Loading...
1993 01 26 PCrse •Oi� ' T M ( C I T V 0 i .a I 82 - 1991 Ten rat� Decade � 1 I A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California January 26, 1993 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 93-001 Beginning Minute Motion 93-005 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City wide. Request ............ To amend Chapter 9.117 Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots. Action ............. Resolution 93- 2. Item ............... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... Madison Street on the west, 52nd Avenue on the north, Monroe Street on the east, and 55th Avenue on the south; and approximately 32 acres south of 50th Avenue and east of Jefferson Street. Request ............ To add the Equestrian Overlay Zone District designation to existing zonin& designations in order to create two new Districts (areas. Action ............. Resolution 93- PC/AGENDA 1 3. Item ............... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022 & PLOT PLAN 92-490 - JEFFERSON SQUARE Applicant .......... E.F.P. Corporation (Ed Carnes, Vice President) Location ........... Northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111 Request ............ To establish development standards for a future shopping center and to develop a +251,550 sq. ft. commercial shopping center on a portion of a ±23 acre site. Action ............. Resolution 93- , Minute Motion 93- 4. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 92-494 - THE LUBE SHOP Applicant .......... Peter Sturgeon Location ........... West side of Adams Street approximately 350 feet north of ]Highway 111. Request ............ Approval of building plans for lube shop and coin operated self car wash in One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 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 ............... MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT 92-045 (AMENDMENT #2) Applicant .......... Thunderbird Artists Location ........... Southwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within the Von's Shopping Center. Request ............ Amendment to dates for fine art shows Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 2. Item ............... STREET VACATION 93-022 Applicant .......... Ciity of La Quinta Location ........... Street located north of Avenida La Fonda South of Calle Tampico, East of Avenida Bermudas, and west of Desert C"ub Drive. Request :............ Consistency finding for street vacation 93-022; a request to vacate Avenida Buena Ventura and a public alley between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held January 12 199. OTHER ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- STUDY SESSION MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1993 4:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. PC/AGENDA STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029 (EA 92-243) APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.117, OVERLAY ZONE FOR EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-243 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED WILL RESULT FROM THIS PROJECT. THEREFORE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. BACKGROUND: In response to public comment emanating from the proceedings of Annexation #5, Staff has prepared an amendment (Attachment #2) to the existing .Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots (Attachment #1). Extensive changes are proposed to Chapter 9.117, which include deletions, new sections, and clarification of several subsections. Proposed amendments consist of the following: I AMENDMENTS. A. New Sections: Two new sections have been added. The first is 9,117,005. PuMQ , which provides a statement of the zones intent. The second new section is 9,117.030 Prohibition, which clearly lists particular animals that are not permitted in this zone. The Equestrian Overlay is not intended to permit agricultural uses, but rather to allow rural equestrian -oriented residential development. This type of development could either be individual homeowners keeping horses on their property in private facilities, or a planned residential development with a community equestrian facility managed by a property owner's association. PCST.096 B. Where Permitted: This section has been expanded to provide clarification of zoning application. The minimum lot size has been reduced to one acre in order to be more compatible with development patterns and lot sizes in the area. C. Permitted Uses: Subsections "B" and "D" have been expanded. Llamas have been added as a permitted animal, as they are a popular pack animal used by equestrians. A policy on the counting of foals in the maximum number of horses allowed on a lot has been provided in Subsection "B". Subsection "D" has been expanded to clarify what a "farm project" is and have such project comply with this Ordinance. Subsection "F" has been deleted as guest houses are subject to underlying zone requirements. D. Development Standards: This section has been renumbered and changes are proposed in some subsections. Subsection "C" has been expanded with additional standards for pasture fences. White painted three -rail fencing shall be required adjacent to public or private streets. Section "D" subjects equestrian properties to dust control regulations as