1992 07 14 PCoUee.•
e°Afi1e♦
o...
on -we
A,W
� T N [ ( I T 1 D ►
A �nta
181- 1992
Ten Carat Decade
PLAIN XlVG COMfX S,SION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
July 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 92-024
Beginning Minute Motion 92-024
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
PRESENTATION BY 10TH ANNIVERSARY COMMITTEE
ROLL CALL
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91-223
Applicant .......... Tucker Companies
Location ........... Between Highway 111, 48th Avenue, Dune Palms Road
and Adams Street
Request ............ Public comment on the Draft EIR for the construction
of a regional shopping complex consisting of
approximately 1,800,000 square feet of retail and
office space on approximately 160 acres.
Action ....... :..... To be tabled.
Written comments due August 20, 1992 by 5:00 P.M. at
City Hall.
PC/AGENDA 1
2. Item ............... ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 92-025
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City wide
Request ............ To amend the R-1 Zoning Code (Chapter 9.32) and
any other applicable sections to allow provisions for
on -site fencing requirements
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.
When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and
address.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ..............
Applicant ..........
Location ...........
Request............
Action .............
CONSENT CALENDAR
PLOT PLAN 92-488 - PHAR MOR
Transpacific Development Company
(Washington/Adams Partnership
Area bounded by Highway 111, Whitewater Storm
Channel, Washington Street, and Adams Street
Approval of plans for a portion of Phase II of One
Eleven La Quinta Center.
Minute Motion 92-
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held June
23, 1992.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
-------------------
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1992
City Council Chambers
DISCUSSION ONLY
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
2.
PC/AGENDA 2
T H E C I T Y O F
Latnta MEMORANDUM
982 - 1992 Yen cult Deraft
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: JULY 14, 1992
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LA QUINTA
CANYON CENTER (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #92032012)
The review process has commenced, for the Mall EIR with the closing date for written
comments on August 20, 1992. It is requested that the matter be tabled at this time.
Any future hearings will be duly noticed and advertised. It is unknown at this time
when the public hearing on the Draft EIR will be scheduled.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to table this matter.
MEMOJH.201
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JULY 14, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 9, 1992)
CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-025
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITY WIDE
REQUEST: AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
FENCING STANDARDS IN AN R-1 ZONE DISTRICT AND
CONFIRMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT HAS PREPARED
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE AMENDMENT AND
DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON
THE ENVIRONMENT WILL RESULT. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN
PREPARED.
BACKGROUND:
On June 9, 1992, the Planning Commission continued action on this case to allow Staff
additional time to research issues the Planning Commission had related to the
proposed fencing ordinance. The Planning Commission requested Staff survey the
surrounding desert cities to ascertain how they condition single family residential
properties concerning the development of perimeter fencing. Staff contacted the
primary cities of the Valley. The results of the survey are as follows:
1. The cities which require fencing during the construction of a new home are
Cathedral City, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Indio*, and Rancho Mirage*.
* Note: Tract development fencing.
2. Type of wall required (front yard) :
Wrought iron - Cathedral City* and Palm Desert
Masonry - Cathedral City*, Indian Wells, Indio, Palm Desert, and
Rancho Mirage
Wood & Stucco - Cathedral City*, Indio, and Rancho Mirage
* Note: Front yard fencing not required in Cathedral City (optimal) .
3. Minimum lot size which is exempt from the new on -site wall requirement:
15,000 sq. ft. - Cathedral City
40 acres - Indian Wells
PCST.068 1
4. Cities which allow chain link fencing:
Front/rear yards - Rancho Mirage*
Rear yard only - Palm Springs, Cathedral City**
Temporary - Indian Wells
Recreational uses - Rancho Mirage, Indio, Cathedral City, and
Palm Springs
* Note: Allowed for non -tract developments but must include landscaping on the
side of the fence which faces the neighbors property.
** Note: Cathedral City allows chain link fencing for lots greater than 15,000
square feet.
Some of the local cities require permanent fencing during the construction of a new
single family home, and the perimeter wall must be decorative (e.g., either masonry
or wood framed with stucco) . The City of Palm Springs does not require a new wall
or fence during the construction of a new home. However, if one is built it must be
decorative on the side facing a public street.
Two desert cities had provisions which exempt the owner from the installation of a
new wall. Cathedral City set their minimum size at 0.34 acre whereas Indian Wells
was 40 acres (or larger) .
Some local cities surveyed did not permit permanent chain link fencing, while others
only permitted permanent chain link fences in the rear portion of the lot. Chain link
fencing was permitted for tennis courts or other recreational uses on a very limited
basis.
In conclusion, we believe fencing should be optional except for perimeter fencing for
new tract developments. But if an owner desires to fence the lot, the owner should
be required to meet the architectural standards that are setforth in the attached
resolution. The only other additional exception would be for lots greater than 20, 000
square feet. These lots would be permitted to have chain link fencing provided the
side facing the public street was landscaped to enhance the character of the fencing
material. We believe that the properties greater than 20,000 square feet will
probably have livestock, therefore, galvanized fencing would be an acceptable
material for this type of property. We also believe chain link fencing is appropriate
for tennis courts. The attached resolution has been modified to reflect these
provisions (see 1, 3G, 3H, 3I, and 5) .
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 92- recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 92-025.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission report of June 9, 1992
2-. Negative Declaration
3. Planning Commission Minutes
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 92-_
PCST.068
PLANNING CONiINIISSION RESOLUTION 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN
AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING FENCING
STANDARDS FOR R-1 ZONED AREAS (CHAPTER 9.32) AND
CONFIRMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-025
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
9th day of June, 1992, and on the 14th Day of July, 1992, hold duly noticed Public
Hearings recommending to the City Council amendments to the La Quinta Municipal
Code regarding; and,
WHEREAS, this Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"
(Resolution 82-63, adopted by City of La Quinta), in that the Planning Director has
conducted an updated initial study and has determined that the proposed Text
Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a
Negative Declaration is hereby adopted for this application; 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 to justify recommendation for approval of said Text
Amendment:
1. The Text Amendments to the Municipal Code are consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan.
2. Approval of the Amendments will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts.
3. The Amendments will provide for improved appearance to single-family
residential development which will in turn improve the neighborhood.
4. The Amendments will provide development standards for R-1 properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 92-
236, indicating that the proposed Text Amendment will not result in any
significant environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration should be
adopted;
RESOPC.074
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above
described Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment request for the reasons set forth
in this Resolution, and as illustrated in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of July, 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.074
EXHIBIT "A"
ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 92-025
(EA 92-236)
CHAPTER 9.204/WALLS, FENCES, AND LANDSCAPING:
Amend 9.204.020 ( Height Standards) as follows:
"Except as provided in Section 9.204.030, walls or fences shall be as
allowed in respective zone requirements for SR and R-1 Zones. In
other residential zones a maximum 6 foot high wall or fence shall be
allowed in rear, side, and front yard areas as approved by the Planning
and Development Department, except as provided in Section 9.204.030.
CHAPTER 9.32/R-1:
Add to Section 9.32.020 (Development Standards) Subsection "G" to read as follows:
FENCES/WALLS:
1. General Requirements: Property fencing shall be optional. The exception to
this provision will be for private completely gated communities which are to
have perimeter fencing but are not required to have rear or sideyard fencing
inside the project unless required by an adopted specific plan, approved tract
map conditions or by the Applicant's CC & R's.
