.:
t;c•...i,:.. to s•:y, i:j', client. object arc-hc•-cntly to the p=
1 arc .:..i1 -..--itoe to tl:a follc:
i1'i':1 proper no- :ce CST t�1�? :t'c: li':��: 1': _ .'t
the P1 1::d-i.,t' CJ:...'i� S1C:1 F..'tt� C. -v CO: cil ;
c
f'o :i'tilt.. I'14'..-0 or, t};.'
or
h;is not i%c.cii e.*;,,.,ns::_•,_,! ::e(' ;
^ 'i L 1,C,rr e11 0the r1.11! osa) falls entirely upon tho
O'..,:lers c *:st of Washington Strect While ti-io bene-fiz
tit the o�:c:c:rs of pro, erty west of
:(• '�!il' ��r��ilert:r ]uc•s l.isto i:i tra study are sicr.i_..
t i1c^ sat for the in C-fc:•s to }„Y,-cif gi
1•C•CLIX01.: 1)v c]..:11.:s; r-.1k!•
Cit v Council
April. 25, 1986
Pagc 7'%.,o
5. 'Yhc c::if:tcnce of the Ccnern:l Plan Amc>ne7ent so si.gni.fi.crntl;
clouds the ti '-le to the proper. ties o•, ned by my clier is as tc
it unmarketable.
In view of the foregoing v, � would respectfully request that the City
reopen the He -firings on this matter after properly giving notice to each
o%.ner entitled thereto in order that we may have apple opportunity to
present evidence and alternatives to those plans reco-=,ended by the
Planniir►r, Co ,�nissi.on and apparently adopted by the City Council in its
Spceif.i.c Plan Nu-:►ber 86-007. 1-Mile we wish to cooperate with the City
in its-ndeavors to improve the area, I am sure you will understand
our: concern when we fo-.ind out after the fact that after having already
dedicated 36 feet along 1.1ashington Streit, five feet along Highway Ill
and installing curbs, &utters, side,:.alks and traffic signals all at
significant expense arl all within the last three years, the City no-..;
wishes to tear out all of that work and render valueless at least two
of the parcels .•ith Parcel Map Number 18418 all without notice to us.
In view of the drastic economic effects this is having on our clients
at the present time, we would respectfully request an early response
to this letter.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.
Yours eery truly,
BEST, BEST KRIEGER
F�r.ul T. `el_zer
PYSts
CC: Jon Sanborn
Fred Sir..:)n
bcc: Gilbert Smith, Pomona First Federal
9.88.050
B. There are no yard requirements for buildings which
do not exceed thirty-five feet in height, except as required
for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds
thirty-five feet in height shall be set back from the front,
rear and side lot lines not less than two feet for each foot
by which the height exceeds thirty-five feet. The front
'r setback shall be measured from the existing street line un-
less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will
be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear
setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or
from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line ad-
joins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the
same as required for a front setback. Each side setback
06- shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing
G) adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan
street line.
C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty
�4._. feet in height,•unless a height up to seventy-five feet is
specifically permitted under the provisions of Chapter 9.192
d of this title.
D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as re-
quired by Chapter 9.160 of this title.
E. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight
distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. (Ord. 5
§1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S9.53)
Chapter 9.90
C-V ZONE (COMMERCIAL VI
Section'
9.90.01 Generally.
9.90.015 rpose.
9.90.020 Pe itted use .
9.90.030 Acce ory u s permitted.
9.90.040 Commer 'a and multifamily plot plan review
require
9.90.050 Design ev w required.
9.90.060 Deve pment tandards.
9.90.070 Su ones.
9.0.071 -C "The core ubzone.
9.990.072 -V-P "The park" s zone.
9.90.07 C-V-S "South" subzon
9.90. 4 C-V-N "North" subzone.
9.9 .080 GV,r
186-79 (La Quinta 5/89)
Excerpt from the adopted General Plan - Urban Design Component
POLICY 6.5.4 — SPECIAL GATEWAY TREATMENTS AT MAJOR
ENTRIES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DOWNTOWN
SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
' HIGHWAY 111/WASHINGTON STREET -
ISLAND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A
MONUMENT SIGN AND OTHER SPECIAL
FEATURES.
' VILLAGE GATEWAY - SPECIAL PAVING
AND LANDSCAPING.
POLICY 6.5.5 - SECONDARY GATEWAY, TREATMENTS SHALL
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS:
' EISENHOWER DRIVE AND WASHINGTON
STREET
' CALLE TAMPICO AND WASHINGTON STREET
' FRED WARING DRIVE AND WASHINGTON
STREET
' JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111
' CALLE TAMPICO AND EISENHOWER DRIVE
POLICY 6.5.6 - SPECIAL THEMES INCLUDING MEDIAN
LANDSCAPING, PARKWAY LANDSCAPING,
STREET LIGHTS, PERIMETER WALLS, SIGNIN(
AND RELATED DESIGN TREATMENTS SHALL BE
DEVELOPED.
POLICY 6.5.7 - ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREET
IMAGE CORRIDORS THE CITY SHALL
ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE BUILDING HEIGHT
LIMITS TO ASSURE A LOW DENSITY
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE.
POLICY 6.5.8 - LARGE PARKWAYS AND SETBACKS ARE
NECESSARY TO ASSURE A HIGH -QUALITY AND
ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE ON MAJOR STREETS
SETBACKS FOR WALLS, BUILDINGS AND
PARKING AREAS MAY VARY, IF PROPERLY
DESIGNED, BUT SHALL GENERALLY BE AS
i� FOLLOWS:
MAJOR AND PRIMARY ARTERIALS - 20 FEE
HIGHWAY 111 - 50 FEET
OTHER STREETS - 10 FEET
TRADE-OFFS FOR IMAGINATIVE DESIGNS MAI
BE CONSIDERED.
l
Design Review Board Minutes
October 2, 1991
Th a being o fur t r dis ssion, t was ove b Chai n e
and conded Boar embe Curt toad t Min to Mo n 91
031 re c mendin appr al to a Pla 'ng mmis ' n su 'ect\
to the Ap licant w king 'th S on c cern Un 'mou y
approved.
6.
J
Plot Plan 91-466
commercial cente
a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a
r.
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. Approved with
Boardmember Curtis voting NO.
D. P t Plan 91- 67 y a request of
uro Dosed sing story ap`krtmer
1, ssociate nner yr
co tained in a Staff
Plan 'nLr and D elope
2. Mr. CrakI ryant,
backgroun-d of the
DRBMIN-10/2 3
, Inc. for appf'eval of a
Trous'80 presented the 'nforma
)ort, a y of w 'ch is on 'le in
t npnartment.
ressed
r
BUILDING HEIGHT SUMMARY
November 1991
1. Tract 23773, Starlight Dune (1990), 75% of the dwelling
units within 150 feet of Fred Waring Drive shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). Along the north
property line of the tract all units shall be one story
(201) except lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story.
2. Tract 18915, Palm Royale (1983) - Approved by the County
of Riverside in 1983. Two story buildings were allowed,
however, only a few units are located within 150 feet of
Washington Street.
3. Tract 23971, Deane Homes (1990), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to
one story (20 feet). No two story buildings are allowed
within 150 feet of Washington Street.
4. Tract 23269, La Quinta Highland (1988), All dwelling
units within 100 feet of Fred Waring and Adam Street
shall be limited to one story. All dwelling units
within 100 to 150 feet shall be limited to one story (20
feet) as approved by the Planning Commission.
5. Tract 23268, Acacia (1988), All dwelling units within 150
feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20
feet) .
6. Tract 24517, Waring/Adams Venture (1989), 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be
limited to one story (20 feet).
7. Tract 23913, Quinterra (1988), 80% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
8. Tract 25290, Rancho Ocotillo (1989), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to
one story (20 feet).
9. Tract 19903, La Quinta Palms (1984), One story single
family homes were built.
10. Tract 25953, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
11. Tract 22982, Cactus Flower (1988), All dwelling units
within 150 feet of Fred Waring and Dune Palms Road shall
be limited to one story (20 feet).
12. Tract 24208, LQ Association/Williams (1989), The R1
Zoning Standards apply.
13. Tract 24950, Chong Lee (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
14. Tract 256910 Deman (1990), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
15. Tract 24197, Triad (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue, Jefferson Street and
Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet).
16. Tract 23995, Spanos, (1989), All dwelling units within
150 feet of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be
limited to one story for the multiple family area. 75%
of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue
shall be limited to one story (20 feet) for the R-1 area.
17. Specific Plan 88-014, Transpacific, Per CPS Zoning
standards with plot plan review required. Plot plan
91-468 (Auto Club) is presently being processed at the
intersection of Washingston and Highway 111 for a one
story building (21 feet).
18. Tract 23519, Santa Rosa (1990) Amend. 1, 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). No two story units
shall be constructed next to each other along Miles
Avenue, and the two story units shall be on the lowest
building pads.
19. Tract 25363, Santa Rosa (1990), The R1 Zoning standards
will apply.
20. Tract 26188, Santa Rosa (1991), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
21. Tract 23935, Topaz (1989), 758 of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
22. Specific Plan 88-011, Washington Square, Per CPS Zoning
standards. No development plans have been processed.
23. Tract 24230 and Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta (1989). 75%
of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Adams shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). No dwelling units
within 150 feet of 48th Avenue shall be higher than one
story (201) in height.
0Si
Commercial development is subject to a conditional use
permit. Building heights will be determined by the
Planning Commission. No development applications have
been submitted.
24. Plot Plan 91-466, Simon Plaza (1991), A two story
building (281) has been proposed at the intersection of
Washington Street and Highway 111 (SE). However, the
plan has not been reviewed by the Commission or the City
Council at this time.
25. Specific Plan 84-004, Pyramids, All dwelling units within
75 feet of the property line shall be limited to one
story.
26. Tracts 13640 and 20052, Conditional Use Permit 2262E,
Laguna De La Paz (1979), Single story buildings were
constructed.
27. Tract 3448, etc., La-Quinta Golf Estates, All dwelling
units are limited to one story.
28. Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta (1986 and 88), All dwelling
units on Washington Street were limited to one story (21
feet) and have been constructed.
29. Tract 25154, Valley Land (1989), The R1 standards will
apply. The two story units will be approved by the
Commission but this site does not abut an arterial
street.
30. Tract 261481 Amcor (1990), All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (17 feet) per the SR Zoning Code
provisions.
31. Specific Plan 83-001, Duna La Quinta (1985), All dwelling
units within 200 feet of the tract boundary shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). This provision did not
apply to the LQ Stormwater channel which allowed building
29 feet in overall height. Two story units were allowed
(35 feet max.).
32. Plot Plan 91-467, Desert Villas LTD. (1991), All dwelling
units within the 109 unit apartment complex are single
story. The City Council has not reviewed the applicant's
Change of Zone request.
33. Tract 25389, Duna La Quinta/Brock (1990)0 All dwelling
units on lots 1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 2041 207-
211 and 238-255 shall be limited to one story (25 feet).
See Specific Plan 83-001 for other requirements.
34. Tract 25429, Chateau (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one
story (22 feet).
35. Tract 265241 Strothers (1990), 75% of all dwelling units
on 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet
max. ) within 150 feet. All lots on the southerly portion
of the tract shall have homes not greater than 22 feet in
height (lots 15-21).
36. Specific Plan 84-003, Orchard (1990), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to
one story (20 feet).
37. Specific Plan 85-006, Oak Tree West, All dwelling units
within 200 feet of the property line or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet) within
a limited, defined area.
38. Tract 21880, Time Valley Land (ext. 3, 1991), All
dwelling units within 200 feet of 52nd Avenue, Avenida
Bermudas, and the tract boundaries shall be limited to
one story. Other related cases are: Specific Plan 85-
005A and B; 52nd Avenue realignment, 1985, and the
Washington Specific Plan (SP 86-007, 1989).
39. Tract 26855, Kanlian (1991), Unapproved; No action at
this time.
40. Tract 26718, Hansch (1991), Unapproved; No action at this
time.
41. Specific Plan 90-016, Landmark Land (1991), All dwelling
units within 200 feet of boundary of the site or public
street shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units are limited to two story (30 feet). The City
Council has not reviewed this case at this time.
42. Tract 24507, Steven Brummel (1990), Building heights were
not addressed in this development approval. Existing R-
1 Zone requirements would apply.
43. Tract 26972, Dr. Darr (1991), All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (18 feet). The City Council has
not approved this case at this time.
44. Tract 27187, Pudney (1991), All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (18 feet). This case has not been
approved by the City Council.
45. Tract 24774, Vista Development (198a/90), Building
heights were not addressed in the tract map approval.
46. Specific Plan 90-020/Tract'26472/Tract 26473, 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of 52 Avenue shall be
limited to one story (18 feet), whereas, two story homes
fit'=.
shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height.