required by Title 13, Chapter 13.52 (Fugitive Dust Control) of the Municipal Code. Items number 3 of Subsection "E" is amended to include a statement concerning enforcement of City and County Codes. Subsection "F" is a new standard requiring a minimum corral size for each horse. The standard is based upon County requirements. E. Review/Approval Process: This section has been renumbered. Square footage limits have been modified as have the requirements for City approval of any changes to the Equestrian Overlay Zone District. n PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY In early October, Staff prepared a survey questionnaire consisting of seven questions to ascertain the desires of the effected property owners concerning the proposed overlay extension and possible development standards for the Equestrian Overlay Zone. A copy of the questionnaire and map is attached to this report (see Attachment #3). This survey was mailed to 21 individual property owners of the 25 parcels in the proposed Equestrian Overlay District #2. Thirteen (13) questionnaires were returned to the Planning Department (Attachment #4). This amounts to an approximate 62 % response. Nine of these parcels are located within Riverside County jurisdiction and will probably be considered for annexation in the future. Those property owners of proposed Equestrian Overlay District #3 were not included in the survey due to the lateness of their request to be included. PCST.096 2 The results of this survey are as follows: 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? Yes = 4 No = 7 No Response = 2 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? Yes = 5 No = 5 Not sure = 1 No Response = 2 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping in residential areas? 1 acre = 3 1.5 acres = 5 10,000 sq. ft. = 1 20,000 sq. ft. = 0 2 acres = 1 3 acres = 1 No Response = 2 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 /4 mile = 1 1/2 mile = 2 3/4 mile = 1 1 mile = 3 Adjacent = 3 No Response = 3 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and private streets and equestrian trails? Yes = 11 No = 0 No Response = 2 PCST.096 3 6. If you answered "Yes" to the above question, what type of fencing should be required along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail = 1 Three -rail white — 3 PVC fencing = 1 Block wall = 1 Any of three or comparable = 1 Three rail white and Rustic = 1 Don't know = 1 No Response = 2 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overlay Zone District? None = 4 No Response = 2 Llamas, donkeys, burros = 1 Llamas only = 2 Don't know = 1 Mules, donkeys, burros, llamas = 2 Cattle, bulls, sheep, goats, mules, donkeys, llamas, & burros = 1 8. Other comments: See Attachment #4 for various comments. With a 62 % response, a representative sample of property owners within proposed EOD #2 was obtained. It appears roughly equal in those that currently keep horses and desire to continue keeping them to those that do not. Minimum lot size for horsekeeping had a wide range of responses from 10,000 sq. ft. to 3+ acres. Five of the thirteen responses favored at least 1.5 acre minimum size, which is the current requirement. Three responses supported a one acre minimum which is what Staff proposes to amend the Ordinance to read. A one acre country estate lot is currently a popular size in several subdivisions such as TT 26008-Vista Development, TT 26764-Qualico, and TT 26768-Bestco. Access to a designated equestrian trail system is an important factor in the creation of an Equestrian Overlay District. The survey responses favored either being within one mile or adjacent to such a trail. This question was asked in order to assist in determining the boundaries of the proposed District #2. Madison Street has been designated as an equestrian corridor in the General Plan Update. Projects being approved along the east side of Madison Street are being required to construct their segments of the equestrian corridor trail. PCST.096 4 A uniform fencing standard for equestrian properties was supported by 87.5 % of the survey responses. However, there is not a strong consensus for a particular type of fencing. The top two ranking fence types were the three -rail white painted fencing and the currently popular PVC fencing that can be made to look like the traditional wooden three -rail painted white fence. As far as what other large animals should be permitted in the Overlay Zone in addition to horses, the response was mixed. The selection for "None" received the largest support with four noes. FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: On January 12, 1993, the Planning Commission was given a Staff presentation on the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments. There was no opposition to the changes stated during the public hearing., Questions did arise concerning the appropriate minimum lot size for the keeping of stallions. It. was suggested that properties keeping stallions be inspected and a permit issued. Staff has added a provision, labeled "D", to 9.117.030 Prohibition Section that requires an inspection and letter by a veterinarian concerning adequate fencing and exercise area for all stallions kept with the EOD's. Commissioner Elison inquired about the compatibility of the proposed fence standard to the fencing requirements found in Chapter 9.204, Walls, Fences, and Landscaping. The proposed fencing standards for the EOD's will supersede all other standards in the Municipal Code. The EOD fence standards pertain to perimeter fences along property lines that abuts public or private streets and for equestrian trails. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed amendments to the Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots are generally compatible with the goals and policies contained in the General Plan for the City of La Quinta for future development in the project areas. 2. There will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed amendments that cannot be ;mitigated by existing measures. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- and confirm the Environmental Determination recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance 92-029, Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots. Attachments: 1. Current Ordinance 2. Draft Amended Ordinance 3. Survey letters and forms 4. Survey responses 5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93-, PCST.096 a a Attachment CHAPTER 9.117 - OVERLAY ZONE FOR EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS SECTIONS: 9.117.010 Where Permitted 9.117.020 Permitted Uses 9.117.030 Development Standards 9.117.040 Review/Approval Process 9.117.010. Where Permitted. The creation of an Overlay District acres.liTheeminimum lotusizeawithineas eing a the minimum size of 2.5 District shall be 1.5 acres. 9.117.020. Permitted Uses. Uses permitted in the Overlay Zone shall be as follows: A. Any Use permitted in the underlying zone. B. The keeping of horses, including ponies, for personal uses as well as breeding. The boarding of horses for the purpose of breeding, training or boarders personal pleasure. The maximum number of horses shall be no more than 5 horses per acre. C. Accessory buildings and uses; including stables, corrals, barns, tack rooms, hay barns and other buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to the permitted use. D. Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects conducted by the occupants of the premises. E. Caretakers and employee housing for on -site employment, providing secondthe unitunit observes exceed setbackssquare in fthe and the underlying zone. F. Attached or detached guest houses, without cooking facilities, but with sleeping and sanitary facilities may also be approved. 9.117.030. Development Standards: A. Accessory structures, including barns shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of thirty-five feet, measured from the pad elevation. B. Stallsobarns, bcorrals feetand fromthe anystorage Qropertyel(temporary) of manure shall be t least feet C. Pasture areas uchshall constructionfsofences toafour high and confine the horses. D. The pasture and stable areas shall be sprinkled or otherwise treated to a degree so as to prevent the emanation mud, orst, and In refuse shalldbeion, all eliminatedcsouastton of manure, mu prevent the breeding of flies. E. Removal of manure must occur on a regular basis so as to promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors to the area by one of the following methods: 1. Stalls: Must be cleaned on a daily basis. Manure is to be placed within an enclosed container expressly for this purpose, and setback a minimum of 20-feet from an perimeter property line and shall be removed within 7-days; or taken to an area on the property, that is dragged, mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis. 2. Pastures: Must have manure removed or dragged, mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis. 3. Any condition that results in odors, unsightly areas or infestation shall be deemed a public nuisance and/or health hazard and shall be abated within seven days of proper notice. 9.117 040. Review/Approval_ Process. 9 A. Accessory buildings, detached or attached, including caretaker and employee houses, barns, tack rooms, hay barns and similar buildings. 1. Up to 120 square feet, exempt from review, provided that setbacks are observed. 2. over 121 square feet up to 400 square feet, to be reviewed by plot plan over the counter. 3. over 401 square feet, to be reviewed by plot plan, by the Planning Commission. 0 a B. All other permitted buildings are subject to the process identified in the underlying zone. C. Change of Zone process shall be used when adding the overlay zone to a given District. CHAPTER 9.117 - OVERLAY ZONE FOR EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS SECTIONS: 9.117.005 Purpose 9.117.010 Where Permitted 9.117.020 Permitted Uses 9.117.030 Prohibition 9.117.040 Development Standards 9.117.050 Review/Approval Process 9.117.00' . PURPOSE: The Equestrian Overlay District is intended to permit the keeping of horses (stabling and riding) for personal recreational pleasure of City residents, on lots not smaller than one (1) acre. 9.117.010. WHERE PERMITTED: Whenever it is placed on the official Zoning Map, the designation "Equestrian Overlay District" shall be indicated after the zoning designation of the area over which it is placed, and the regulations of said "Equestrian Overlay Zone" shall apply in addition to the regulations of the principal zoning designation of the area to which it is applied. Whenever a use is permitted in said "Equestrian Overlay Zone", said use shall be permitted in addition to the uses otherwise allowed in the zoning designation over which it is placed. 