2. Height/Location: Fencing for rear and interior side yards shall be limited to
a maximum of 6-feet in height. The fence may be located on the property line.
Fencing in the front and street side yards shall be limited as follows:
Setback from Street Fence Height
Right-of-way 4 maximum
Under 10
10' up to 20' 5' maximum
20' and over 6' maximum
(Note: height of swimming pool fencing in front and exterior side yards is
controlled by State Code and is exempt from the above regulations. Corner
setback regulations for fencing and walls, per Chapter 9.204 must be complied
with. Perimeter walls around tracts may be 6-feet in height and constructed
on property line . )
3. Construction Material/Standards: All fencing/walls shall conform with the
following:
A. Wood Fencing: Wooden fencing is permitted in the rear or interior
sideyard only when not visible from the street. All wood fencing shall
be constructed of #1 Cedar or Redwood, stained or painted to match or
compliment the adjacent wall or structure. The wood, if compatible with
the adjacent wall or structure, may as an alternative be water treated
RESOPC.074 3
and left in the natural color. The fence boards may be erected
horizontal or vertical. Support posts shall be a minimum of 4" X 4"
Redwood or pressure treated lumber, or steel/tubular steel or block
placed 5-feet on center and imbedded in concrete or having a concrete
footing. The posts shall be installed on the interior side of said lot with
fencing material on the outside edge of posts.
*Exception: Split rail Cedar or Redwood fencing is permitted within the
front and street sideyards.
B . Ornamental Iron Tubular Steel: Ornamental iron/tubular steel fencing
may be used along the front or street side yards only. The iron/steel
must be painted to compliment the adjacent wall or structure.
C. Solid masonry fencing or walls (includes block, rock, brick, stucco) :
masonry fencing is permitted in the front, side, rear, and street
sideyards. The fencing color must compliment the adjacent wall or
structure. Masonry fencing or walls are required in the front, street
sideyards and in any location which is adjacent or visible to any street
or alley.
D. Combination: Combinations of the above material maybe used provided
that the bottom one-half is constructed of a masonry material.
Combinations using wood materials may only be used for the rear and
interior sideyards when not visible from the street.
E. Gates: Gates shall be constructed of ornamental iron/tubular steel
and/or #1 Cedar or Redwood boards stained or painted to match or
compliment the adjacent wall or structure. Wooden gates shall have a
metal frame.
F. Fences and walls shall generally conform with the design standards and
typical layouts contained within the Manual on Architectural Standards,
unless modified above.
G . Temporary security fencing as required by any governmental agency
shall be permitted notwithstanding any other provision of this title.
H. Chain link fencing will be permitted for estate properties (lots greater
than 20,000 square feet) but all fences within fifty feet (501) of the
front yard property Mine shall include landscaping on the side that faces
a public street.
I. Tennis courts within a private gated community can be fenced with
vinyl --coated chain link fencing provided the fencing cannot be viewed
from a public thoroughfare and includes perimeter landscaping. The
height of the fence shall not exceed ten feet.
RESOPC.074 4
5. Planning Director Review:
Requests for exceptions to the above standards may be brought before the
Planning Director for review. The Planning Director shall have the authority
to review unusual circumstances of an applicant to ascertain whether the
above standards are impractical or contrary to the purpose of the ordinance.
The Director shall have the authority to evaluate architectural materials
and/or architectural design modifications.
6. Maintenance:
A. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair.
The property owner has 30-days after receiving notice to repair a wall
or fence. The Building Official may grant a time extension not to
exceed 60-days.
RESOPC.074
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JUNE 9, 1992
CASE: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 92-025
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
REQUEST: AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
FENCING STANDARDS IN AN R-1 ZONE DISTRICT AND
CONFIRMATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS PREPARED AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
AMENDMENT AND DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT WILL RESULT.
THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment has been before the Planning
Commission at a prior study session (see the attached memo) . The primary reason
that this item is before the Planning Commission is to develop standards for fencing
in the R-1 Zoned areas. Presently, the standards for fencing are located in Chapter
9.204. However, this part of the Zoning Code does not adequately provide
standards for front yard fencing nor type of material to be used. In summary, it is
appropriate that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution thereby
establishing standards and materials which can be used for R-1 developments. The
standards proposed are similar to the SR (Special Residential) Code provisions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 92- recommending to the City
Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 92-025.
Attachments:
1. Memo to City Council dated April 14, 1992
2. Negative Declaration
3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 92-
PCST.057 1
� 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND hlENIBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: APRIL 14, 1992
SUBJECT: FRONT YARD FENCING IN THE R-1 ZONED AREAS
BACKGROUND:
The present R-1 Zone District provisions do not address front setbacks and heights
for walls or fences. Fencing is addressed in Chapter 9.204 of the Municipal Zoning
Code (see attached Code provisions) . In this section, staff would interpret the Code
to allow a six foot high wall anywhere within the front yard area of the lot (from
property line to the home). htoreexam
front
ninesthe this iront ssue since the
feet of
the lot.- There has been some outside interest
Code is unspecified at this time.
The issue of walls/ fencing and heights of walls was examined by the City in 1990,
when the City initiated a chthige to s action. TheSR (present SR Codeecial laddresses frone. t yard
ve
properties were affected by
walls and fences (masonry only) as follows:
"Height/Location: Fencing in the front and street side yards shall be
limited as follows:
Setback Fence Height
0' - 10' 4' maximum
10.1' or more
5' maximum
(Note: height of swimming pool fencing in front yards is controlled by
State Code and is exempt from the above regulations. Corner setback
regulations, per Chapter 9.204 must be complied with. Perimeter
fencing around tracts may be 6-feet in height and constructed on
property line.)"
ANALYSIS:
The SR Code Standards are typical for some cities and counties of children in the yard
foot high wall is high enough to keep small pets and young
without constant supervision, but low enough for crime prevention needs. A five
foot high privacy fence could be located +10 the et from the
height.front
property line if the
owner desired additional privacy beyond
ider is
Another issue that the Planning Commfence or wall. Staff,recommendseall type
owing
material to be used for a front yard
ht iron, stucco, but discourage wood or chain link
materials like masonry, wroug
t as tr iftwve ood s ornamental fencing, and
fencing. The latter two items are
usually involves more maintenance particularly
PROPOSED OPTIONS:
Alternative #1: Leave the existing Zoning Code alone.
Alternative #2: Examine a change in the present R-1 Zoning Code using similar
standards to the SR District Standards.
Alternative #3: Examine a change intheeDistr ctpresent
Zoning Sttandards Code
forslnon-gated
similar
standards to
communities but allow flexibility for private communities.
In a gated community, a Homeowner's Association usually
governs the aesthetics issues of its residence. There might be
some merit to allow private communities more flexibility in
determining wall heights in their projects since the facilities are
usually gated and have their own on -site security. For example,
depending on the design of the home, a fi . e foot high wall --n the
front Ward property line may make more sense for privacy needs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission dire-- Staff to evalua-e the
merits of changing the existing R-1 Code Standards for front yard fencing if the
Planning Commission believes the existing code is adequate.