47. Specific Plan 90-018, Tracts 26008 and 26009, Vista
Development (1989/90), The specific plan addressed 20
foot high buildings for this area.
48. Specific Plan 83-002, PGA West (1989), Amend. 11 A - The
portion of the area designated for six story (72 feet)
height south of the Airport Blvd.- alignment shall be
deleted: B - All residential units shall be limited to a
max. of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C - The
hotel shall be limited to a max. height of six stories;
and the other related buildings, not attached to the
hotel, within the Village Core shall be limited to two
stories. The original Specific Plan applies and allows
one story buildings (28 feet) within 300 feet or more of
a public arterial.
49. Tract 25500 (Madison Street, south of 54th), Sunrise
Desert Partners (1990), Amendment 11 Single story homes
were approved.
Note: Numerous Tracts have been approved within the PGA
West development per SP 83-002, however, the only two
story units in the project are west of PGA Boulevard.
50. Tract 26769, Qualico (1991), All dwelling units within
150 feet of Monroe Street shall be one story (22 feet).
51. Tract 27224, Madison Estates/Seastar (1991), All
dwelling units shall be limited to one story (21 feet).
This case has not been reviewed by the City Council.
52. Specific Plan 90-015, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units
within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units shall not exceed 30 feet. The plan has not
been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the
Planning Commission).
53. Specific Plan 90-017, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units
within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units shall not to exceed 30 feet. This case has
not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by
the Planning Commission).
Avenue
44
Fred Warina
68911 1
'
��• 2 4
12
Miles Ave. 3 5
.:
7 10 13 1
SR >>> 6
18 19
20 21
17
H
E
N
2
p� N
E
a
C
•.-
3 a
C
h
IOiI
n'
3
26 25
25
CASE Na
/ I 99f Avenue
27 28 29 25
+;
30 avenue SO
31 31 34 35 36 c i?
32 33 39 43
Tampico w 40 41 44
37 ; 42
> Avenue 52
0 38 37
i
d
3
0
r
c
48
CASE MAP
46
45 Avenue 54
49 0S51 50
52
Airpori Blvd.
53
Avenue 58
Building Height Survey (City-wide)
November 1991
r
NORTH
SCALE: N1rS'.
gt
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NO. VAR 91-019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, the 10th day
of December, 1991, and the 14th day of January, 1992, hold duly -noticed Public
Hearings to consider the request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for a Variance to Section
9.160.045 and 9.160.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) , to allow a
reduction in the setback requirements and on -site parking standards, more
particularly described as:
NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E.
APN: 617-020-020 THROUGH 025
WHEREAS, said Variance request has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (As
amended and adopted by. City Council Resolution 83-68), in that the Planning
Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to justify the denying of said Variance:
1. The strict application of the building setback requirements and off-street
parking standards to the subject property will not deprive the property owner
of receiving an economic return on his development investment since other
properties in the area have met the minimum City requirements. The purpose
and intent of the Zoning Code standards is to promote health and safety
standards and provide design guidelines which are necessary to insure each
property owner has the same privileges as his/her abutting neighbor.
2. Denial of the Variance will prevent the City from granting special privileges
to the Applicant consistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property
in the area which have had to meet the minimum Zoning Code provisions.
3. The development of the property with reduced setbacks would adversely
affect the continued enjoyment of the properties in the area and set a
precedent in the City to reduce the City Design Standards to a lesser degree
than planned by the implementation of the City's existing Zoning Code and
General Plan.
RESOPC.053
1
4. The developer has not shown that this property has special problems which
are not unlike other properties in this area of the City. The property is large
enough to support urban improvements and no topographic problems are
prevalent on this site to warrant a reduction in City development standards
due to special merit concerns.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment
91-211 which indicated that denial of the Variance would not constitute a
significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of January, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.053
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND
GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND OFF-STREET PARKING PROVISIONS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NO. VAR 91-019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, the 10th day
of December, 1991, and the 14th day of January, 1992, hold duly -noticed Public
Hearings to consider the request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for a Variance to Section 9.160
La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) , to allow a reduction in the setback requirements
and deviation in the Off -Street Parking code, more particularly described as:
NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E.
APN: 617-020-020 THROUGH 025
WHEREAS, said Variance request has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as
amended and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68) , in that the Planning
Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to justify the granting of said Variance:
1. The strict application of the building setback requirements to the subject
property will deprive the property owner of receiving an economic return on
their development investment if the structures are not permitted, as
described. The purpose and intent of the setback standards is to provide
design guidance but requirements may be reasonably attained by special
conditions of approval.
2. The Variance would not constitute the granting of any special privileges
inconsistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property in the area if
the Applicant was allowed to deviate from Zoning Code provisions because the
property is irregular in shape.
3. The development of the property will not affect the continued enjoyment of the
property to the east (Simon Motors) because both properties are owned by the
same entity. The architectural character of the multiple story buildings at
this intersection will promote view corridor windows through the project thus
creating interesting focal points for the project and for the City in general.
The design will create a unique setting for this area.
REsoPC.062 1
4. The Conditions of Approval will assure that the integrity of the Washington
Street Specific Plan and General Plan will be upheld and this action will not
negatively affect adjacent parcels.
5. The Variance request is consistent with the City's General Plan Urban Design
Program (Policy 6.5.8) which provides allowance for imaginative design
solutions which proposes variation in walls, setbacks, and buildings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment
91-211 which indicated that approval of the Variance would not constitute a
significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact.
3. That it does hereby grant said Variance 91-019 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions ( Exhibit "All).
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of January, 1992, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.062 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE 91-019 - PROPOSED
SIMON PLAZA
JANUARY 14, 1992
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS:
1. The Variance shall become null and void if not used in conjunction with the
development of the property pursuant to Plot Plan 91-466.
2. All requirements of the Uniform Building Code shall be met.
3. The front yard setback on Highway 111 as measured from the ultimate street
right-of-way, shall be 35 feet for the Bowling Alley complex, 35 feet for the
off-street parking spaces and 35 feet for the Restaurant/Bank building.
4. The average setback distance on Washington Street shall be 20 feet, as
measured from the future property line, for any proposed building.
RESOPC.062 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN 91-466 - PROPOSED
JANUARY 14, 1992
SIMON PLAZA
* Modified by Staff after the Design Review Board meeting.
GENERAL
1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the
exhibits contained in the file for PP 91-466, unless amended otherwise by the
following conditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval
date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be
used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated
by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year
period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time
extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code.
3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly
on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard
type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control
Ordinance and off-street parking requirements.
5. Adequate trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided
with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The
Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the
number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate.
6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention
basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and
placement of said fence(s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code
and State requirements.
9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and
approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of
grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise
impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the
proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation
CONAPRVL.037 1
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks,
engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming,
landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques.
10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements
including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking
spaces.
11. Decorative screen walls (i.e. , berms with landscaping, masonry walls, etc.)
provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen parking lot
surfaces and a majority of parked cars from view of the street. Determination
of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans
by City.
12. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible
adjacent to property lines and provided in landscaping.
13. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance.
14. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay
costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and
recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other
unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the
plan.
The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society
(CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan
shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the
information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the
preliminary result show significant materials are present.
The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department
for final review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained
a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and
data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the
grading activity as required by the plan or testing results.
A list of the qualified archaeological monitor (s) , cultural resources
management firm employees, and any assistant (s) / representative (s) , shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide
the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated
monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be
effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and
Development Department.
CONAPRVL.037
2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow
recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human
remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the
site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human
remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies
of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published
and submitted to the Planning and Development Department.
15. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances
from the following agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Imperial Irrigation District
o Caltrans ( District 11)
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall
be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a
building permit for the proposed project.
16. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City
adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of
building permits.
17. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley
Water District.
18. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by
Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re-
installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority
(e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department.
19. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the
Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site
which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land
owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and
site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of
irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not
constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover
or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c . )
CONAPRVL.037
3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce
the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner
shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning
and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least
twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand.
20. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements
in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building
Official.
21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit
a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating
compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to
issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval,
the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating
compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures.
The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other
monitoring to assure such compliance.
22. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no
parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and
Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building
permit.
23. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or
other architecturally matching materials.
24. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only".
25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as
follows:
A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering
pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design
Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the
Applicant / Developer.
B . The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation
of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn,
shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper,
Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and
Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of
flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and
CONAPRVL.037 4
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants
should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the
Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing
their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along
Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will
be required (less than 160 watt) .
C . The proposed retention areas on -site shall be landscaped with materials
which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-
off from paved surfaces.
D . Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design
Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should
be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and
meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter
9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking) . The height of the light poles
shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should
reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project.
E. The Developer shall contribute to the landscape and/or hardscape
program of the future median island on Washington Street and Highway
111.
* F. A one story building height of 21 feet shall be maintained along
Washington Street within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after
street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural
appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.) .
G . Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way
driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and
colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and
location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board
during a final plan check review.
H . The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to
the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check
consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to
landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc.
I. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for
usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall
be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code.
J. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20
feet from the new property line.
K. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges,
or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches.
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
L. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission
prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed
building structures.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
26. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for
a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow
is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
27. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" X 4" X 2-1 / 2" 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.
28. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/Developer shall furnish one
blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for
review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be
signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system
is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department."
The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to start of construction.
29. 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 .
30. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform
Building Code.
31. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must
be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department
for review.
32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
CONAPRVL.037 6
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
33. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
#503.
34. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
35. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
36. Install a Class I Standpipe System.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
37. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in
conformance with the city's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific
Plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows:
A. Washington Street - Provide right of way as required by the Washington
Street Specific Plan.
B. Washington Street/Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right of way cut
back as needed to accommodate a 45-foot curb return.
C . Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within ten (10) days
after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City.
38. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted
minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way:
A. Washington Street - 20-feet wide;
B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide;
C . Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide
39. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site
except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site
plan drawing.
40. Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street
improvements to be installed by the City located east of the Washington Street
Specific Plan Centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new
improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete
overlay, raised median island with landscaping and hardscape, 8-foot wide
sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals
and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and
existing improvements.
41. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new
traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection.
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
42. Applicant shall reimburse City for 25% of the cost to design and install traffic
signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection.
43. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout"
on Highway 111.
44. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised
median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion
contiguous to the project site.
45. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the
City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before
the grading permit is issued.
46. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering
investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with
grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer
and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading
plan.
47. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
48. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference
between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do
not exceed three (3.0) feet.
49. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to
evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets
adjoining the site during the, 1-hour duration, 25-year storm event. The
storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the
Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share
basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by
the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time
constraints which suit the Applicant.
The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall
extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive.
50. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed
landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the
Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the
plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction.
CONAPRVL.037 8
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
51. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and
irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval
with respect to the District's Water Management Program.
52. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right
of way between all street curbing and property lines.
53. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the
combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of
Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide
sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive.
54. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric
power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or
on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities.
55. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions
thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior
to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer
retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests
for review by the City Engineer.
56. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing,
plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those
which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the
city.
57. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one
who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality
control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify
compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances.
The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this
responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon
completion of construction:
A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built"
plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these
plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my
supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and
specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved,
except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by
the City Engineer".
B . prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a
separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that
documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each
pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built
elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall
CONAPRVL.037 9
x
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted
at different times.
C . provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible
drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the
Applicant.
58. The parking stalls in the parking structure on each side of the aisle nearest
Washington Street that are located within in the first 100 feet shall be
restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate
queuing that may extend beyond the parking structure.
59. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted
to right turn movements only.
60. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive
shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington
Street Specific Plan.
SPECIAL
61. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the
County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after approval/review of the
proposed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
62. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and
Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall
include landscaping, irrigations, signing, addressing, street, mechanical,
lighting, utility plans and materials.
63. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of
the proposed development.
64. The parking structure shall not exceed two covered levels above ground (plus
one top level) in overall height or 27 feet as measured from finished grade pad
elevation. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed
six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall.
65. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-211 shall be met.
66. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance.
67. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the
required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre
of disturbed land.
68. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into
the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop
landscaping as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
CONAPRVL.037 10
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
January 14, 1992
69. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance
of parking spaces provided based on Urban Land Institute Guidelines. Prior
to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based
on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study,
building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking
deficiency exists.