9.117.020. PERMITTED USES: Uses permitted in the "Equestrian Overlay Zone" shall be as follows: A. Any use permitted in the underlying zone. B. The keeping of horses, (including ponies or llamas) for personal uses as well as breeding, the boarding of horses for the purpose of breeding, training, riding lessons, or boarders personal pleasure. The maximum number of horses shall be no more than five (5) horses per acre. Foals under one (1) year of age shall not be counted in the maximum number of horses permitted. C. Accessory buildings and uses; including stables, corrals, barns, tack rooms, hay barns, and other buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to the permitted use. DOCLB.003 1 D. Farm projects (Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects) conducted by the occupants of the premises. Such projects shall involve only the permitted type and number of animals by this ordinance being trained in connection with the education of a person as a member of a recognized farm education organization. E. Caretakers and employee housing for on -site employment, providing that the unit does not exceed 1,000 square feet and the second unit observes the setbacks in the underlying zone. 9.117.030, PROHIBITION: A. person shall not keep or maintain any of the following animals: A. Pigs, swine, and other omnivorous hoofed animals. B. Any unaltered male horse (stallion) over the age of two years, unless the property owner submits to the Planning and Development Department a letter from a qualified veterinarian certifying that: 1. The veterinarian has inspected the stable enclosure that will house the horse; and, 2. That the enclosure fencing is of adequate height and strength so as to securely confine the horse; and, 3. That the property size is large enough to provide ample stabling and exercise room for the stallion. C. Sheep, goats, cattle, or bovine animals. 9.117.040. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Accessory structures, including barns shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of thirty-five feet, measured from the pad elevation. B. Stalls, barns, corrals, and the storage (temporary) of manure shall be 20-feet from any property line. C. Pasture areas shall consist of fences at least four feet high and of such construction as to confine the animals. Corral fences which are on boundary lines or are adjoining and running parallel to private streets or bridle trails, shall be three -rail and painted white, with a minimum height of four (4) feet from grade, and with posts spaced not more than ten (10) feet apart. All posts shall be 4" X 6" minimum with 2" X 6" minimum rails. DOCLB.003 2 Fencing requirements of this section supersede requirements found in Chapter 9.204 (Walls, Fences, and Landscaping) and Chapter 9.32 (R-1 Development Standards) for properties keeping horses within the Equestrian Overlay Zone. D. The pasture and stable areas shall be regularly sprinklered or otherwise treated to a degree so as to prevent the emanation of dust, and in addition, all accumulation of manure, mud, or refuse shall be eliminated so as to prevent the breeding of flies. Open stable/pasture areas shall be subject to the requirements of Title 13, Chapter 13.52 (Fugitive Dust Control) whenever applicable. E. Removal of manure must occur on a regular basis so as to promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents and visitors to the area by one of the following methods: 1. Stalls: Must be cleaned on a daily basis. Manure is to be placed within an enclosed container, e.g. three yard bin, expressly for this purpose, and setback a minimum of 20 feet from any perimeter property line and shall be removed from the property within seven (7) days; or taken to an area on the property that is dragged, mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis. 2. Pastures: Must have manure removed or dragged, mixed and watered with the soil on a weekly basis. 3. Any condition that results in odors, unsightly areas or infestation shall be deemed a public nuisance and/or health hazard and shall be abated within seven (7) days of proper notice. All violations are subject to enforcement provisions of Chapter 9.236 of the Municipal Code, and County Health Codes. F. Horses shall be maintained in a fenced corral area containing at least eight hundred (800) square feet for the first horse, and for each additional horse beyond one (1), an additional three hundred (300) square feet of corral area shall be provided. 9.117.050. REVIEW/APPROVAL PROCESS: A. Accessory buildings, detached or attached, including employee houses, barns, tack rooms, hay barns, and similar buildings. 1. Up to 400 square feet for each structure to be reviewed by plot plan for approval by the Planning and Development Department. 