Attachments:
Chapter 9.204 (Walls, Fences & Landscaping)
Chapter 9.32 (R-1 Zone)
MEMOGT.017
9.200.030
relating to such recreati al vehicle use. (Ord. 30 S1
(pa t), 1983: Ord. 5 Sl(pa ), 1982: county Ordinance 348
S18. (a))
9. .030 Permit 2roceduie. A. Application. Prior
to moving he vehicle onto the site, the owner of the prop-
erty or the ehicle shall obtain a "t orary use license"
from the city epartment of community d elopment. The ap-
plication shal include the following in IL ation.
1. Add ss of dwelling where vehi a will park.
2. Name zd address of vehicle owne user.
3. Number f persons habitating vehic
4. Authoriz ion of resident and/or pro -te
owner
permitting the temporar use. ear and color• nd
5. Description ake, :model, y
license number of vehicle.
6. Location on the of where vehicle will park.
B. Permit. After review f the application by the
appr riate city staff, a permi ay be granted for a period
not to xceed fourteen consecutiv days. False, fraud-: lent
or misle ing information on the ap 'ication is grou.—s for
denial. T permit shall be display in open view on the
vehicle.
C. Fees. A nonrefundable fee of t dollars is
required at the ',e of application.
D. Revocatio.• of Permit. A permit ca be revoke if
it is determined by e city that the use as nd::cte- is
creating a nuisance or 'n violation of the muni pa`:ides.
'
':he vehicle shall be re.,, ved frc:m the premises w twen-
:•
ty-four hours of issuance f the notice of revocat_ n.
E. Enforcement. ' hhe hicle shall cease being -sed
for temporary habitation and removed from the prone_
upon expiration or revocation o the permit, othe:-a:se i
shall be in violation of this t:_ e. Every day that a vio
ration continues to exist, shah b deemed a separate vio-
lation subject to criminal prosecution
Oother Si{pa:tiate
legal action. (Ord. 30 S1(p
1982: county Ordinance 348 S18.41(b))
Chapter 9.204
WALLS, FENCES AND LANDSCAPING
Sections:
9.204.010 Generally.
9.204.020 Height standards.
9.204.030 Protection of intersection visibility.
9.204.040 Method of height measurement.
9.204.050 Reconstruction.
9.204.060 Measurement of retaining walls.
186-152 (La Quinta 6/87)
.204.010--9.204.040
9.204.010 Generall . No person shall erect a fence or
wall or visual obstruction, or permit the growth of a hedge
or landscaping, on a residentially zoned lot, which is in
violation of any of the provisions set out in this chapter.
(Ord. 32 S1(part), 1983: Ord. 5 Sl(part), 1982: county
Ordinance 348 S18.40(part))
9.204 020 Height standards. Except as provided in
Section 9.204.030, walls or fences not exceeding six feet in
height shall be permitted in all side, rear and front yards
and along all property lines, excepting the corner cutback
areas. (Ord. 32 S1(part), 1983: Crd. 5 §1(part), 1982:
county Ordinance 348 S18.40(a))
9.204.030 Protection of intersection visibility. The
following regulations shall apply regarding corner lots at
the intersections of streets.
A. There shall be no visual obstructions as herein
defined within the corner cutback area. The corner cutback
area is hereby defined as the triangular area created by a
forty -five -degree angle line on a ::orizontal plane connect-
ing two points on intersection property lines as showy. on
Exhibit "A."
B. Zn the corner cutback area, visual obstructions are
hereby defined as any wall, fence, obstacle, mature land-
scaping or anything allowed, installed, set out or main-
tained which exceeds a height of three and one-half feet
above the ;oining top of curb at t::e applicable corner of
the street intersection, or three feet above the nearest
cavement surface where there is rc curb, or the existing
traveled roadway where there is no curb or pavement.
C. Exceptions. Visual obstructions shall not include
existing or future permanent buildings, whicn, are ogler -wise
constructed or maintained in acccrdance with applicable zon-
ing and building regulations; public utility poles, trees
trimmed at the trunk at least eig::t feet above the level of
the reference point as defined herein provided trees are
spaced so that trunks do not create a visual barrier, and
official traffic or other governmental signs.
D. In residential zones, the corner cutback area shall
consist of a triangular area created by the diagonal con-
nection of two points measured twenty feet back from the
intersection of the prolongation of the property lines abut-
ting the two streets. (Ord. 32 S1(part), 1983: Ord. 5
S1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S18.40(b))
9.204.040 Method of height measurement. The height of
walls, fences, hedges and landscaping, as permitted, shall
be measured from finish grade as defined in Chapter 70 of
the Uniform Building Code. In cases where finish grade
varies from one face to the other of a wall or fence, the
height shall be measured from the lowest point of finish
186-153 (La Quinta 6/87)
9.204.050--9.208.010
grade. In the event that practical difficulties and hard-
ships result from the strict enforcement of these regu-
lations due to grade problems of abutting street, slope of
property, or other site conditions, the applicant requesting
a building permit may apply for a variance as provided for
in Chapter 9.168 of this title. (Ord. 41 S1, 1983: Ord. 32
S1(part), 1983: Ord. 5 S1(part), 1982: county Ordinance
348 S18.40(c))
9.204.050 Reconstruction. Notwithstanding any pro-
vision of Chapter 9.152 to the contrary, any fence, wall,
hedge or landscaping which is destroyed or damaged to the
extent of more than fifty percent of its total repla:event
value, may not be reconstructed, repaired, rebuilt :r rees-
tablished. For purposes of this section, the portl:n there-
of, which is in a corner cutback area shall be considered
separately from the rest of any fence, wall, hedge sr land-
scaping to which it is or was attached. (Ord. 32 S:(part),
1983: Ord. 5 §1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 S18.40
(d))
9.204.060 measurement of retaining walls_. As an ex-
ception to the provisions of Section 9.204.040, in lases of
retaining walls on the boundaries of lots, where t o finish
grade varies frog one face to the other of such wall, the
increased so as to prov:
height of such wall may be�e a wall
height of not more than forty-two inches above the `:g::er
point of finish grade, where necessary in order to :rovide
"guardra-l" protection as to the lot with the higher _`finish
grade. (Ord. 42 S2, 1983: Ord. 32 Sl(part), 1983: Ord. 5
S1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 518.40(e))
Chapter 9.208
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Sections:
9.288. 0 Compliance quired.
9.208 20 Criteria d conditions.
9.2 .030 Applica on.
9. 8.040 Filin ees.
.208.050 Revi and inve/nr
9.208.060 Fi ity of dector.
9.208.070 A eal.9.208.080 inality ofdecssion.
9.208.09 Notification oftment.
9.208.1 Annual review.J4
9.20 .010 Compliance/rired. A home oc pation as
defined n Section 9.08.4be engaged in rovided that
154 a Quint 6/87)
9.32.010
B. pooedloor advert' ng displays, ea outdoor
Aor-
vertisin display sha be at least fiv undyed f from
any of r such disp (Ord. 5 51(p t), 1982: county
Ordi nce 348 55.25
Chapter 9.32
R-1 ZONE (ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS
Sections:
9.32.010 Permitted uses.
9.32.020 Development standards.
9.32.010 Permitted uses. A. The following uses shall
be permitted in the R-1 zone:
1. One -family dwellings.
2. Field crops, flower and vegetable gardening,
tree crops, and greenhouses used only for purposes of propa-
gation and culture, including the sale thereof from the
premises and one unlighted sign that does not exceed two
square feet in size pertaining to sale of the products.