CONAPRVL.037 11
PH-#3
DATE:
CASE NO:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 14, 1992
TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, EXTENSION #1
VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT; MR. TOM THORNBURGH
LA QUINTA 98
PROJECT
ENGINEER:
ADVANCED ENGINEERING GROUP; MR. JOE SON EJI
PROPOSAL:
FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25154; DIVISION OF
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 25187 INTO 98 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE HOME DEVELOPMENT
LOCATION:
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE AND DATE
PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION (1,320 FEET EAST OF
WASHINGTON STREET)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC)
EXISTING
ZONING: R-1 (ONE -FAMILY DWELLING; 7,200 SQUARE FOOT
MINIMUM LOT SIZE)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED FOR THE
ORIGINAL APPROVAL, THEREFORE, NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED.
PAST
ACTION: THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R-1-12,000 TO
R-1 IN 1989. (MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 7,200
SQUARE FEET).
PARCEL MAP 25187 WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AT THE NOVEMBER 14, 1989 MEETING.
THE MAP DIVIDES THE +30.75 ACRE SITE INTO
TWO PARCELS. PARCEL N0. 1 CONTAINS +27.45
ACRES AND MAKES UP TENTATIVE TRACT 25154,
WHILE PARCEL NO. 2 CONTAINS +3.3 ACRES, AND
WILL BE USED AS A GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE
FACILITY FOR THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT IN THE
FUTURE.
o It) ;
STAFFRPT.069/CS -1-
TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 IS A SUBDIVISION OF
27.45 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
SERVICED BY A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM. AT THE
EAST END A STREET STUB AT LOT "D" FOR
EMERGENCY ACCESS HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT THE
WEST BOUNDARY OF PARC LA QUINTA, WHICH HAS A
PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM.
SURROUNDING NORTH & EAST: ZONED R-2; EXISTING GOLF
ZONING & USES: COURSES, PYRAMIDS PROJECT
SOUTH: ZONED R-2 12,000 & W-1;
VACANT TRIANGULAR PARCEL
AND THE EXISTING LA QUINTA
STORM CHANNEL
WEST: ZONED R-1; PARC LA QUINTA
SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPROVAL:
The initial tentative tract map was recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission on November 14, 1989 and approved by
the City Council on December 5, 1989. The minutes from both of
the meetings are attached.
EXTENSION REQUEST:
The Applicant requested an extension of time and paid the
required filing fees on his map on October 30, 1991. Since the
application was filed 30 days prior to the expiration of the
tentative map, Staff set the item for review with the Planning
Commission. A Public Hearing was set by Staff. Should the
Planning Commission desire to modify or add a new condition to
the time extension request, it can be done at the meeting
without undue delays for the Applicant/Developer.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The time extension request was published in the newspaper on
December 28, 1991, and notices were mailed to the abutting
property owners. In addition, staff noticed all property
owners on the south side of Sagebrush from Date Palm to
Washington Street.
ON -SITE WORK CONSTRUCTION:
The site has been graded but no other on -site work has been
done. The applicant paid his Fringe -Toed Lizard fees on June
18, 1990, and a preliminary acoustic study was submitted to
Staff by Endo Engineering. The acoustic study has been
finalized.
STAFFRPT.069/CS -2-
FINAL MAP PROCESSING:
The Engineering Department has indicated that the applicant has
gone through plan check for their final map approval, however,
the developer has chosen not to have the map approved by the
City Council.
DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The City sent out the time extension request to all local
public agencies on November 15, 1991, to determine if the
original Conditions of approval were still adequate two years
after their original adoption. We have reviewed the returned
responses, and did not find any requests to modify previously
approved conditions. However, one matter that has surfaced is
the City's need to condition the project to contribute to the
future traffic signal at Sagebrush and Washington Street. The
original conditions did not require this tract to contribute
even though its primary access is at Washington Street and
Sagebrush Avenue. The Parc La Quinta project (TR 21555), to
the west of this project, was required to contribute $25,000
toward the construction of this future signal. Therefore, it
is only fair that this tract contribute to this signal. Staff
would request that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the project contribute their fair share to
the cost of construction of this public facility (see Condition
#31).
Staff has deleted the condition which required the developer to
pay the Fringed -Toed Lizard Mitigation fee because the fees
have been paid. However, Staff has not changed the condition
requiring the archaeological study because we could not find
any record that the site was evaluated during rough grading.
If a study and on -site monitoring were done, this information
should be submitted to Staff for review and filing.
Staff would also like to retain
acoustical study, even though a
on -site grading plan changes in
would be required.
FINDINGS:
the condition requiring an
study was done, because if the
the future an updated study
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.
STAFFRPT.069/CS -3-
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
92- , recommending to the City Council approval of a one year
time extension of Tentative Tract 25154, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Original Planning Commission/City Council Minutes
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
4. Revised Conditions of Approval
5. Tract Exhibit
STAFFRPT.069/CS -4-
a
i
r!rw
� r
4
LA OUINTA
1LF ESTATES
If
EDUENA L
%'�1
LAGISNA
E LA PAZ FLO
STA T
S VIA
0 .
UUN PE
SANDS Pl
HLAND PALMS DR LAQUINTA
SOLID` 1 VIA ORVIETO
D�LC DEL `" i VIA RAVENNA
2 3 VIA KORON
S A VIA OPERA
of S VIA ZURtCH
y 6 VIA GRAZIANNA
gKVOA AVE UL!'MO
� P
AVE IUJU4CA
o ' THE VILLAGE® LA OUINTA ARTS
AT LA QUINTA FOUNDATION
al
,.. HAMBER OF CIVIC s `�
�• COMMERCE A ARANJ
TR vl
8 A SITE H
V Ar CA
=t�PAM ER a : JW� Avf
a .
A a a i a
v
B!�CfEI CITY LL I AIN ►nrcllo, NEW AV 52
CASE MAP
CAM Nm
LOCATION MAP
Y
J
1
1
LEE
B. Tentative Tract 25125; a* request by trother
terprises to subdivide +32 acres into 117
s le -family lots; located southwe of the
int action of Dune Palms Road Westward Ho
Drive.
1. P1 ing Director Jerry
info ation contained
copy o which is on file
Develop t Departmen
the Commi ion that C
be revis to re d,
areas...," r her . an,
� areas."
1 2. Chairman wal n
Chuck Stroth
� I , t
_� Commission to
project. There
Chairma walling
opene the matter
He n presented the
i he Staff Report, a
n the Planning and
Mr. Herman noted to
dition No. 11 should
" ..landscape buffer
"...hardscape buffer
opened the Public Hearing.
Applicant, addressed the
've an overview of the
be g no further comment,
osed the Hearing and
for ission discussion.
3. Th Commission discusse the matter as
p esented. A motion was a by Commissioner
/oran and seconded by Comm sioner Bund to
adopt Planning Commission R lution 89-065,
ecommending to the City Counc concurrence
ith the environmental analysis nd approval
f Tentative Tract 25125, ject to
Conditions, including the change to ondition
No. 11 as indicated by Staff.
Following roll call vote, the motioi!®was
unanimously adopted. N
C. Tentative Tract 25154, Parcel Map 25187, and Change
of Zone 89-049; requests by Valley Land Development
for a parcel map division of 30.75 acres into two
lots, one 3.3 acres and one 27.45 acres; a zone
change on 30.75 acres from R-1-12,000 to R-1; and a
division of 27.45 acres into 98 single-family lots
for future development of homesites; located at the
northeast corner of the Sagebrush Drive and Date
Palm Drive intersection, +1320 feet east of
Washington Street.
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. Mr. Sawa noted for
the Commission the revision of four
conditions to read as follows: 00 i �;
Condition 30: If any tract development is
proposed, the Applicant shall submit complete
architectural elevations for all units for
Planning Commission review and approval as a
Business Item. The architectural standards
shall generally meet the standards of the SR
zoning district for building and site design
standards, with the exception of height
restrictions which shall be as set forth in
the R-1 zone, except where these Conditions
shall take precedence. The architectural
standards shall be included in the CC&Rs if
any tract development occurs.
Condition 31: The Applicant shall submit a
unit siting plan at the time of submittals
for architectural review of any tract
development. Siting plan shall indicate
two-story locations, if any, and shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission along
with the proposed unit types. If any lots
are sold on an individual basis, the
Applicant understands that approvals of any
two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed
and will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis
by the Planning and Development Department.
If tract development occurs, CC&Rs are
required to be submitted to the City for
review prior to final map recordation. The
above restriction shall be noted in the
CC&Rs, if required.
Condition 34: Landscaping of all units,
including the model complex in Tentative
Tract 25154, shall be in substantial
compliance with the SR zoning district
requirements as established in the Manual on
Landscape Standards for Single -Family
Residences.
Condition 35: The Developer shall be
required to participate in the installation
of a suitable buffer along the eastern tract
boundary of Tentative Tract 25154, between
the residential lots and the future
maintenance facility for the Pyramids
project. Mutual participation by the
Developer of this tract and the Developer of
the Pyramids shall be required to provide an
acceptable situation for both parties. The
design components of any buffer area may
include, but are not limited to, walls,
berming, landscaping, grade variation, safe
backs, etc. Design of the buffer area shall
be subject to review and approval by the
Planning and Development Department. The
improvements of the buffer shall be installed
with the development of either property. Any
reimbursement arrangement will be solely the
responsibility of the Developers involved.
Commissioners Moran and Steding asked various
questions of Staff for clarification of
several items in the Staff Report.
2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing.
Tom Thornburgh, representing the Applicant,
addressed the Commission to explain the
project. There being no further comment,
Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
3. Following discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commission
Steding to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 89-066, recommending to the City
Council approval of Change of Zone 89-049 per
Exhibit A; to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 89-067, approving Parcel Map 25187
subject to Conditions; and to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 89-068, recommending to
the City Council approval of Tentative Tract
25154 subject to Conditions as revised by
Staff.
Following roll call vote, the motion was
unanimously adopted.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
No one wished to address the Commission.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and
seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve the
minutes of the November 14, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting. Unanimous.
City Council Minutes !") Page 2
(Icember 5, 1989
PUBLIC SAFETY
Member: Mayor Pena
Alternate: Roger Hirdler
EARTHQUAKE & DISASTER PREPAREDNESS SUB -COMMITTEE
Member: Councilman Bohnenberger
Alternate: Roger Hirdler
TRANSPORTATION
Member: Councilman Bohnenberger
Alternate: Councilwoman Bosworth
FRINGE TOED LIZARD PRESERVE TRAILS SUBCOMMITTEE
Member: Councilwoman Bosworth
Alternate: Planner
MOTION - It was moved by Councilmembers Bosworth/Rushworth that the
CVAG Committee appointments as hereinabove delineated be approved.
Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89-136.
PALMER CABLEVISION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Council concurred on having staff contact Palmer CableVision as to
the status of this committee prior to taking action, in light of the
fact that the company is up for sale.
MOTION -It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Bosworth that
the appointees to the Library Advisory Board and C. V. Mosquito
Abatement District remain as is. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE
ORDER NO. 89-137.
PUB C HEARINGS
1. UBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE OF ZONE 89-049 FROM R-1-12,000 TO R-1
AND TENTATIVE TRACT 25154 TO SUBDIVIDE 27.45 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SAGEBRUSH
DRIVE AND DATE PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION. APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND
DEVELOPMENT.
Mr. Herman advised that the proposal is to create 98 single
family lots on 27.45 acres located at the terminus of the
northeast corner of Sagebrush and Date Palm Drive and to rezone
the property from R-1-12,000 to R-1. The tract proposes a public
street system.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the tract map and change of
zone and recommends approval with conditions and adoption of a
negative declaration.
In answer to questions by Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that the
heights will be similar to those in Parc La Quinta.
TOM THORNBURG, P.O. Box 750, La Quinta, Applicant, advised that
they plan to develop the lots and sell to builders. Most of the
lots have 80' frontages and will probably sell for between
$40,000 and $50,000.
()4)'+
City Council Minutes I-N
Page 3
L ,cember 5, 1989
The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN.
There being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED.
MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Ordinance No. Sniff/Bohnenberger that
159 be taken up by title and number only and that
further reading be waived. Motion carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 159
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA
AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY, BY
REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE 89-049 -
NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
It was moved by Council Members Sniff/Bohnenberger that Ordinance
No. 159 be introduced on first reading.
following vote: Motion carried by the
AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth,
Sniff, Mayor Pena
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION NO. 89-133
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE ENVIRO GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 251554 TTOAALLOW THESCREATION
OF A 98-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 27.45 ACRE SITE - CASE
NO. TT 25154 - NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION.
It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/Sniff that
Resolution No. 89-133 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously.
• LIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE TRACT 25125 TO SUBDIVIDE _
I 117 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE L CTHE
SOUT INTERSECTION OF DUNE PALMS ROAD & WESTW AT THE
APPLICA STROTHER ENTERPRISES. O DRIVE -
Mr. Herman ad that the
family lots on 32 a cated
Palms Road and Wes--N o
zoned R-1 and designated Lo -A
Plan. He noted that t'
District ' s 01
proposal is to create 117 single
southwest of the corner of Dune
We. The property is currently
'ty Residential in the General
is lookin he sites Desert Sands School
tract will have g r developmen a high school. The
stormwater ret Public street Sys There will be no
on basins, as all drainage flow to the
stormwater, nel.
The -. irnning Commission has reviewed the tract map and r e
ap oval with conditions. nds
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING
APPROVAL OF THE FIRST ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 25154 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 98
LOT SUBDIVISION ON A +27.45 ACRE SITE.
CASE NO. TT 25154 - FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of January, 1992, hold
a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Valley
Land Development Company to extend approval of Tentative Tract
25154 which permits the subdivision of +27.45 acres into 98
single-family development lots for sale, generally located at
the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive,
more particularly described as:
A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE
7 EAST, S.B.B.M. IN THE CITY OF LA
QUINTA, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of November, 1989, did
consider recommendation to the City Council approval of
Tentative Tract Map 25154; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 5th day of December, 1989, hold a
duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request
and recommendation of the Planning Commission and did approve
Tentative Tract 25154; and,
WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended and adopted by
City Council Resolution 83-68 in that the Planning Director
conducted an initial study, and has determined that the
proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts to justify the
recommendation for approval of said tentative tract map time
extension:
RESOPC.031/CS -1-
1. That Tentative Tract No. 25154, as conditionally
approved, is generally consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for
land use density, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning
district development standards, and design requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 may
cause some environmental damage or injury to the wildlife
habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but
mitigation in the form of fees for a new habitat area
will reduce this impact to an insignificant level.
3. 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.
4. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large
for access through the project, since alternate easements
for access and for use have been provided that are
substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by
the public.
5. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 25154, as
conditioned, provides for mitigation of incremental
impacts on park facilities, circulation system, noise and
aesthetic factors.
6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were
considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in
conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map,
the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the First
Year Extension of Time 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 reconfirm the original
conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-144
relative to the environmental concerns of this
tentative tract;
RESOPC.031/CS -2-
3. That it does hereby recommend extension of
Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 for one year subject
to amended Conditions of Approval as noted herein
in the attached Conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of
January, 1992, 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.031/CS -3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
JANUARY 14, 1992
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Tentative Tract Map 25154 shall comply with the
requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map
Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance,
unless otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on
December 5, 1992, unless approved for extension pursuant
to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance.
3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a
City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by
recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the
District and to offer for dedication such easements as
may be required for the maintenance and operation of
related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a
benefit basis, as required by law.
4. The 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.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction of any building or use contemplated by this
approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or
clearances from the following public agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o Planning & Development Department
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Imperial Irrigation District
o U.S. Postal Service
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the
above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the
Building Division at the time of the application for a
building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
6. Prior to the issuance of
or final inspection, the
submit a written report
any grading or
Applicant shall
to the Planning
building permit
prepare and
and Development
CONAPRVL.026/CS -1-
Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions
of Approval and mitigation measures of Tentative Tract
No. 25154 and Environmental Assessment No. 89-144,-which
must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the respective
permit(s). The Planning and Development Director may
require inspection or other monitoring to assure such
compliance.
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO GRADING PERMITS)
7. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is
prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be
required to supervise the grading and drainage
improvement construction and to certify that the
constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as
per the approved plans and grading permit. This is
required prior to final map approval. Certification at
the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations
is also required prior to final approval of grading
construction.
8. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils
engineering investigation shall be done and -the report
submitted for review along with the grading plan. The
report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The
soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must
certify to the adequacy of the grading plan.
9. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning and Development Department
an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which
shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust
control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and
dust control measures during grading and site
development. These shall include but not be limited to:
a. The use of irrigation during any construction
activities;
b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon
previously graded but undeveloped portions of the
site;
C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing,
and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon
adjacent properties and property owners. The land
owner shall comply with requirements of the
Director of Public Works and Planning and
Development. All construction and graded areas
shall be watered at least twice daily while being
used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand.
CONAPRVL.026/CS -2-
10. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a
condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance
and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other wind and water erosion control
measures as approved by the Planning and Development and
Public Works Departments.
11. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as
required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall
comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of
Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required
therewith. The design facilities shall be capable of
handling a 100-year storm. Applicant shall provide
drainage easements as required across lots abutting the
La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
12. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed '
grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella
Valley Water District for review and comment with respect
to CVWD's water management program. These plans shall
include the landscape and irrigation plans for all areas
required to be landscaped.
13. Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements
of the City Fire Marshal.
14. The Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from
the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any
construction within the right-of-way of the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited
to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping,
and roadways. Developer shall install suitable
facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way from
the subject tract.
15. Prior to any issuance of land disturbance permits, the
Applicant shall contract with the University of
California Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to
perform a re-evaluation of the project site. The results
of this evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department for review, along with the
proposed method of testing for any potentially
significant sites identified in the evaluation. If
potentially significant sites are identified, the
Applicant shall submit an archaeological mitigation plan
to indicate the status of any existing
archaeological/cultural resources of any potential
significance. Said plan shall identify any existing
CONAPRVL.026/CS -3-
reports done by the University of California, Riverside,
Archaeological Research Unit, and shall include methods
by which any significant or potentially significant sites
will be inventoried and/or excavated. A mitigation and
monitoring program shall be required to be submitted,
specifying a qualified archaeological monitor, including
any assistants and other representatives. The statement
shall provide the current address and phone number for
each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed
from time to time, but no such change shall be effective
unless served by registered or certified mail on the
Planning and Development Department. The designated
monitors or their authorized representatives shall have
the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the
event of discovery or recognition of any human remains,
there shall be no further grading, excavation or
disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably
suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until
appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL/
RECORDATION
16. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of
the Public Works Department:
a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public
street and utility easements as required, including
all corner cutbacks.
b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans
that are prepared by a registered civil engineer.
Street improvements, including traffic signs and
markings shall conform to City standards as
determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the
La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over
four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential
streets).
17. The Applicant shall acquire and dedicate a 30-foot
right-of-way easement over the property to the south of
the subject site (portion of Sagebrush Avenue), for
street construction purposes unless an alternative
arrangement is approved by the Public Works Department .
18. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum turning diameter
right-of-way of 90 feet. Present design will require
additional right-of-way dedication as sidewalks are
required.
CONAPRVL.026/CS -4-
19. The Applicant shall construct or bond for street
improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and
the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows:
a. The interior public street system shall be designed
pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (Tract Map) for
Tentative Tract 25154, and the requirements of the
City Engineer. All streets shall maintain a 2%
cross slope from centerline to edge of pavement.
Any variations to the approved street system design
sections shall be subject to review and approval by
the Public Works Department.
20. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to
City standards prior to construction of any streets. The
soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction
test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be
required.
21. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public
improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Public Works Department and the Planning and
Development Department prior to Final Map approval.
22. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the
CVWD. Any necessary parcels for District facility
expansion shall be shown on the Final Map and conveyed to
the CVWD, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.
23. The Developer shall comply with all applicable
requirements of the Fire Marshal prior to Final Map
approval.
24. Applicant shall pay in -lieu parkland fees, based upon .86
acres as determined by the La Quinta Municipal Code.
Determination of payment amount shall be determined as
set forth in Chapter 13.24, Article II of the La Quinta
Municipal Code and shall be payable prior to Final Map
recordation.
25. 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 internal streets, and
surrounding land uses, 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.).
CONAPRVL.026/CS -5-
26. The Tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning
requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum
average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be
recorded in a Final Map shall be 7,200 square feet.
27. All residential lots within the approved boundaries of
Tentative Tract No. 25154 shall only be conveyed to new
ownership with the following declaration:
"This property may be subject to limited or
restricted viewshed(s) due to surrounding
previously approved developments to the north and
west of this tract (Tract 24545, the Pyramids
Development and Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta
respectively). Northerly views will be limited by
approved landscaping and fencing which may be
approximately 8 to 12-feet above finished grade of
this property. Westerly views may be impacted due
to development of two story homes on certain lots
within the Parc La Quinta project. The prospective
buyer is urged to investigate the full range of any
potential view impacts prior to committing to any
agreement(s)."
28. If any phased tract development (i.e., multiple -lot
construction) is proposed, the Applicant shall submit
complete detail architectural elevations for all units,
for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business
Item. The Architectural Standards shall generally meet
the requirements of the SR Zoning District for Building
and Site Design Standards, with the exception of height
restrictions which shall be as set forth in the R-1 Zone,
except where these conditions shall take precedence. The
Architectural Standards shall be included in CC & R's if
any phased tract development occurs."
29. Applicant shall submit a unit siting plan at the time of
submittals for architectural review of any phased tract
development. Siting plan shall indicate two-story
locations, if any, and shall be reviewed at the Planning
Commission along with the proposed unit types. If lots
are sold on an individual basis, (non -phased tract
development) the Applicant understands that approvals of
any two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed and
will be reviewed on a case by case basis by the Planning
and Development Department during building permit
review. If phased tract development occurs, (see
Condition #28) CC & R's are required to be submitted to
the City for review prior to Final Map recordation; the
above restriction shall be noted in the CC & R's, if
required."
CONAPRVL.026/CS -6-
30. The westerly termination point of the street shown as Lot
"D" on Exhibit "A" (Tentative Tract Map), shall be gated
with controlled access devices that restrict
ingress/egress to emergency vehicles. Permits for the
installation of controlled access devices shall be
obtained from the Building Division and Fire Department
prior to installation.
31. Applicant shall reimburse the City for 25% of the cost to
design and install a new traffic signal at Washington
Street and Sagebrush Avenue intersection.
TRACT DESIGN
32. Prior to any landscape installations, the Applicant shall
submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a
plan (or plans) showing the following:
a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing,
location, and irrigation systems for all areas to
be landscaped. Desert or native plant species and
drought resistant planting material shall be
incorporated into the landscape plan.
b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or
required walls.
C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of
light and glare impacts to surrounding properties.
33. Landscaping of all units (including model complex) in
Tentative Tract 25154 shall be in substantial compliance
with the SR Zoning District requirements as established
in the Manual on Landscape Standard for single family
residences.
34. Developer shall be required to participate in the
installation of a suitable buffer along the eastern tract
boundary of Tentative Tract 25154, between the
residential lots and the future maintenance facility for
the Pyramids project. Mutual participation by the
Developer of this tract and the Developer of the Pyramids
shall be required to provide an acceptable situation for
both parties. Design components of the buffer area may
include, but are not limited to walls,
berming/landscaping, grade variations, setbacks, etc.
Design of the buffer area shall be subject to review and
approval of the Planning and Development Department. The
improvement(s) of the buffer shall be installed at time
of any development activity on either property; any
reimbursement agreement(s) arrangement will be solely the
responsibility of the Developers involved.
CONAPRVL.026/CS -7-
35. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior
to establishing any of the following uses:
a. Temporary construction facilities.
b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant
signage.
C. On -site advertising/construction signs.
36. 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.
f 1 ") .
CONAPRVL.026/CS -8-
lk
t VACANT
ixs w•
Iwr w r w oy r or '1 i:' wv •� %+V' \ �`"' 1
. I Ilyt` b� dig 70 . •7/ 7t , 7! 74 78 7s. ' 7 .'78
�, •
\ t
// j►r\ �� u' A' o,• At wr' w wr' w din' •�• `7�`1 1
A.o r '0
ow Ap
S4 53 152 51 so i 48 I" �4r"
l },4r•\• ,.. \ \\ i OT - L
44 / S 31" 41 42 43 44�' ♦S` . ` t : V \ \`\ A \ ,
p
IV' op
I � � , � e �►. R � ,a = i s i, `� � es � �
RI
41
\ h
..33 2 31 00
/ vw
24 — fh ZS, `.95
,GOD/.i _ —�� �� � . � � \ 1- ` • i `-Q6
' us'
�•zz
fee co
.80
OP j
87
A
yN fo sE n.r..st0
YACANT �
VI /' 1. ALL STREETS SHOWN ARE PUBLIC STREETS.
2. LOTS ARE TO BE USED FOR RETENTION PURPOSES
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 90 RESIDENTIAL L LETTER
Bosr� t- eR_ vr_ a i
G�IYE AI MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 8,000 SQ.F'T.
MAXIMUM LOT SIZE: 11,600 SQ.FT-
I t� AVERAGE lAT SIZE: 8,900 SQ.FT.
DENSITY: 3.6 D.U./A.C.
i
S4 Aeo OfirE
I
R1W
60� R/W
I 4O'
I r,q
E r,r.
t. �...,.