3. The noncommercial keeping of horses on lots not
less than twenty thousand square feet in area and one hun-
dred feet in width, provided they are kept not less than one
hundred feet from any street and twenty feet from any prop-
erty line. A maximum of two horses per twenty thousand
square feet and, in any event, not more than four horses on
a lot will be permitted. If a lot is one acre or more in
area, poultry and rabbits may be kept for the use of the
occupants of the premises only. The poultry and rabt:ts
shall be kept in an enclosed area located not less than fif-
ty feet from any residence and shall be maintained on the
rear portion of the lot in conjunction with a residential
use. If a lot is two acres or more in area, two sheep or
goats or combination thereof may be kept in addition there-
to, provided they are kept not less than one hundred feet
from any street, twenty feet from any property line and fif-
ty feet from any residence.
4. Public parks and public playgrounds, golf
courses with standard length fairways, and country clubs.
5. Home occupations. provided a
6. Planned residential developments, p
land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of
county Ordinance 460 and the development standards in Sec-
tion 9.148.010 of this title.
B. The following uses are permitted provided a plot
plan has been approved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
9.180:
186-32 (La Quinta 6/87)
9.32.020
1. Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhab-
itants where no assistants are employed and the on -site sign
is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in area.
2. Temporary real estate tract offices located
within a subdivision, to be used only for and during the
original sale of the subdivision, but not to exceed a period
of two years in any event.
3. Nurseries, horticultural. (Ord. 5 S1(part),
1982: county Ordinance 348 S6.1)
9.32.020 Development standards_. The following stan-
dards of deve:opmerit shall apply in the R-1 zone, except
that planned residential developments shall comply with the
development standards contained in Section 9.148.010 of this
title:
A. Building height shall not exceed two and one-half
stories, with a maximum height of thirty-five feet.
B. Lot area shall be not less than seven thousand two
hundred square feet. The minimiLm lot area shall be de-
termined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used
solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building
site.
C. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot
to be used as a building site sisal: be sixty feet with a
minimum average depth of one hundred feet. That portion of
a lot used for access on "flag" lots shall have a min mum,
width of twenty feet.
D. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be sixty feet,
except that lots fronting on knuckles or cul-de-sacs may
have a minimum frontage of thirty-five feet.
E. Minimum yard requirements are as follows:
1. The front yard shall be not less than twenty
feet, measured from the existing street line or from any
future street 'line as shown on an,: specific plan of high-
ways, whichever is nearer the p:opcsed structure.
2. Side yards on interior and through lots shall
be not less than ten percent of the width of the lot, but
not less than three feet in width in any event, and need not
exceed a width of five feet. Side yards on corner and re-
versed corner lots shall be not less than ten feet from the
existing street line or from any future street line as shown
on any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the
proposed structure, upon which the main building sides, ex-
cept that where the lot is less than fifty feet wide the
yard need not exceed twenty percent of the width of the lot.
3. The rear yard shall not be less than ten feet.
F. Automobile storage space shall be provided as re-
quired by Chapter 9.160 of this title. (Ord. 5 51(part),
1982: county Ordinance 348 S6.2)
186-33 (La Quinta 6/87)
4A� 9- 23to
►� CITY OF U QMWA
,��
�Moy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: -Fp �&_`,C l S o
3. Date of Checklist:-
4. Agency Requiring Checklist:-
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Zp r q e2 — o Z e)
-
II. ENVIRONr ENTAL IMPACTS -
(Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers le 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
lr
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,
V
either on or off the site? ___-
—
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes ir siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the &-annel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake'.
—
g. Expcsure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
v
slides, ground failure, or similar hazards.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. substantial air e^nissions or deterioration of
ardent air quality?
—
b. The creation of ob;ect:or.able odors? —
—
c. Alteration of air motie--ent, 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?
c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood
waters? —
—
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any
water body? —
—"
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
l�
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? --
--
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
V
of ground waters? —
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? —
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
_
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
_ �!
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic
plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
_ __ ,✓
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
yC
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
,
a.. Charge in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (I-rds, :and animals,
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfa ma)?
—
b. Reduction of the numbers of any tr:que, rare,
or endangered species of animals?
—
c. Introduction of new species of ar.:-als into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
—
d. Deterioration to existing f:s`. or •:ldlife
habitat?
—
6.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels'
—
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
— +�
7.
Light and Glare. Will the propcsal ;::,duce new
light or glare?
—
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal rest.:t :n a substantial
alteration of the present or pla red :and use of an
area?
— —
9.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural
✓
resources?
—
b. Substantial depletion of any renewable
V
natural resource?
— —
10.
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk
of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
—
11.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
dist�ution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
_ —
12.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
_ v
13.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
t/
vehicular movement?
— —
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
✓
demand for new parking?
— —
Yes Maybe_ No
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern-
mental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Fcwer or natural gas?
b. Cc=- .ications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drairage?
f. Sc:id waste and disposal?
17. Kumar, Hearth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creat.cn of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea-
tional opportunities?
20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result
in an alteration of a significant archeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially re-
duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plan or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
(5)
Yes Maybe No
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en-
vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the
environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.) V
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the
total of those impacts on the environment is
significant.) —
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? —
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONNENTAL EVALUATION
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation;
_✓ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
— I find that alt:^,,;gh 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 or. an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION MILL BE PREPARED.
find the prc7c5ed project MAY have a significant effect
on the er.vircnment, and an EN1IROhTE NTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date: J5'� 4 , '12
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 1992
lighting with poles up to 25 feet rather than be restricted to 10-
15 foot poles. Discussion followed regarding problems with
parking lot lights. Staff noted a concern to eliminate overspill
and glare due to the surrounding residentially zoned property.
5. Commissioner Ellson inquired what the lot coverage of the
building to land would be. According to her calculations it would
be 39% and the maximum allowed by the new General Plan would
be 35%. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated that we could not
impose any conditions based on the Updated General Plan.
6. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the landscaping would be
addressed later. Staff stated they would be required to submit
m
detailed landscaping plans for review and approval.
7. Commissioner Mosher asked if child care was to be incorporated
into the project and if it would be for employees only. Planning
Director Jerry Herman stated this was planned for future phases
and their would not be any limitations as to who the child care
would service.
8. Commissioner Ellson asked for a clarification on the spelling of
the Fringe -Toed Lizard.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 92-023 approving
Conditional Use Permit 92-003 and confirmation of the
Environmental Determination, subject to the conditions amending
Condition =3 as requested.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson,
Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Ladner. ABSTAINING: None.
B . Zonins� Ordinance Amendment 92-025; a request of the City to amend the
Municipal Code regarding fencing standards in the R-1 Zone District
and confirmation of the environmental determination.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department .
2. Commissioner Ellson inquired of Staff if fences would be required
in the R-1 Zone. Staff stated they would be required for the
rear and side yards. Commissioner Ellson then inquired if one
acre lots in the R-1 zone would be required to have the same
fencing. Discussion followed relative to limitations on lot sizes
required to fence their yards.
PC6-9
Planning Commission Minutes
June 9, 1992
3. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and as no one
wished to address the Commission on this subject, the public
hearing was closed.
4. Discussion continued between the Commissioners and Staff
relative to fencing requirements and possible exceptions.
Following the discussion it was moved by Commissioner Mosher
and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to continue this item for 30
days (to July 14, 1992) to give Staff an opportunity to look into
limitations on :larger parcels of land.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson,
Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: Commissioner
Ladner. ABSTAINING: None.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
V . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 92-485; a request of Dan Featheringill-DoDco Construction to
convert an existing single family home into a chiropractic office on 0.24
acres in a Commercial Village "The Core" Zone District.