I '•i'nrw Ivor • c /vrYr[sr
i si oK C1a CtMiIj It
b Kw iv0►
,, 6
Oise cvvwtl
T Y�/C•44
ft* ADE
.'SEC r/ oN
d.OT :4. B, •C, •O, E F"
,vw
r� SO' M/N
� rim f
I f�:[1rt• 1 'i /i. � der I I
Prig foet%vw� • c tir[rlrr
I
cuwl 1 • Kw rD01
ft:1K
1 I
.SEC 9-14o.v
.0 or
CASE Nm
CASE MAP
TYPICAL STREET SYSTEM
NORTH
SCALE:
" TS ,
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992, (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 26, 1991,
AND DECEMBER 10, 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 111 AT WASHINGTON
STREET
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD
SIGN
DESIGNER: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: F OM CEQA PER SIGN ECTION ON 15311NS ARE , EGORICALLY EXEMPT
CLASS ELEVEN
PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019:
The attached sign plan should be examined in conjunction with Plot Plan 91-466 and
Variance 91-019 also on this evenings agenda.
PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM:
The Applicant has submitted a freestanding center identification sign, a concept
building sign program, and directional signs for the proposed multiple use complex.
A. Freestanding Center Identification Signs: The freestanding sign is 12-feet
in height and the graphic sign cabinet is approximately 50 square feet
excluding the decorative arched top. The sign is internally illuminated and
the cabinet will be stuccoed to match the proposed building color (Navajo
White) . The "Simon Plaza" portion of the sign will be blue whereas the
decorative arched top will be royal blue (translucent vinyl over white
plexiglass) . The cabinet base will be tiled. This triangular -shaped sign will
be located at the northwest corner of the site.
B . Directional Parking Signs: The freestanding directional signs are three feet
in height and three square feet. The signs will be internally illuminated and
the design is consistent with the center identification sign.
PCST.030 y
001
C. Attached Building Signs (Program #11: The building signs are located on
various areas of the easterly -most building complex which will house the
future bowling alley, fitness center, and restaurant. The illuminated channel
lettered signs are to have blue plexiglass faces (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue)
except for a slight variation in the bowling alley sign adding orange/white/red
to the blue. The sign program will consist of:
1. Restaurant
a. Highway 111 elevation
b . Parking lot elevation
2. Family Fitness Center
a. Parking lot elevation
3. Bowling Alley
12" letters (10 sq. ft. )
18" letters (22.5 sq. ft . )
18" letters (43.5 sq. ft. )
a. Highway 111 elevation = 24" letters (52 sq. ft. )
b . Parking lot elevation = 14" letters (18.5 sq. ft . )
TOTAL = +146.5 sq. ft.
ZONING CODE PROVISIONS (EXCERPTS):
"B . General Retail Sales and Services. Business and
ses.
Eating and
1. Freestanding Signs .
a. Each commercial complex containing a multiple -tenant
building or multiple buildings is permitted one complex
identification sign per street frontage. The area of any
one sign shall not exceed one -quarter of a square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of street frontage, or fifty square
feet, whichever is less. The aggregate area of all such
signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet and sign
area may not be combined among street frontages.
b . Not pertinent for this report.
C. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be
twelve feet.
M. Directional Signs. Nonadvertising, freestanding signs used to identify
street entrance and exit. Said signs must have three square feet of
sign area and be three feet in height.
PCST.030
2. Attached Signs
a. Each tenant within a multiple -tenant commercial complex
may have one attached identification sign not to exceed one
2
()0?
square foot of sign area per lineal foot of tenant space
frontage along a street, or frontage along a common use
parking lot where no direct street frontage is provided,
not exceeding fifty square feet. Corner, end, or separate
tenant spaces may split the allowable frontage sign area
among two signs."
STAFF COMMENTS:
The monument sign and directional signs are consistent with the design theme of the
project, and the proposed colors are appropriate for this area. The signs would be
architecturally compatible with surrounding businesses uses. A summary on the
building sign package is as follows:
A. Building Sign Colors: The blue copy of the building letters are a contrast to
the architectural style of the project and although the blue letters will be
legible during the day and at night, the color might not be appropriate for
this building because it is to be painted Navajo white with brown and rust
accents and clay -tile roofing. A consideration on this program might be to use
either a rust plexiglass or black/white plexiglass for this project. The
black/white plexiglass is a newer product which is black in the day and white
at night. It is very attractive if the individual letter returns are painted to
match the building. However, the blue letters would match both the Simon
Motors and the Downey Savings signs which are in the immediate area.
B. Building Sign Up Locations: The signs are located in acceptable locations on
the building except for the fitness center sign on the parking lot elevation.
This sign is sandwiched in between the second and third story windows and
detracts from the architecture style of the building complex. The Ordinance
does not allow signs on the building for second story tenants. A sign
adjustment would be needed if the sign is to remain in its present location.
C. SiLrn Lettering Height: Sign lettering is a key component of building
identification, but architectural compatibility is also an ingredient, as well as
human -scale. As noted before, the sign contractor has proposed lettering
heights of 12" to 24" for this project. Therefore, the legibility of the signs
from a distance will be approximately:
Readability Maximum Readable
Letter Height Impact Distance
White/Red (Blue)
12"
120' (1081)
525'
14"
150' (1351)
630'
18"
180' (1621)
750'
24"
240' (2161)
1,000,
NOTE: Red, black, or white letters (maximum) with 10% variation for other
colors (e.g., blue) for internally lit signs.
In summary, the size of the letters for the project will be easy to read for all
PCST.030
3
00'�
patrons in the parking lot area and for passing motorists on either main
thoroughfare depending upon your direction of travel.
D. Reverse Channel Letter Signing: If the Planning Commission is not
comfortable with the proposed channel lettering of design of the Applicant,
the Commission might consider a reverse channel lettering program for this
center. A reverse channel letter has an open back which allows the neon
lighting to be cast on the building thus ghosting the non -transparent face of
the letter. This type of sign creates a softer affect on the building than an
internally lit plexiglass sign as proposed by DGI, Inc. Another type of sign
to consider is a individual letter (cast, molded, etc.) which can be uplighted
from the front of the sign. In this alternative, the lighting fixture is a
critical element of sign design and if not developed appropriately, can look
unattractive.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
The Design Review Board met on November 6, 1991, to discuss this case. Discussion
ensued on whether or not the building letters should be internally illuminated or
externally illuminated. After much debate, the Board felt that the building(s) is
close enough to the street to warrant external lighting versus internal illumination
as requested by the Applicant and, further, the group did not believe reverse
channel letters would be appropriate for this building complex. The Applicant did
not want to install reverse channel letters either because they require more
maintenance (they get dirty) and are exposed to natural elements since they have
exposed parts. At one point in the meeting Mr. Berg, the sign contractor, did state
that he would be receptive to rust letters if he could have internally illuminated
signage for the building. However, this concept did not gain approval by the
Board.
Another topic by the Design Review Board was the lettering style for the building
signs. The Board thought the building warranted a stylized lettering design instead
of the Helvetica Bold as presented by the sign contractor. The sign contractor was
amicable to the changes requested by the Board. A copy of the lettering styles are
attached.
The Design Review Board also approved the building plexiglass letters which were
presented by the Applicant. No color changes were made by the Board.
Finally, the Design Review Board felt the Fitness Center sign location was acceptable
since it was for one of the major tenants of the complex and it did not hinder the
architectural elements of the project or reduce their character.
NEW SUBMITTAL APPLICATION:
On November 20, 1991, Staff received a new sign package submittal from the sign
contractor. The new program (Program #2) includes internally illuminated cabinet
signs for the proposed buildings. The cabinet signs vary in size from two feet wide
to three feet and range in height from 14 feet to 36 feet. A summary of the new
request is as follows:
PCST.030 4
{10 :I
Sign E - 3' X 24" = 72 sq. ft.
Sign F - 3' X 36' = 108 sq. ft.
Sign + X 161 128 sq. ft.
Sign H - 2' X 14" (+14 sq. ft.) = 42 sq. ft. (irregular)
Sign I - 2' X 17' = 34 sq. ft.
TOTAL 384 sq. ft.
The signs will have white (Navajo) backgrounds with the copy colors matching the
original program (blue with accent colors) .
The new program was reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 4, 1991.
However, the Board did not support this new request because it is not as
architecturally structured as other types of programs previously examined in this
report. Another matter is the Applicant's desire to increase the size of the sign
program from 146.5 square feet to the present request of 384 square feet, an
enlargement of 237.5 square feet.
In Program #2 signs E, F, and G are larger than permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
An adjustment would be necessary to permit these signs. We advocate the program
as recommended by the Design Review Board or something similar in form, but this
latest proposal is not satisfactory for this building complex. We do not believe the
Planning Commission should approve the November 20, 1991, submittal.
The Design Review Board at their meeting of December 4, 1991, reconsidered their
action of November 6, 1991, and decided as a group to allow Sign Program #1 as
submitted by the Applicant. Therefore, the Board voted (6-1, Boardmember
Anderson voting no) to permit internally illuminated channel letters on the building.
The following findings and recommendation are based on the Design Review Board's
action of December 4, 1991 (Sign Program #1) .
FINDINGS:
1. The size and location of the Bowling Alley building signs are placed to provide
for maximum sight exposure to passing motorists and the general public at
large. The sign on the northerly elevation will not detract from the
architectural character of the building nor impact the sign program as
presented. The sign graphics dictate a need to adjust the City's size
standards to compensate for the proposed design theme.
2. The Fitness Center sign is needed on the second story of the building
complex. If located on the first floor level, it could not be seen by passing
motorists, and as it is an integral part of the Bowling Alley complex, building
advertising is needed for this type of commercial use.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 92- approve the Planned Sign Program and the Sign Adjustment
request provided the attached Conditions of Approval are met.
PCST.030
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A", recommended Conditions of Approval ( Sign Program #1)
2. Location map
3. Sign graphics
4. Site plan sketch with sign locations sign program #1 dated November 1, 1991
(sheet #1)
5. Sign Program #2 dated November 20, 1991
6. Lettering styles (Design Review Board recommendation)
7. Design Review Board Minutes of November 6, 1991 and December 4, 1991
PCST.030 0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: EXHIBIT "A"
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159 - PROPOSED
SIMON PLAZA - SIGN PROGRAM #1
JANUARY 14, 1992
1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future
property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right-of-way.
2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure site
visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective sign.
3. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental
to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and
contrasting to the background it is affixed to.
4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue
brightness which would distract passing motorists and/or pedestrians.
5. The sign colors shall be blue (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the other
supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can
be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings.
6. Any signs for the office buildings which fronts Washington Street or the
satellite restaurant/bank buildings should be reviewed separately by the
Design Review Board and Planning Commission since the sign package was not
submitted for review to the Design Review Board.
7. The directional parking signs shall be limited to a single directional arrow and
to the word "parking" for each driveway access point as shown on Sheet #1.
8. The building signs can be internally illuminated.
9. No exposed raceways, crossovers, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc.,
shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the
building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground.
10. The lighting program shall be approved by the Design Review Board prior to
building permit issuance.
11. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or
Souvenir.
12. A slight adjustment in the size of the attached Bowling Alley sign on the north
elevation will be permitted.
13. The Fitness Center sign located on the second story elevation of the building
shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings.
14. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning
and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety
Department.
PCST.030 7
0
Conditions of Approval
SA 91-159 - Simon Plaza
January 14, 1992
15. Each tenant and/or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property
owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign
drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit
consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style,
color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues.
16. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta
and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the
sign permit.
17. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the
time the sign permit is issued.
18. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally
illuminated signs, thus assuring that the sign (or sign structure) meets
industry specifications.
PCST.030 8 pp &
Vaunt
r Existing -Traffic Signal
Vacant land
Plata la Quanta Parking
i
Point Happy Ranch
Beef 6 \
Brew
i
tj Q
Q
P
Existing Tract Homes
Washington Street Frontage
Road %---.
Raised Median
CASE MAP
CASE Na
SIMON PLAZA PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
4�wVacant Building
I
NORTH
SCALE: f}#�
/u0 t elpI
I
a�
E�
•P- in
UI
rn v�
•�- V)
c o rn
to
(A U 'o
r--
J U- C:3 CO
C
CJI 1 � ►•-.
•r 1 1
N QCaW
J
lV
c�1
JOT
ID
KIM
Lq
it
z
fi
I
1
I
I
I
{
N
w
0
3Io
011
zC
O
In
i
s
O
S
a
3
0
=N
s
1Q,
R
M
O
0 1 f ;I,
I
0
CO
2
L
cv
9
017
<
- el
1p,-!Ifl
MWAOM�
POE
, •����
a
a
I- Elor am
WNITE e'OOV , BLACK EYE o 3690-0 RED oN Tip
moo- as Ve".ow LEzrs .
SACKCAOUND Tb MATCH (o0'1-14p SwF
SIGN C NORELEVATION
-_ -_ LEITEI28 TO
O►� ►jAvANO wwirs eAG
f
Tr2 1-1
Cc �c - I N \ L "1 —5-1
51LTNO
NORTH ELEVATION
I0-b"
Q)
Z
51(,�N C� BAST ELS VA't-ION Z,\,,.',IT-
o,. CASE N0�
Wrl/d/�
•.HEt-T METCL Ct�fjrr.,�r 8 ti7ETG�NER
O ' ! FLu02E �GEr�t lAr•t P
ANCGI.E.IRO►.: QEiuGpRGEMtcNT
LEXAN FACE
O
IF�F-ND SECTION (TYP )
Stair. FASCIA
NOV 20 1991
TY rF ;.A QUit, i s,
max.--. a�rr�• --r �^.� 0
14'-0'
N N ZOu1.su� x' �'1S L1L' 1SZUSv 9L�?J
4-- —
StCrN O eA,5,r al-evoroN
p I&Lu G
zou NO
=a
TD MLWi
TGN oD
Gpww N o '3At.t, 3� 70
GI ti(CG.t< �oLE`� ut i N E
�wLlWQ PINS - WN�TE w! g�AGK 3�3U-gam QE��.
y 1DO�O WS , "fAfZ�UN c,
R►M —
NpvANo WH;Tc ��rrou��� Cot_OR
Loglailava !.K51W,
af
NORTt+ EIEVATt4�`1
5/F i NTERNAL-L`( Ii.tu M t NAT�� SIGNS
FAgRiCi�'1">EJ A W M I N U tiI :: ArS� N ET � fz�'r�-' N Ems.
PA1 NAVN40 \.jtj
-
CLEA R BAN FPGtr_ y �� PtL�
CpLQRv AS NOM0. NOT'C-ALL NA4',-O V�
-TD 8E pGDC�UE
I NTEWp,LL`f
N,c�, rLuvR.ES�ENT t1'rn�.
Ey�'U91� �pSEr'p"lam 6�'+
�- Drawing no. gioO4-Er- rz2
naMO BAeet r 01 "'--
Andrea N10iCD Date ;z-
SKIP Bt QGT Drown by T ;. Sosts
Saleeno• RZ N-ZO-pi GW+Nta,Ei ycwb
Approved 61 RevleloneCIA Na. TO c/F yaws
.... n.r.eml . �,pwlnM In oprrolbn with a 0"I", Pkm" la Ta !f 00� .sa 8s
...j.e 1n wflthp M DOL
02,
NOV 1
tfMftWMD GRAPWC I
FICINIMCMNwd" tan
�a
�v
N
0 2 v1,
=
i� Y �• � .�- w i
cz
c
2 ,
�f
is
It
—
1
,.0.f r to •ti
1`1
FANCY STYLES-+
BLOCK STYLES
IELVETICA MED. A.K.REV.F
►BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
bcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
1123456789
4ELVETICA BOLD A.K. REV.0
%BCDEFGHIJKLM
IOPQRSTUVWXYZ
ibcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
)123456789
JI'TIMA SEMI BOLD A.K.
kBCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
fUVWKYZ1234567890
ibcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
=UROSTILE BOLD EKTENDE
A.K. REV. B
4BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPORS
ruvwxYZ
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789 :"$°l0&'4l"•-C �®:;,.?I
AVANT GARDE A.K. REV. C
ABC DEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
obcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
012j/3w{45`j678C9 A/
GENERAL SYMBOLS EXT. RSV.F
;Sel1°1°,� lt�&br1
®OII�p4.+1199ar®4.1cm
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
0123456789 !" $%&'0" Cf:?-,/.,
,Wldg2gjqj 3399Sj T09CZ c t.0(. TM. -A
�ll�U�1�UXn abode jghq PmhopgWuvmgA
0129456789 (09'fGO..
,,4FeD575F'Pl?2.t N7t0;D2,RS7*
tiwxjr6
4ecdee q&7kewseohr4tuaa�ZVI
Olt 45679f tyoX:z,?..
UNIVERSITY POMAN A.K. QEV. A
A5CDEFGIIIJKl,WN0P0Q- TO-WXYZ
abcdcf,Sh klmnopgrst uvwx z
0123456789
CENTURY BOLD A.K. REV. A
AIICI)EF(i'H IJKI,MNOINI ;STUVWXYZ
abcdef,* hi jklm nopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
CLARENDON BOLD A.K. REV. 1:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV W XY9
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
SOUVENIR DEMI A.K. REV. /
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX
YZ
abcdefghijklmnopgrstvvwxyz
0123456789
COOPER BLACK A.K. REV. )
ABCDEFGHtJKLMNO1PQRS
TUVWXYZ
abcdef ghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456769
02f"
MINUTES
D CITYNOF LA QUIN°TA D
A regular meeting held at the a Quanta oity Ha
78-105 Calle Estado, La Qu
:30 P.M.
December 4, 1991 - --
I. CALL TO ORDER
and
A. Chairman Llewellyn d ih fla tS8lute tiChair to on Llewellyn asked.for a
Boardmember Rice le g
roll call .
II , ROLL CALL
ison , Paul Anderson 9 John Walling,
A. Present: Boais, Fred
Rice Plan bers David be Da d H g Commission Representative Donald
John Curtis, Fred R ,
Mosher, and Chairman Ted ewellyn. Absent: None
Boardmember Walling moved to reoenda to add the discussion of the
er• goardmember Harbison seconded the motion
January meeting under item V . O
and it carried unanimously.
p. Chairma lewellyn asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes
of Nov ber 6, 1991 and November 14, 1991. Boardmember Anderson
ask that the Minutes of November 6, 1991, be amended on Page 2,
A.4, to show that Mr. Skip Berg is the sign contractor not the
architect. There being as cor�ted . Boardmember Walling seconded
to approve the Minutes
�e motion and it carried unanimously -
IV. BUSINE S ShbbI N
A SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a
shopping center identification sign, directional signs, and multiple
cabinet building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on
five acres.
Boardmember Walling excused himself due to a possible conflict of
interest.
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.
DRSM12/4
Design Review Board Minutes
December 4, 1991
l of the
e of
2 Boardmemberas the size. He quetateds
tioned ioned healocationtof the lettering in
as
well
relation to the windows .
DRBM12/4
3. Boardmember Anderson stated his disapproval of the proposal
and felt it was a step backwards. He felt that at the last meeting
it was determined not to have the internally illuminated signage
because it detracts from the building architecture. He then
questioned whether the size offollowed relative to the size ofs the signs Discussionsigns being
increased.
4. Boardmember Anderson clarified his suggestion in regards to the
externally�ubeetter�, and usedfor the sign,d he felt a
differentsign material shoulde
5. Mr. Skip Berg, sign contractor, presented his arguments for the
proposal .
6. Boardmember Anderson expressed his concern for so much
internally lit cabinet signage. Discussion followed regarding the
surrounding existing and future commercial development signage
in this general area.
7. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the Applicant's
proposal. He felt the Applicant had blended his project with
what is on the surrounding corners. Discussion followed as to
alternative materials.
g . Boardmember Curtis stated his concern for the size of the cabinet
signs and that they did not meet the City standards.
9. Boardmember Harbison asked if the sign lighting would provide
area lighting. Mr. Berg stated it would provide some area
lighting. He hen stated e letters illuminated and
the backgroDdBrdhberAnderson stated would be
the same as the first proposal submitted.
10. Chairman Llewellyn asked what the seagull on the "Jonathan's"
sign represented. Mr. Berg stated it was the company logo.
11. Boardmember Rice asked if each letter was lit would it meet the
Sign Regulations. Staff responded it would conform.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Rice and seconded by Planning
Commissioner
91-042 g�
r
Mosher
approval of
SignAPPtin 159 with the following conditions
2
02S'
Design Review Board Minute•
December 4, 1991
1. Signs consist of individual blue letters internally lit.
2. The style be as exhibited
3. The size of each sign to be within the Sign Regulations.
4. The signs be flush mounted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: - Boardmembers . Harbison, -- Rice,
Curtis, Planning Commissioner Mosher,
Chairman Llewellyn. NOES: Boardmember
Anderson. ABSTAINING: Boardmember
Walling. ABSENT: None.
B. SIGN APPLICATION 91-161; a request of Beachside Cafe (Dale Elmer)
for approval of new signs for an existing building located at 78-477
HiehwayVI in the Plaza La Wnta Shopping Center.
DRBM12/4
1. Princi 1 Planner Stan Sawa presented the informatcontained
in the S f report, a copy of which is on file o t' n Planning and
Developm t Department.
2. Mr. Rich Du r m, Signs by Bull, gave a d cription of the sign
program.
3. Boardmember Rice tated the problem curred by the previous
tenant. Discussion Rowed as to t sign on the east elevation.
It was stated it was oo large t due to the driveway and
restaurant location, ex sure w a problem. Boardmember Rice
felt the awning would 1p raw attention to the building.
Discussion followed regar the material to be used.
4. Boardmember Anderson ked the "S" on the sign was in a can.
Mr. Durham stated it .
5. Planning Commiss' er Mosher ask if the Applicant had any
problems with th taff recommendati s. Mr. Durham stated he
did not.
6. /rdmember
mb Anderson asked what metho would be used to get
to the face of the wall on the wa ounted sign. Mr.
tated the neon tube would be used ut would not be
s it would be camouflaged by the wall c vering. It will
m and return to the wall.
7. mber Curtis inquired if the canopy was t of the
and expressed his concern for the canopy be' able to
he amount of wind it would be subjected to. Mr. urham
swould be constructed according to State and decal
standards and could withstand 90 m.p.h. winds.
3
0 2' )1
MINUTES
D CITY OF LA QUIM A D
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
— 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
- 5:30 P.M.
November 6, 1991
I. CALL TO ORDER
ChairmanRice
Anderson led the flaght the isalute. Chairman to order at 5 ask d for a
Boardmember
roll call.
II. ROLL
A. Presen Boardmembers David Harbison, Pa nderson, John Walling,
John Cu ' , Ted Llewellyn, Planning mission Representative
Donald Mar and Chairman Rice.
III. ELECTION OF OFFIC
A. Chairman Rce d Llewellyn n C ene no.ionrman SBoardmemfor be Rice seconn. ded the
Rice
nominated T Y
motion and it carried unani sly.
n.
B . Chairman Rice nomin onded th Htioniad it carrson as ied unanimoce u lY
Boardmember Llewelly ec
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Ri ked if there were any corre s to the Minutes of
October 21 91. Boardmember Curtis asked the Minutes be
amended age 3, C.6, to show that he voted no on t Plan 91-466.
Boardm er Llewellyn asked that the spelling of name be
corrected. There being no further changes, Boardmemberbison
moved to approve the Minutes as corrected. Boardmember Curtis
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously .
DREMIN-11/6
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a
shopping center identification sign, directional signs, and multiple
building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on five
acres.
1
0 31"
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
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. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff if the sign program had utilized
the maximum amount allowed. Staff stated they were within their
limits with the overall program. He further asked if this
application had been approved by the Planning Commission and
if their approval would change the overall sign program they
were reviewing. Staff stated the Planning Commission had not
seen the program as of yet and the Design Review Board was a
recommending body to the Planning Commission.
3. Boardmember Walling stated there was not a need to make detailed
approvals for the sign program but approve a generic program
that gave guidelines to the Developer to proceed with.
4. Mr. Skip Berg, architect for the project, addressed the Board
and gave a brief description of the program. He stated they
would stay within the perimeters of what the City allowed. As to
the Simon Plaza sign and colors, he stated these were similar to
the Simon Motors corporate logo. He stated his only objections
to the Staff recommendations were the requests for reverse
channel lettering, and the color change.
DRBMIN-11/6
5. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the signs and had no
objections to the color selected by the Applicant. His concern
was for the typeface of the letters. He preferred a less rounding
of the letters. Discussion followed with the Applicant relative to
letter styles.
6. Chairman Llewellyn stated he had no objection to the color
selected by the Applicant.
7. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the applied
signage to the building. He would rather it be on the ground or
walkway. He felt the big blue signs would detract from the
building. Discussion followed among the Boardmembers and the
Applicant as to various locations.
8. Boardmember Curtis stated he had no objection to the color blue
being used, but did feel the letters were to large and would
prefer a smaller sign overall.
9. Boardmember Walling stated he had no objection to the height or
color, but would prefer the Applicant use up -lighting instead of
backlighting to soften the signs. Discussion followed between
the Board and the Applicant relative to lighting techniques.
o3
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
10. Planning Commission Representative Marrs stated his overall
approval of the sign program. His concern was for the patrons
being able to locate the businesses. He felt the restrictions may
be to stringent.