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. There being no questions of Staff, Mr. Dan Featheringill,
applicant, addressed the Commission regarding Conditions
#12.I., W.C., #25.b., #26, and #35.
3. Commissioner Ellson inquired about the limited number of parking
spaces provided. Staff replied that the future building would
provide the required parking additionally, on -street parking is
available.
4. It was noted that where noted in the conditions, Avenida La
Fonda should be changed to Calle Fortuna.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the Village Specific Plan required
a specific type of tree. Staff stated that on some streets certain
types of trees were required. It was determine that possibly a
Blue Palo Verde could be used on Desert Club Drive rather than
the Brazilian Pepper recommended in Condition #12.I.
6. Chairwoman Barrows asked if landscaping would be required.
Staff stated they would be required to landscape or screen the
parking lot.
PC6-9 3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: JULY 14, 1992
CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 92-488
APPLICANT: TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
(WASHINGTON/ADAMS PARTNERSHIP)
ARCHITECT: MC CLELLAND/ CRUZ /GAYLORD ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PLANS FOR A PORTION OF PHASE II OF THE
ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER.
LOCATION: AREA BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 111, WHITEWATER STORM
CHANNEL, WASHINGTON STREET, AND ADAMS STREET
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY
ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT (EA 89-150) WAS APPROVED FOR THE OVERALL
ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER OF WHICH THIS SITE
IS A PART, BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THEIR MEETING
OF APRIL 17, 1990. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LAND USE: NORTH: W-1/FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL WITH
RESIDENTIAL ZONING FURTHER TO THE
NORTH
SOUTH: C-P-S / VACANT LAND
EAST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND
WEST: C-P-S/VACANT LAND
BACKGROUND:
This site is a part of the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center ( Specific Plan 89-
014) which was approved by the City Council on April 17, 1990. At that time a plot
plan application was also approved for the east and west ends of the main shopping
center. The portion in between was not included as part of the plot plan application.
The applicant is now requesting approval of the east portion of the Phase II area.
Presently Wal-Mart and Albertsons are under construction on the property.
Additionally, a Shell service station, ARCO service station, and Automobile Club
office have been approved for the center.
PCST.070
DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The proposed building under consideration in this application is located near the
northerly property line just west of the Wal-Mart and adjacent shops. The Phar-Mor
pharmacy will contain 66,450 square feet. Additionally, a small major of 14,960
square feet and shops containing 9,700 square feet are also proposed.
SITE LAYOUT:
With the specific plan approval in 1990 a conceptual site plan was presented and
approved. Minor changes have been made to the site plan but the overall concept
is still the same. That plan showed one large group of buildings along the north
property line with pad buildings along Washington Street, Highway III and Adams
Street.
ARCHITECTURE:
The architectural style of the building matches that approved for the earlier
Albertsons and adjacent shops. The architecture style is somewhat Southwest with
emphasis on stucco, decorative tile, and precision concrete block with a diamond
block. The colors will match those already approved for earlier phases of the
project.
SIGNAGE :
For the shop buildings, signage will comply with the approved sign program. Phar-
Mor has submitted plans for a larger sign similar to Albertsons and Wal-Mart. That
sign consists of 5' high letters with the overall height being 619" due to a logo
design and a length of 361. The total square footage of the sign would therefore be
243 square feet. The sign would be internally lit letters with the sign face
constructed of a burnt orange plexi-glass and the letter sides being dark bronze.
The Municipal Code allows a maximum 50 square foot sign. Since the proposed sign
is 243 square feet a sign adjustment is necessary as a part of this approval.
For reference, the Albertson's sign is approximately 122 square feet for the 42,630
square foot store with Wal Mart 135 square feet for the 127,154 square foot store.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of July 1, 1992.
The Design Review Board recommended approval of the plans including the Phar-Mor
sign, as submitted.
ANALYSIS:
Staff feels that the proposed project is acceptable since it complies conceptually with
the previously approved specific plan. Additionally, the architectural style will
match the project.
PCST.070 2
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of Minute Motion 92- approving Plot Plan 92-488,
subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Comments from various City Departments and agencies
3. Draft Design Review Board Minutes from meeting of July 1, 1992
4. Draft Conditions of Approval
5. Plans and exhibits
PCST.070 3
CASE MAP
CASE No.
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
LIVERSIDE COUNTY
:OIS BYRD, SHERIFF
City of La Quinta
Planning Department
78105 Calle Estado
La Quinta CA 92253
Atten: Stan Sawa
Principal Planner
Dear Mr. Sawa:
She'riff
82-695 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-899
June 24, 1992
2 R
FJUN16 1991 D
PLANNING DEPARTS NT
RE: Plot Plan 92-488
The Sheriff's Department would like to comment on a number of
significant problems the plans show.
The complex will have a significant impact on police services for
the City of La Quinta. Traffic congestion, patrol requests and
calls for service will impact the Department at least 25%. This
service will require an additional need for police manpower for La
Quinta.
There are a number of deficiencies on the design of the complex.
Those deficiencies are:
♦ Lighting must exceed City of La Quinta requirements to
ensure customer safety as within La Quintals standards
♦ Access road to the north of pads I-1 through M-3 must
be at least 32 feet to allow safe passing by customers
♦ Parking spots need to be on an angle for easier access
• Trim off curb corner for easier turning
♦ Passenger drop-off for theaters is not adequate
♦ Eliminate parking on entry roads
♦ Eliminate parking on east side of day care, move to north
out of entry traffic path
♦ Needs a drop-off zone for day care
♦ More handicapped parking needed
♦ Where's additional parking for Shell gas station
customers?
• Need to place a berm on the east side of day care play
area for childrens' safety
♦ Keep berms down on the south side of the Shell station
for clear visibility
♦ Addresses must be consistent with east/west addressing;
"No Suite Numbers"
• Addresses must be at least 8 inches tall on contrasting
backgrounds
The conceptual plan is alright. We would like to reserve comment
on particular pads as they are submitted by tenants.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law
enforcement point of view.
Sincerely,
COIS BYRD, SHERIFF
Ronald F. Dye, Captain
Indio Station
CB: RD:gt
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
LINTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
RIdERSI •A 88 i
_ 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF June 159 1992
To: City of La Quinta
Re: Plot Plan 92-489
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal
Code and/or recognized fire protection standards:
1. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a
looped system (6" x 4" x 2 1/2"), 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.
2. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located
to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25
feet from the buildings. System plans must be submitted to the
Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee.
The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at the
job site for all inspections.
3. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as
fire lanes.
4. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but
not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher
company for proper placement of equipment.
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.
18
PLANNING DIVISION�IIVDIO OFFICE PLANNING
TEMECUIA OFFICE
79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, TemecuL, CA 92390
(619) 342MM • FAX (619) 7752071 RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076
I�
376C 12th Strect, RiverWe, CA 92301
(7141 275-4777 9 FAX (7 i 4) 369.7451 printed on rMcled paper
To: Planning Department
Re: PP 92-488
June 15, 1992
Page 2
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be
i rrvi i wo to ttia ► t� c Ua�ar tmm�,t F'la��niny Engineering Staff at (619)
863-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
By 0), � 11ix
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
imp
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AkD HOUSING AGENCY
PETS WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 921WS406
(619) 688-6968
July 2, 1 J U L 09 1992 LD ix
City of La Quinta
Planning and Development Department
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attention: Mr. Stan Sawa
11-RIV-111
PM 33.3
PP 92-488
We have reviewed Plot Plan 92-488 located on State Route 111 (SR-111) between
Washington Street and Adams Street and have the following comments:
All highway signs are to allow for a clear line of sight for 500 feet in each direction.
Driveways without signals will only allow right turn in and right turn out with physical features
to ensure compliance.
If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at
the above number.
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
ca CWest
DCoward
PHardin
HJackson
FYazdan
JBuksa
T/P File
DESIc];W REVIEW BOARD
CI7C'Y ®F LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
July 1, 1992
I. CALL �60 ORDER
5:30 P.M.
A. ;Vice Chairman Harbison brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and
Poardmember Anderson led the flag salute.
II. ELECTJON OF CHAIRMAN .AND VICE CHAIRMAN
A. ice Chairman Harbison welcomed Mr. Randall Wright and Mr. James
�ampbell (absent) to the Design Review Board as new members. He
then called for nominations for Chairman. Boardmember Anderson
4ominated Dave Harbison as Chairman. Boardmember Curtis seconded
tie motion and it passed unanimously.
B . C,,," hairman Harbison nominated John Curtis as Vice Chairman.
Apardmember Wright seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
III. ROLL
A. P esent: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, John Curtis, Randall Wright,
P nning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Harbison
A sent: Boardmembers Fred Rice and James Campbell. It was moved
b Boardmember Curtis and seconded by Boardmember Anderson to
e cuse Boardmembers Rice and Campbell from the meeting.
U animously approved.
B . S# ff.Present: Principal Planner Stan_Sawa-an--Secretar 4+, Cristal
Spidell .
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 92-488: a request of Washington/Adams Partnership for
approval of architectural plans for Phase II of the One Eleven La quinta
00000;:7 center located north of Highway 111 between Washington Street and
Adams Street. Phase II is located to the west of the Wal-Mart project.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
DRBM7/1 1
Design Review Board Minutes
July 1, 1992
2. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff to clarify what portion of the
site the Applicant was asking to be approved. Staff provided the
clarification on the exhibits.
3. Planning Commission Ellson asked Staff to identify the colors to
be used throughout the project. Staff explained the colors
submitted for the major retailers. Discussion followed relative to
colors used, sizes of the different signs, whether signs are
illuminated, and what future tenants would be requiring.
4. Boardmember Anderson reminded the members that in the
approval granted the Center, internally illuminated signs were
given due to the distance from the street.
5. Boardmember Curtis asked if there would be additional signs
requested from the Center. Staff stated that each of the minor
tenants would have their own signage. Discussion followed
regarding the size of the signs.
6. Boardmember Anderson questioned the use of the double diamond
concrete block on the Phar-Mor facia which would affect the
signage . Staff stated that most of the majors that have a
treatment similar to the one proposed and do not use this
treatment.
7. Mr. Tom Childers, applicant, presented information as to why
they were requesting the approval.
8. Chairman Harbison asked the Applicant if he knew what Phar-Mor
and other tenants would be requesting regarding the size of their
signs. Mr. Childers stated that they preferred the 5' letters for
the 70,000 sq. ft. range, Albertson's at 40,000 sq. ft. and
Payless Drugs is 25,000 sq. ft. with 36-48 inch range, and a
super major which is over 60,000 sq. ft. the five feet is
adequate. Wal-Mart being 110,000 sq. ft. is considerably larger
but Phar-Mor would be getting the same size sign.
9. Boardmember Curtis expressed his concern that the other smaller
tenants would want the larger sign. Mr. Childers stated they
are strictly kept at the smaller size.
10. Boardmember Anderson expressed his concern that with the
competition between the tenants that a war could take place for
each to out do the other in sign size. Mr. Childers stated he did
not believe this would be as they each have their standards they
use in all their other malls.
DRBM7/1
Design Review Board Minutes
July 1, 992
a
11. There being no further discussion it was moved by Boardmember
Anderson and seconded by Boardmember Curtis to recommend
approval to the Planning Commission of Plot Plan 92-488 as
presented with the elimination of Condition #7 and Condition #4.
B .7Ee
�la� . one: to install a shopping center identification
directional signs and multiple building signs for a future
/commercial facility planned on five and one half acres.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that the Applicant had
equested a continuance of his application as he did not get all
e information to Staff.
A. Chairman HNrbison asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes
of June 3, 19 Boardmember Anderson requested that his comments
that were sub 'tted in written form be added to the minutes. Planning
Commissioner son suggested that the roll call be amended to show
that Boardmemb s Anderson and Rice were absent. There being no
further correction , it was moved by Boardmember Curtis and seconded
by Chairman Harbi n. Unanimously approved.
VI. OTHER
Boardmember Wright asked StAff if the City had a height limit on three story
units. Staff stated the limit is 5Xfeet in the C-P-S Zone. Discussion followed
regarding other projects where Xie height limit was a concern.
Boardmember Anderson asked if GAVen and Associated had planted their test
site for the plants proposed for the ivic Center. Staff stated as of this date
he did not believe they had.. Discus 'on followed.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Boardmember Curtis and secokded by Boardmember Anderson to
adjourn to a regular meeting of the Design Revie Board on August 5, 1992, at 5:30
P.M. This meeting of the La Quints Design Revi w Board was adjourned at 6:20
P.M., July 1, 1992.
DRBM7/1 3
�o
10— - r ;
i
Y ............L.t :fi4..4?T.------ -- --
S
I �p '; t ('
.. ... A...
£ £££e£z'$££E££££8 ££££££££f =M11€-191 £ €j-
�'w : . ' � � I I 0 .�3. •mot.
71 •���``,iiiil.
I,JIIII I r �• j�J' ' � I i �3�
+Es
i ��
I
T < a'
D — � I a"-D 3 . -r � � •-� I
� b
?i
FF t
zm 0
M _
14
I
.z
Z0
PIP st
CD zE
ZV� mm m
�2 icI.
9 • � o � =0- � • 3"
D—� rtrH �ro"v R
-4 V,..
_ U1 m
rZ c 0
ao'I 11 �� • • es� �t'"+.��+ �. tr / �♦0
+tVl�
O-i a�-a9 v :'° o Pi 1 '��rr`i �•• ti6
Zm� ¢awl N<�y t 1 4� �����;��'�� .e
NO A
oo z>
IMCG
\ i /
'McClellan/Cruz/Gaylord &Associaates
trrAitclurc • Planning • Interiors nwun
�\
� J �
Al
n�
', al
I �
Gov yr
I ,
�1
� /• O P •� Wnp9
P N _
Ot
I yED
41,
®-V I I I�� •-.. P
0 coo v' , I
m T ®
�2
00
�I'
6C '
i
�� I I I ��• � '� O t� O O yjM ` w9I n
O -
�
O O
_ O
D � O
K A
D�
AO
Cf R.