11. Following discussion it was moved by Boardmember Rice and
seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-
036 recommending approval of Sign Application 91-159 to the
Planning Commission subject to Staff recommendation with the
elimination of reverse channel lettering and external illumination
being utilized, the typeface lettering no being rounded, and the
deletion of the last sentence to Condition #11. Unanimously
approved.
B .\oachella
IC USE PERMIT 91-012; a request of the Boys and Girls Clu f
Valley for approval of plans for a Boys and Girls ub
ty.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the informal contained
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in t lanning and
elopment Department.
2. Reu oung, architect for the project, sented information
and a ailed presentation of the proje .
3. Boardmem Rice stated his ap val of the project and
discussion wed relative to th se of the standing seam metal
roof.
4. Boardmember Wa in d as to the location of the air
conditioning and coo pment. Mr. Young stated they would
be located in the well the roof for the most part.
5. Planning Commis n Rep entative Marrs inquired how the
gymnasium wo be cooled. . Young stated that evaporative
coolers would a utilized. Dis sion followed as to the cooling
of the buil ' g, building materia nd the desire for openness.
6. Boardm ber Anderson stated he t the design was well
conce' d and very well presented.
7. B , dmember Curtis stated his approval he design and the
of materials being utilized.
;4adopt
There being no further discussion, it moved by
Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Board ber Curtis
Minute Motion 91-037 recommending appr to the
Planning Commission of Public Use Permit 91-012, subject to Staff
recommendation.
DRBMIN-11/6 3
0 3 f��
STAFF REPORT
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DATE: NOVEMBER 69 1991
REQUEST: SIGN APPLICATION 91-159: SIMON PLAZA, PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM. REQUEST TO INSTALL A SHOPPING CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGN,DIRECTIONAL
DA EFUTURE OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
BUILDING SIGNS
FACILITY PLANNED ON FIVE ACRES
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AT WASHINGTON
STREET
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILLIP M. PEAD
SIGN
DESIGNER: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS
BACKGROUND:
At your last meeting, the Applicant's sign contractor, DGI, presented sketches of
the freestanding signs to the Board pursuant to the Design Review Board's review
at the of Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019 o the members not was t having adequate time gto
ded th
be deferred to the next meeting du
review the proposal. Therefore, the signage request was carried over to this
meeting. Since the meeting, the Applicant has also submitted a building sign
package.
PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019:
The Planning Commission has not reviewedl�the November 2project
c 1991 development at this time. The
Commission will review the project on o
MASTER PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM:
The Sign Ordinance requires the Applicant to obtain Design Review Board and
Planning Commission review of their program. Therefore, the Design Review Board
is a recommending advisory board for the Planning Commission. The Applicant is
aware the Planning Commission review is required.
PROPOSED SIGN PLAN:
The Applicant has submitted a freestanding S s or the proposed multiplecenter identification guse complexconcept
building sign program, and directional �
A. Freesta dir Identification Suns: The freestanding sign is 12-feet in height
and the graphic sign cabinet is approximately 50 square feet excluding the
decorative arched top. The signs buildinalcolor (Navajo White) ted and a cabinet The "Simon
be stuccoed to match the propose g
1
DRBST.013
B.
C.
Plaza" portion of the sign will be blue whereas the decorative arched top will
be royal blue (translucent vinyl
sign a thenorthwest
cabinet base
will
of
will be tiled The triangular will be locted
the site.
Directional Parking Signs: The freestanding directional signs are three feet
in height and three square feet. The signs will be lighted and the design is
consistent with the center identification sign.
At
Building Signs: The building signs are located on various areas of
the easterly -most building complex which will house the future bowling alley,
fitness center, and restaurant. The illuminated channel lettered signs are to
have blue plexiglass faces (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue) except for a slight
variation in the bowling alley sign adding orange/white/red to the blue. The
sign program will consist of:
I. Restaurant
a. Highway I11 elevation
b . Parking lot elevation
2. Family Fitness Center
a. Parking lot elevation
12" letters (10 sq. ft.)
18" letters (22.5 sq. ft.)
18" letters (43.5 sq. ft.)
3. Bowling Alley
a. Highway 111 elevation = 24" letters (52 sq. ft.)
b. Parking lot elevation = 14" letters (18.5 sq. ft.)
TOTAL = +146.5 sq. ft.
ZONING CODE PROVISIONS (EXCERPTS
"B . General Retail Sales and Services Business and
nrinkinL7 Establishments and Other Commercial
1. Freestanding Signs.
a. Each commercial complex containing a multiple -tenant
building or multiple buildings is permitted one complex
Identification sign per street frontage. The area of any
one sign shall not exceed one -quarter of a square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of street frontage, or fifty square
feet, whichever is less. The aggregate area of all such
signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet and sign
area may not be combined among street frontages.
b. Not pertinent for this report.
C. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be
twelve feet.
DRBST.013 2
M. Directional Signs. Nonadvertising, freestanding signs used to identify
street entrance and exit. Said signs must have three square feet of
sign area and be three feet in height.
2. Attached Signs
a. Each tenant within a multiple -tenant commercial complex
may have one attached identification sign not to exceed one
square foot of sign area per lineal foot of tenant space
frontage along a street, or frontage along a common use
parking lot where no direct street frontage is provided,
not exceeding fifty square feet. Corner, end, or separate
tenant spaces may split the allowable frontage sign area
among two signs."
STAFF COMMENTS:
The monument sign and directional signs are consistent with the design theme of the
project, and the proposedcolors
surrounding and giate for this businesses uses. TA sumhe mary of our
would be
architecturally compatible
thoughts on the building sign package are as follows:
Si
A. Building gn Colors : The blue copy of the building letters are a contrast to
the architectural style of the project and although the blue letters will be
legible during the day and at night, the color might not be appropriate for
this building. As the Board will recall, the building complex is painted Navajo
white with a brown and rust accents and clay -tile roofing. Our thoughts on
this program would be to use either a rust plexiglass or black/white plexiglass
for this project. The black/white plexi-glass is a newer product which is
black in the day and white at night. This type of product was used in a
commercial project in Cathedral City at Date Palm Drive and Converse match
and it is very attractive if the individual letter returns are painted
the building. However, we will leave the color selection up to the Board.
B . Building Signagre Locations: The signs are located in acceptable locations on
for the fitness center sign on the parking lot elevation.
The building except
This sign is sandwiched in between the second and third story windows and
designed to detract from the architecture style of the building complex. The
Side Ordinance does not allow signs on the building for second story tenants.
Staff would prefer that the sign designer and architect find another solution
for this business tenant. This might involve a revising of the first floor
elevation to accommodate the proposed sign.
C. Sign Lettering Height: Sign lettering is a key component of building
identification, but architectural compatibility is also an ingredient, as well as
human -scale. As noted before, the sign contractor has proposed lettering
heights of 12" to 24" for this project. Therefore, the legibility of the signs
from a distance will be approximately:
DRBST.013 3
Maximum
Readability
Readable
Letter Height
Impact
Distance
n
1"
120'
525'
14"
150'
630'
180,
750'
24"
240'
19000,
NOTE: Red, black, or white letters (maximum) with 10% variation for other
colors (e.g., blue) .
In summary, the size of the letters for the project will be easy to read for all
patrons in the parking lot area and for passing motorists on either main
thoroughfare depending on your direction of travel.
D. Reverse Channel Letter S�: If the Design Review Board is not
comfortable with the proposed channel lettering of design of the Applicant,
the Board might want to consider a reverse channel lettering program for this
center. A reverse channel letter has an open back which allows the neon
lighting to be cast on the building thus ghosting the non -transparent face of
the letter. This type of sign creates a softer affect on the building than an
internally lit plexi-glass sign as proposed by DGI, Inc. Another type of sign
the Board might consider is a individual letter (cast, molded, etc.) which can
fixture
upliis a critical frm the elementnt of the of sign design and if not developed . In this approprriathe t fighting
fixture is a
It can look unattractive.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS:
I. Each freestanding sign should be a minimum of five feet from the future
property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right-of-way.
2. The master sign program should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
3. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure sign
visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective sign.
4. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental
to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and
contrasting to the background it is affixed to.
5. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue
brightness which would distract passing motorists and/or pedestrians.
6. The sign colors should be approved by the Design Review Board.
7. Any signs for the office building which fronts Washington Street on the
satellite restaurant/bank should be reviewed separately by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission since the sign package was not submitted for
review.
DRBST.013 4 `
g , The directional parking signs shall be limited to a single directional arrow and
to the word "parking" for each driveway access point as shown on Sheet #1.
g, The proposed fitness centerbuilding and located to bbeshould be ed in close architect rally compatible
y to the
first floor level of the bull g b Staff .
with the building facade. Revised plans to be approvedY
10. Reverse channel letter "signs" should be encouraged for this project.
11. No exposed raceways, crossovers, lemental electrical hardware should be behind
should be permitted. All pp
the building structure.
12. The Planning Commission should consider the Applicant's request for a minor
sign adjustment for the bowling d alley e sign
fitness con enter silgnsince it is is located on th
larger than 50 square feet an
second story portion of the building.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend that the Design �ssion ffor f nalconsiderationeview Board approve the sign .concept and
forward this matter to the Planning C
Attachments:
1. Sign graphics
2. Site plan sketch with sign locations
s
DRBST.013
;
BI-#2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
ITEM: STREET VACATION 91-019
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
WITH PROPOSED STREET VACATION.
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF AVENIDA LA FONDA BETWEEN CALLE PALOMA
AND WASHINGTON STREET.
BACKGROUND:
State Government Code requires that prior to any street vacation by the City Council
that the Planning Commission make a finding of consistency with the General Plan
Circulation Element. Once this finding is made by the Planning Commission, the City
Council can vacate or eliminate the street should they feel it is desirable.
ANALYSIS:
As can be seen on the attached exhibit, presently Calle Paloma comes in at an
abstract angle with Avenida La Fonda and Washington Street. The City is in the
process of slightly realigning Washington Street and closing off some of the streets
which intersect at this location including Avenida La Fonda.
The Circulation Element of the General Plan does not identify the need for this
portion of Calle Paloma.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of the portion of Calle Paloma
and Washington Street is in compliance with the Circulation Element of the General
Plan.
Attachments:
1. Plan showing area of street vacation.
PCST.038
IV 0 � —/J
m
Sri
T. CA. 020 - 016 2
/V
NW 4 SE 4 SEj
- - -- - - - --. - `,--- -
�+ AVENIDA
'MpApoeo
�-'�'��• Vac
-* A VEN/DA
L� �NDA
EXHIBIT C/I
M. B. 21161-62 Desert Club Troct Unit No. 5 ^_______CAST NO. lq l "o iq
FEB 1967
I ." �
pl
r, ;i fi
•�� C
.� �
s,._ � �.
y aY +. k� j�..i,n �_
F�'� h i' - +4� t�
.�
3^�=:- +rep
BI-#3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992
ITEM: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCE OF PROPOSED WHITEWATER
RIVER SLOPE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD)
LOCATION: CITY WIDE
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Section 65402 of the State of California Government Code, government
bodies and special districts are required to submit a list of proposed public works
projects to be undertaken to the appropriate governing jurisdiction to determine
General Plan consistency. CVWD has submitted a project which they will be shortly
undertaking.
The project consists of the construction of concrete slope protection on the banks
of the Whitewater River in a number of areas including La Quinta. Within :La Quinta,
slope construction would occur along the Whitewater River starting one quarter mile
downstream from Dune Palms Road for a distance of 1300 feet along the north bank.
The purpose of this project according CVWD, is to prevent erosion to the banks of
the Whitewater River Storm Water Channel during periods of high water flow.
ANALYSIS:
The proposed project would upgrade the ability of the Whitewater River Stormwater
Channel to carry water during periods of flooding. This would improve the
stormwater protection for the citizens of La Quinta as well as surrounding
communities.
FINDINGS:
1. The CVWD's project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La
Quinta General Plan.
2. The CVWD project will promote the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens
of La Quinta.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the above findings, the Planning and Development Department
recommends that the Planning Commission by Minute Motion, determine that the
public works project proposed by the CVWD within the City of La Quinta is
consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Letter from CVWD dated November 12, 1991.
PCST.037
zESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH November 12, 1991
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
File: 0121.1
0121.2
a ` '
NOV 19 1991
1
In compliance with Section 6540X of the Government Code, this District hereby
notifies your agency that it proposes the Whitewater River Slope Protection
Construction Program.