->E?S <
MO
ui A �l
tt �s;� r7 -► �
� s-. • 'm
zm it
D-+M ow �• iFi: V �r \ \� •�•CjJI y �
i � • ■CG
;s, S3
McClellan/Cruz/Gaylord & Associates
l rrht lee lure • Pl—.g • Inlenere i.•.>��� u�iii �n n nu sa n❑
O
z
m
m
m
oc
z
D�
sf D
ZO
tiS
DZ
IZ z
01
m"
Zm
m
s
i
i
v
m
vo
�o
•
Alvi 2
,SRP
e �•
Ex �
oa
c
S
m
m
s
f0 z
is
w
Ji
i�
F
r
1�-
>
a
4z
1 v {CV
iei:dfl(C>t{IZ�dY80fd 81 Amdatm
Architecture • Plwming • lnteriOrS mT u,ms,u:e n„o
SH h
-NI
0
z
,11
a
0
a
S
m
m
s
0
z
ONE ELEVE.NaLA OUINTA
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
W-7
oR
INDIVfD[lAL 1LLt71�iNlATl�D
"RONM! & w.AUV RLiMLAS FACE #2116 ORANGE
nARIC RRC%I?F AWFF7 FAFTAL i FTrFR SIDES BRONZE TRIM IM CAP EDGES.
WHITE NEON w m k iLmNAMN.
9CUARE FOOTdGE: 243 $.F.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 92-488
TRANSPACIFIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
JULY 14, 1992
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the site shall generally be in conformance with the
exhibits contained in the file PP 92-488, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the Planning
Commission approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no
affect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction
which is allowed by this approval, not including grading, which is begun
within the one year period and thereafter pursued to completion. A one year
extension of this plot plan may be applied for prior to expiration. Approval
of this plot plan shall expire on July 14, 1993.
3. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 89-014, Plot Plan 90-434, and Parcel
Map 25865, shall be complied with as required.
4. This approval is for buildings A-1 (Phar-Mor), J-3, and K-3.
5. Arcade landscaping in the form of vines shall be provided at the fronts of the
columns.
6. Loading door facing north shall be provided with sound attenuation wall to the
satisfaction of the Planning and Development Director.
7. Approval includes sign adjustment for "Phar-Mor" sign.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL:
8. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" X 4" X 2 1/2"), 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.
9. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve
and fire department connection shall be located to the front within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildings. System plans must
be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection
fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at the job
site for all inspectors.
10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
CONAPRVL.056 1
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 92-488
July 14, 1992
11. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
12. 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.
UTILITIES:
13. Trash enclosure provisions shall be reviewed and approved by Waste
Management of the Desert prior to issuance of a building permit. Masonry
trash enclosures shall be provided with solid metal doors mounted on steel
posts embedded in concrete, to the sat:Lsfaction of the City.
14. Final landscaping plans shall be approved by Agricultural Commissioner and
Coachella Valley Water District, prior to issuance of a building permit.
15. The final landscape and pedestrian arcade design should be reviewed during
plan check by the Design Review Board.
16. Signage is approved as submitted (619" X 3611).
17. The building materials with colors should match the previously approved color
board exhibit of Specific Plan 89-014 and Plot Plan 90-434.
CONAPRVL.056
•WEE
.. oin
won
41M
i
ILI
July 9, 1992
Honorable John
Mayor, City of
P_ 3. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA
Pena
La Quinta
92253
RE: Plot Plan 92-460
Shell Oil Company
One Eleven La Quinta
79-990 Highway 111 &
Dear Mayor Pena:
Shell Oil Company
P.O. Box 4W
Center
Adams Street
511 N. Brookhurst Street
Anaheim, California 92803
r.
J U L 1 3 1992
Shell's application for the construction of a service station
at the su"--,;ect location was originally approved by the Planning
Commissior. on May 14, 1991, and was confirmed by the City
Council its meeting on May 21,, 1991. On May 26, 1992, the
Planning-smmission granted Shell's request for a one year time
extension to May 14, 1993.
It has come to our attention that Arco Products Company
received approval from the Planning Commission on June 23,
1992, for Plot Plan 92-482 for the construction of an AM -PM
Mini Market and Gasoline Service Station on the east side of
Washington Street north of Highway ill in One Eleven La Quinta
Center. Upon reviewing the plot plan for Arco's development we
see that the Planning Staff's recommendation for a "reverse
layout" was deleted by the Commission and approval was granted
for a conventional layout which places the building structures
at the rear of the parcel with the pump islands adjacent to
Washington Stge�e• a�cmeetpngtoflan Julya7,c1992rmed by the City
Council at it gul
The deletion of the requirement for a "reverse layout" for the
Arco project is of grave concern to us. In Shell's review with
Mr. Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director and Mr. Stan
Sawa, Principal Planner, prior to Shell's submittal of its
application, and during the review and public hearings of our
application before the Design Review Board, the Planning
Commission and the City Council, Shell's request for a
conventional layout was denied. We were also denied the right
to use our nationally accepted "Silverado" design standards.
As a result Shell has complied fully with the City's desire to
utilize special "Southwestern" architectural design for the
RD217801--1
physical structures which has added over $200,000 to our
development costs.
During all facets of the approval process for Shell's project,
we were told that the standards being applied by the City,
requiring a "reverse layout", were the same standards that
would be applied to any following applications for service
station development in the City of La Quinta. Relying on
assurances from the Design Review Board, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council, that anyone proposing service
station development in the future would be treated in the same
manner, we proceeded in good faith to finalize our entitlements
for construction. It now appears that a double standard is
being applied.
Our concern over the. "reverse layout" is well justified. Shell
stations with such a layout are among the poorest performers in
our entire network, which includes, unfortunately, the new
station we opened in December, 1991, at 4875 Ramon Rd. East and
Gene Autry Trail in Palm Springs.
Service stations are among the most unique retail businesses.
Their basic function and purpose is to serve the automobile.
Our experience clearly shows that when the primary point of
sale (the pump island) is hidden or screened from view there is
an inherent disdain on the part of the passing motorist for
frequenting such locations. In the case of Highway 111 & Adams
we not only have the concern over the "reverse layout", we also
have less than desirable driveway access from Highway 111.
Customers entering the station from Highway 111 are required to
make an acute right turn to get to the service area of the pump
islands.
Due to standards imposed by Caltrans we accept the condition
that the driveway access cannot be changed. We do, however,
feel very strongly that if Arco is allowed to have a
conventional layout we should be treated equally. This project
has been put on hold by Shell's senior management and may not
be completed unless a more conventional layout is possible.
Please understand that in no way do we intend to convey a
threatening tone. We are quite simply confronted with a
difficult business decision that must be made based on our vast
experience in the retailing of petroleum products, hard
economic realities and the strong objection we have to the
double development standards that appears to exist.
We respectfully request your consideration and approval to
allow us to resubmit our basic layout in a conventional manner
with the foodmart and car wash structures placed against the
western property line and the pump islands and canopy centrally
located on the site. This still leaves a sizeable landscaping
area that will, in itself, provide considerable "screening" of
RD217801--2
the pump islands and on -site facilities. The relocation of the
carwash (at the rear of the foodmart structure) along the
westerly property line, which would place it adjacent to the
"blank wall" of a larger commercial building on the adjacent
parcel, appears to provide more effective "screening" than our
currently approved plot plan No. 92-460.