The project consists of the construction of concrete slope protection on the
banks of the Whitewater River and Coachella Valley Stormwater Channels at the
following locations:
1. Jackson Street to Auto Center Drive, 4,500 feet on the south bank.
2. Chaparral Country Club, 7,000 feet on both banks.
3. Monroe Street Drop to Jackson Street, 6,000 feet on the south bank.
4. Auto Center Drive to Avenue 54, 31,000 feet on the south bank.
5. Dune Palms Road, one -quarter mile downstream, 1,300 feet on the north bank.
6. Cathedral Canyon Country Club, 3,500 feet on the north bank.
7. Morningside and Thunderbird Country Clubs, 11,000 feet on both banks.
8.
9.
Monterey Country Club, 4,000 feet on both banks.
Rancho Las Palmas Country Club, 9,500 feet on both banks.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Planning Commission -2- November 12, 1991
City of La Quinta
The purpose of this project is to prevent erosion to the banks of the Whitewater
River Stormwater Channel during periods of high flows.
Project and general location maps are enclosed.
No environmental impact report is enclosed, none having been prepared as this
District has determined that this project will have no substantial impact on the
environment.
bas/nov
Enclosures/as
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-C
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
December 10, 1991
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 03 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
Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan
Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary
Betty Anthony.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Building Moving Permit 91-001; a request of D & M Morgan
to move a 1, 200 square foot building presently located at 78-435 Cameo
Dunes Place to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information in the
Staff report and stated that Staff requested to table this matter
until the Applicant had paid the fees and was ready to process
the application.
2. It was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by
Commissioner Marrs to table this matter till further notice.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs,
Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
B . Preannexation Zoning 91-068 and General Plan Amendment 91-039; a
request of Valley Land Development to change 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.
PCMIN12-10 1
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Ellson moved and
Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to continue the Public
Hearing to the meeting of January 14, 1992.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs,
Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
C. Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019; a request of Simon Plaza to
develop a mixed use commercial complex which will include the
development of multiple story buildings and a five level parking
structure on 5.5+ acres zoned Scenic Highway Commercial. A variance
is requested to reduce the on -site off-street parking standards and to
deviate from the setback requirements of the Municipal Code.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer presented the information
contained in the traffic study and stated there was a correction
relative to the turning movements. A copy of the report is on file
in the Engineering Department.
3. Commissioner Mosher asked if the radius at the intersection
would cut into the property. Mr. Speer stated it would and the
property line would be closer to the octagonal restaurant/bank
structure.
4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the bus turnout and turning lane
would be in conflict. Mr. Speer stated there would not be a
deceleration lane so as to cause a conflict.
5. Commissioner Marrs asked if the radius would encroach in the
setback. Mr. Speer stated it would encroach for about 37 feet.
Discussion followed regarding the setbacks.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked if Simon Drive would be a full turning
movement on Washington Street. Mr. Speer stated it would until
the median was constructed. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic flow and bus turnouts for this and the neighboring
projects.
7. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Fred Simon
Sr., property owner/Applicant, addressed the Commission
regarding his concern for a right turn in and out access only.
He asked that a signal be allowed on Simon Drive that would be
synchronized with the Highway 111 signal.
PCMINI2-10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
8. Mr. Philip Pead, Applicant, gave a description of what the
project proposed. He introduced Mr. Rudy Leeway, Brunswick
Bowling Center, who gave a presentation on the operational
merits of the bowling alley. Commissioner Ellson asked if the
bowling alley would be applying for a liquor license. Mr. Leeway
stated they would be serving alcohol. Mr. Pead continued with
his presentation.
9. Commissioner Mosher inquired about the original approvals in
1982 in regard to the 3.4 acres dedicated for the right-of-way.
Mr. Pead stated that Mr. Simon had already spent a great deal of
money for the original improvements to get it where it is today.
10. Mr. Pead then went on to discuss the conditions that he had
objections to. Those conditions were: #14, #16, #18, #25.A.,
C. , E. , F. , J. , #38, #41-45, #49, #53, #64, and #65.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked how tall the existing Simon building
is and how tall will the proposed building be. It was stated the
existing Simon Motors building is between 35 and 38 feet high and
the proposed buildings will be the same height. She then asked
how the parcels were split and who owned them. Mr. Paul Seltzer
stated the corner parcel was owned by Pomona Federal Savings
and Loan. The remainder is owned by a partnership of Mr.
Simon, Mr. Sanborn, and Mr. Seltzer. Commissioner Ellson
asked if they would be developing the project. Mr. Pead stated
they would be hiring a developer to build the project.
12. Commissioner Mosher asked where the 3.4 acres that was
dedicated was located. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn & Webb,
stated that 66 feet of Washington Street and the full width of
Simon Drive was dedicated to the City. Discussion followed as to
how much more land was being required by the City.
Commissioner Mosher then asked who approved the preliminary
and final map. Mr. Sanborn stated that the final map was
processed through the City. Discussion followed as to who
requested the dedications and how they came to be.
13. Mr. Paul Seltzer, attorney and part owner, addressed the
Commission regarding the dedications imposed on the project. He
stated they would be willing to dedicate to the City the additional
right-of-way on Washington Street and the 65 foot radius
required at the corner in return for the setback and height
reductions. Discussion followed as the value of the property and
the potential income from that property.
14. Commissioner Mosher questioned why any City or County would
require the road improvements to be installed on Simon Drive.
Mr. Simon stated that the County not only required a road but an
PCMINI2-10 3
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
88 foot wide road and in addition they were forced to supply a
water line from Dune Palms Road to Washington Street in order to
supply the La Quinta Plaza shopping center with water.
15. Commissioner Ellson asked if the conditions imposed on them were
greater than conditions imposed on any other developer. Mr.
Simon stated this was a difficult question to answer but he felt
they were excessive.
16. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. Pead to expand on the medical
services that were indicated on the plans. Mr. Pead stated they
were working with a medical center to bring limited services to
the area. Discussion followed as to possible tenants and also
alternative site plans.
17. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for the intensity of the
building density. She asked if the project could be viable with
a lower amount of building square footage. Mr. Pead stated they
felt the square foot area was what they feel the property is
worth.
18. Mr. Steve Robbins, Esco Engineering, spoke on behalf of the
Washington Square owners to the south, expressing their
concerns about a two story building within 150 feet of Washington
Street and that it will be in conflict with other approved projects
on Washington Street. Other objections were:
a. The landscape setback reductions
b. The stormwater retention basin (off -site)
c. The full turn access at Simon Drive and Washington
Street.
d. The 8 foot bike lane should be the same along Washington
as everyone else.
He further stated that one half of the property dedicated for
Simon Drive belonged to the Washington Square property
owners. In addition, the water line extensions are required by
Coachella Valley Water District as growth dictates development.
19. Mr. Pead addressed the issue of the stormwater retention and
stated they are working with the City to solve this problem.
20. Commissioner Mosher inquired about the 154 parking spaces they
are lacking. Mr. Pead stated they felt time share parking would
be acceptable to the City and that they would submit their
calculations soon.
PCMINI2-10 4
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
21. Commissioner Ellson asked if the restaurant is proposed only to
be a dinner house, what is to keep it from serving lunches and
thereby changing the parking requirements. Mr. Pead stated
this should be controlled through the Conditional Use Permit
process.
22. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern regarding the intensity
of the proposed uses and the size of the parking structure. She
asked if they had pursued any of the suggestions of the Design
Review Board in regard to providing additional parking
underground (sub -grade) . Mr. Pead stated they were already
one level below ground and in reality the structure is no higher
than the proposed building.
23. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for openness for a view
through the project. Mr. Merlin Barth, architect for the project,
addressed the design issues and further explained the layout of
the buildings to show where there were views through the
buildings. Discussion followed as to this location being a focal
point entrance to the City.
24. There being no further comments, Chairwoman Barrows closed
the Public Hearing.
25. Commissioner Mosher inquired of Staff regarding joint use of
parking being provided for in the City ordinances. Staff stated
that the Ordinance does provide for joint use but the Applicant
has not provided Staff with the information to make this
determination.
26. Commissioner Mosher asked how much land is in the setback on
Washington Street right-of-way. It was stated approximately
20,000 square feet. Discussion followed as to methods the City
could use to obtain the right-of-way.
27. Commissioner Ellson asked whether the bike path would fall
within the setback area. Staff stated it would not. Discussion
followed regarding the area to be used for bike paths and bus
turnouts.
28. Commissioner Mosher asked the Applicant if they have a fitness
center and bowling alley tenant. Mr. Pead stated they have both
tenants secured.
29. Chairwoman Barrows asked the Commission to express their view
on the Variance request. Commissioner Ladner stated she
objected to making exceptions and felt the project should conform
to the City requirements. Chairwoman Barrows, Commissioner
Ladner, and Commissioner Ellson stated their objections to the
PCMIN12-10 5
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
building mass and project density. Commissioner Mosher would
like to see the project conform to the requirement of all one story
structures within 150 feet of a major arterial, the parking
requirements being resolved, and the retention basin resolved
with Engineering. Commissioner Ellson would like to see the
square foot distribution of the buildings rearranged.
Commissioner Marrs expressed his appreciation to the Applicant
for working with Staff and feels his project will be contribution
to the community and would like to see these issues resolved.
30. Due to the above stated concerns of the Commission and their
desire to see the project approved the Commission felt the project
should be continued to allow Staff and the Applicant time to see
if they could work out some of these problems.
31. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to
refer Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019 back to Staff to
resolve the concerns of the Commission and bring this issue back
to the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 14, 1992.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
D. Public Use Permit 91-012; a request of the Boys and Girls Club for a
24,000 square foot clubhouse, administrative offices, and future
outdoor swimming pool and pool building.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson inquired if the schools went to year round
attendance would there be a problem with the parking. Staff
stated this was a possibility.
3. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Reuel
Young, architect for the project, gave a presentation of the
project. He further stated that in the planning of the project
year round school attendance was addressed and it was felt that
the adjacent areas would provide enough parking. He asked that
the one-way traffic condition be changed from east to west to
west to east. He also asked for clarification of Conditions #1 and
#12.
PCMIN12-10 6
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
4. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer addressed Condition of
Approval #12 and stated that Park Avenue would need to be
widened to allow a turning pocket and have a total width of 40
feet. It is presently 32 feet. Commissioner Ladner asked why
Staff did not create additional lanes. Staff stated that by
creating additional lanes you would probably be creating a
problem of cars traveling at a greater speed.
5. Commissioners expressed their approval of the design and
thanked Mr. Young for the work he had done.
6. Mr. Young asked for a clarification of Condition #17 as it could
alter the landscape design if the citrus trees were to be removed.
He asked if as they fill for the pad the playground would remain
at the same level, could this serve as the retention basin. Staff
stated this could be worked out with Engineering. Chairman
Barrows asked the Applicant to retain as many trees as possible.
7. Commissioner Ellson asked if the future pool would be an olympic
size pool. Mr. Young stated that the pool was designed to be six
lanes and 25 meter long which is the standard race length.
8. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. Young to familiarize the
Commission on the heat transmission of a standing seam roof .
Mr. Young stated they are a saucer in shape and in a desert
climate they get hot fast and cool fast. The way it is constructed
the heat would not be held in. In addition, it would be a great
help on maintenance.
9. Mr. Bob Ross, financial consultant, addressed the Commission on
the good results they were having with other Boys & Girls Clubs
utilizing the standing seam roof.
10. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows
closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Marrs stated that the
Design Review Board approved of the project whole heartedly.
11. Mr. Young asked to clarify what the exterior material would be.
He stated their preference would be to use concrete block due to
maintenance and other considerations but they would like to have
the option to use concrete block or stucco. The Commission had
no objection as long as the color would remain the same.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
adopt Minute Motion 91-050 approving Public Use Permit 91-012
subject to the amended Condition #3 and with the addition of a
condition allowing the exterior material to be concrete block.
Discussion followed as to the widening of Park Avenue.
Unanimously approved.
PCMINI2-10
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
E. Street Name Change 91-002; a request of Wilma Pacific for approval to
change the street name of Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive.
1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Dennis
LaMont, Wilma Pacific, addressed the Commission regarding the
street name change.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner
and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 91-062 recommending to the City Council
approval of Street Name Change 91-002.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
VI. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Sign Application 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza 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.
1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Ladner moved and
Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue this matter to
January 14, 1992. Unanimously approved.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioner Ladner asked that the Minutes of November 26, 1991, be
approve as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VIII. OTHER
A. Planning Director Jerry Herman explained that at the request of the
Commission, he had contacted the Fire Marshal asking for their
recommendation regarding their need for sideyard setbacks. Mr.
Herman read the Fire Marshal's response regarding ratios and setback
requirements. Discussion followed regarding setbacks and options the
Commission could take.
B . Planning Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission if they would like
a preliminary review of major projects before they go to a public
hearing. At the request of the Commission this would be placed on the
January 14, 1992 agenda.
PCMIN12-10 8
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10, 1991
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on
January 14, 1992, at 7:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This
meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:27 P.M.,
December 10, 1991.
PCMINI2-10 9