We greatly appreciate your kind consideration and await your
response as to how we can best proceed. We are hopeful the
City will be willing to make a reasonable accommodation of this
request so the project can move forward to completion. If you
have any questions which I may answer please do not hesitate to
call me toll free at 1-800 447-4355 ext. 3324.
y truly yours,
Robert S. Drager
Area Real Estate Representative
Marketing Capital Investments
cc: City of La Quinta
Mayor Pro Tem Stanley Sniff
Councilwoman Kristy Franklin
Councilman William Rushworth
Councilman Dale Bohnenberger
Planning & Development Director, Jerry Herman
She l 1 Q i l Company
D. A. Lewis - Area Manager, Marketing Real Estate -West
H. L. Cooley - Manager, L.A. East Retail District
J. B. Bird - Marketing Manager - Western Area
J Quinn - Manager, Marketing Capital Investments
J. P. Dailey - Manager, Real Estate & Ventures
J. F. Tryon - Acting Area Construction Manager -West
R. Alyeshmerni - Construction Engineer
RD217801--3
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
June 23, 1992 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Vice Chairman Mosher
who led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Vice Chairman Mosher requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners
Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Vice Chairman Mosher. Commissioner
Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to excuse
Chairwoman Barrows. Unanimously approved.
B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman and Department
Secretary Betty Anthony.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
V . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Plot Plan 92-482; a request of ARCO Products to construct and operate
an AM/PM Mini -Market and gasoline service station.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson asked if the block wall in the rear would
cause a problem with security. Staff stated this would be a
question for the Applicant.
3. Mr. Craig Yamasaki, applicant, gave a presentation of the
project and stated his concerns regarding conditions #5, #8, and
#24.
4. Vice Chairman Mosher asked what an oil -water separator was
used for. Mr. Yamasaki explained the purpose of the separator
and stated his objection to the requirement as the station did not
do any oil changes or any service work that would require a
separator. Discussion followed relative to gasoline spillage and
safety measures.
PC6-23 1
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 1992
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the rear wall would hinder visibility
and security. Mr. Tom Riggle, architect stated the wall was a
buffer and suggested a railing be used instead to help with the
grade change and yet allow visibility.
6. Commissioner Ellson asked if a Palo Verde tree could be used at
the rear corner instead of the Palm Tree. Assistant City
Engineer Steve Speer stated whatever tree was used it should
allow for visibility.
7. Commissioner Ellson questioned the height of the building and
the canopy. Mr. Riggle stated the building and canopy were
both less than the shopping center height.
8. Commissioner Ellson asked the Applicant to explain the traffic
movement on the north and south sides.
9. Mr. Don Adolph, resident, stated his concern that if Shell Oil
was required to do a reverse plan ARCO should be required to do
the same. He further stated his concern for leaks. He stated
there was a need for boxes under the dispensers and a barrier
was needed for the underground tanks.
10. Mr. Yamasaki stated that ARCO had stipulated that if a reversed
plan was to be required, ARCO would decline to build at this
location. He further stated that they had worked hard to meet
all the requirements of the City and felt this condition was an
added burden that was not needed.
11. Mr. Michael Shovlin, owner of the property, stated his concern
that the City would require the station to have a reverse plan.
He felt the station was an asset to La Quinta and was badly
needed.
12. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff why the City adopted the
reverse profile plan. Staff stated it was for aesthetics mostly
and to provide a screen for the pumps on Washington and
Highway 111.
13. Commissioner Ellson asked if credit cards would be able to be
used at the pump site. Mr. Yamasaki stated they would be. She
further asked if traffic circulation would be better if the plan
were reversed. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated he
could not answer the question unless they had a site plan to work
with. She further asked if there was adequate space between the
parking and the islands. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer
went over the circulation plan.
PC6-23
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 1992
14. Commissioner Ladner asked if the oil -separator was required of
Shell Oil. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated this was
a new requirement the City had initiated based on the new
federal legislation and it had not been required prior to this
project.
15. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff if Shell Oil had pulled their
building permits. Staff stated they had not but were close.
16. Commissioner Marrs asked if a small screened trap to catch spills
such as a "valley gutter" could be used. Mr. Riggle stated their
experience had been that these "valley gutters" became a
maintenance problem as the asphalt would pull away from the
concrete.
17. Vice Chairman Mosher stated his full agreement that a service
station at the gateway entrance to the City should be reversed,
but as this station was not at the corner but was recessed back
he did not feel it warranted the reverse plan and that the design
and landscaping would be an asset to the City.
18. Commissioner Marrs asked if the landscaping was what Staff
wanted. Staff stated the wall and landscaping along the entire
frontage must be high enough to hide the gasoline pumps.
Discussion followed relative to the landscaping.
19. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner
Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute
Motion 92-022 approving Plot Plan 92-482 subject to the amended
Conditions of Approval (#5-deleted, #8, #24) . Unanimously
approved.
B . Tract 24230 - Lake La Quinta; a request of Wilma South Management
Corporation (Dennis Falmont) to revise plans for a recreational lot at
Marquessa on Lake La Quinta.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Dennis LaMont, applicant, gave the reasons for the requested
revision.
3. Commissioner Marrs asked the Applicant if the buyers were
informed they would have these amenities. Mr. LaMont stated
that in the documents the buyers signed it stated that Wilma
Pacific had the right to make changes for the good of the project.
PC6-23 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 1992
4. Commissioner Ellson asked the Applicant if the recreation area
could be relocated in a different location; whether swimming was
allowed; and whether the homeowners had docks at their
individual homes. Mr. LaMont stated the area could not be
redesigned as they did not own the land outside the recreation
area. He further stated swimming was not permitted and the
homeowners do not have individual docks.
5. Vice Chairman Mosher asked if the entrance and exit to the
project were gated. Mr. LaMont stated they were gated.
6. Mrs. Joy Smith, resident, addressed the Commission regarding
her concerns for the loss of the amenities. She further stated
that recently the owners of Wilma South and the homeowners had
established dialogue regarding the problems they were having
and asked the Commission to continue the matter for 30 days to
give them the opportunity to work out their problems with the
Developer.
7. Mr. Mickey LaTorre, resident, asked spoke regarding the
problems they were having with Wilma South and also asked for
the continuance.
8. Commissioner Ladner expressed her concern for both the
developer and the homeowner as she had experienced both sides.
Commissioner Ladner stated her agreement that the two should
try to work out a solution to the problem before the Commission
takes action. Vice Chairman Mosher concurred.
9. There being no further discussion it was moved by Commissioner
Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to continue the
matter to July 28, 1992. Unanimously approved.
C. Street Vacation 92-021; a request of Rick Morris for a General Plan
consistency to allow vacation of a 40-foot wide storm drainage easement.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department. Staff also pointed out an
error in the report.
2. Rick Morris, applicant gave a brief history of the easement and
his reasons for eliminating it.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to
adopt Minute Motion 92-023 confirming vacation of the 40-foot
wide storm drainage easement at Avenida Montezuma and Avenida
Juarez is in compliance with the Hazards Element and :Natural
Resources Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously
approved.
PC6-23 4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 23, 1992
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. There being no corrections to the Minutes, Commissioner Marrs moved
and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of
the regular meeting of June 9, 1992, as submitted. Unanimously
approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Vice Chairman Mosher moved to adopt Resolution 92-024 commending
Commissioner Ladner for her participation and devotion to the City of
La Quinta while serving as a Planning Commissioner. Commissioner
Ellson seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson, Marrs, & Vice
Chairman Mosher. NOES: None. ABSENT:
Chairman Barrows. ABSTAINING: None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on July
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 9:06 P.M., June 23, 1992.
PC6-23