2. Over 401 square feet to be reviewed by plot plan, by the Planning Commission. B. All other permitted buildings are subject to the process identified in the underlying zone. C. For any changes made to the Equestrian Overlay Zone District, the requirements of Chapter 9.228 of the Municipal Code shall be met. DOCLB.003 3 4 Attachment 3 I Gt/ 78-105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 FAX (619) 564-5617 October 2, 1992 Dear Property Owner: The City of La Quints Planning and Development Department is conducting a study concerninj the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District within the area depicted in the map below. Thl development standards for the Equestrian Overlay zone are also being reviewed for any necessar; revisions. In order to determine the most appropriate boundaries of the Equestrian Overla; District you are requested to complete the attached questionnaire and return it to City Hall b; October 16, 1992. Your input into this study is both needed and appreciated. For any questions concerning this study, please contact Leslie Blodgett in the Planning aw Development Department at (619) 564-2246, Extension 236. LTIBLB . 001 Existing Overlay Proposed Overlay:,.... Study Area. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 0 0 October 9, 1992 Dear Property Owner: The City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department is conducting a study concernin the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District within the area depicted in the map below. Thi area includes approximately 240 acres within Riverside County that have been pre -zoned fc future annexation. The development standards for the Equestrian Overlay zone are also bein reviewed for any necessary revisions. - In order to determine the most appropriate boundaries c the Equestrian Overlay District you are requested to complete the attached questionnaire an return it to City Hall by October 23, 1992. Your input into this study is both needed an appreciated. For any questions concerning this study, please contact Leslie Blodgett in the Planning an Development Department at (619) 564-2246, Extension 236. Existing Overlay Proposed Overlay Study Area rema LTRLB . 002 CITY OF LA QUINTA EQUE LAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRIC ANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and priva' streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be require along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overh Zone District? Mules - Llamas Donkeys & Burros 8. Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA Attachment 4 UES. ALM OVERLAY ZONE DISTRIC EXPANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? _ YES :ENO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum ,�_ 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3/4 mile 1/2 mile��- 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronti - lic and priv streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, wha l�„ 4" `)e quii along public and private streets and equestrian trai `L' Rustic split rail PVC fenc Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Ovez Zone District? _ Mrales Llamas Donkeys & Burros 8. Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: - \� ADDRESS: _ PHONE: f a CITY OF LA QUINTA I, EQUESI..AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT L,.PANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? _ YES - NO — NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum — 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? _ 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privE streets, and equestrian trails. _ YES NO S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, whattypeype of fencing should be requir along public and private streets and equestrian trail Rustic split rail PVC fencing _ Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Over Zone District? Mules Llamas Donkeys & Burros g , Other comments: A -A a seo -t6 *T*s &I VasTIR �y►� ifs �G vc, S't�«r � oCr 4� S cr,K OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: rl PHONE: l to j 1 :3 4, s �� ® CITY OF LA QUINTA O EQUES•, .[AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT ,..%PANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY l . Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES _ NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and priv streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. if you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requi along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Ovei Zone District? Mules Llamas Donkeys & Burros a. Other comments: A a s sV rc S.� co To T'�'E r ® ALA- �q STK i cT- D�-� q K-SL 6" OPTIONAL:: NAME: t7'WI-3Lx:-"Yt--IVIN ADDRESS: jt::�, _ punnlF.: i?WO '�634'' 51�« 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA Q EQUES, AAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT pANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1, Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES _ NO -Z- NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3/4 mile ,,K_ 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privi streets, and equestrian trails. YES NO S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requh along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Over Zone District? Llamas Mules Donkeys & Burros g . Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: -- PHONE: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CITY OF LA QUINTA EQt ®—IAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRIC a: (PANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES X_ NO Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? X YES NO NOT SURE In your opinion) what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum (b) 10,000 square foot minimum (a) 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? Adjacent or as close as possi 1 mile 3/4 mile 1/2 mile to lesidential lots or to a commercial boarding area. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privi streets, and equestrian trails? X YES NO If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requiz along public and private streets and equestrian trails? X Rustic split rail PVC fencing X Three -rail white What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Over Zone District? Mules Donkeys & Burros Llamas None a. Other comments: Item 3 (a) If horses are stabled on individual lots: 1 acre minimum (b) If horses are stabled in a common barn, supervised by a private association: 10,000 square foot minimum. OPTIONAL: NAME Bernard Debonne ADDRESS: _ P'd' Box 1935 palm Desert, CA. 92261 PHONE: (619) 564-6099 1- 2. 3. 4. 5. S. 9. S. 0 CITY OF 1 A QUINTA Q EQUES-1.,IAN PROPERTYOVERLAY ZOWNERESURVEY TRCT ANSION Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES o I NO — NOT SURE In your p opinion what s ould be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeepinj residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum _ 20,000 square foot minim um properties be located from designated equestrian trails? How far should equestrian _ 1 mile X_ 3/4 mile _ 1/2 mile ------- Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and pr streets, and equestrian trails? _ YES _ NO If you answered "YES" to the above question, trails?ttye of fencing should be req along public and private streets and equestrian Rustic split rail - r " x — Three -rail white -- What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian O` Zone District? Mules - Donkeys & Burros Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: Llamas 'D4F ® CITY OF LA QUINTA EQUW,t .LAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT k.,,PANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES xx NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES xx NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? xx 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? xx 1 mile 3/4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and priv streets, and equestrian trails? xx YES NO S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requil along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white any of three or comparable 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Over Zone District? Mules Llamas Donkeys & Burros xx None 8 . Other comments: a, Before any large animals are allowed would like to see Info sheet from Ag Dept on susceptability to disease of those requesting to be allowed. b. Properties near hills should be allowed greater flexibility. OPTIONAL: NAME: John Turco ADDRESS: P.O. Box 2437 San Jose CA 95109 PHONE: 408 297 2026 ® CITY OF LA QUINTA EQUF.S'...[AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT ,.APANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES -<"O 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES . O NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeepinj residential areas? d 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and pri streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be regL along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing i Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Ovi Zone District? Mules Llamas Donkeys & Burros -'� - " -/ 8 . Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: _ PHONE: CITY OF LA QUINTA 4 EQUP LAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT ,.APANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? y� YES NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How fa should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privy streets, and equestrian trails? /YES NO S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requir4 along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail /Three-rail white PVC fencing 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overt Zone District? Mules - Donkeys & Burros 8 . Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: V Llamas ADDRESS: I �. 1 L A, PHONE: ��• � � ��� , ' � �' ® CITY OF LA QUINTA 0 EQUEST ..iAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT,, 1ANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? YES __.*INO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES No NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and prive streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requir along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Overl Zone District? Mules Llamas Donkeys & Burros 8. Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS: _ PHONE: I. 2. 3. 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA 4 EQU& , RIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT :XPANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY Do you currently stable horses on your property? Q C T 0 8 1992 // YES NO Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? L . YES NO NOT SURE In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeepinl residential areas? I/ 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3/4 mile 1/2 mile S • 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and pri streets, and equestrian trails? _ YES NO S. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be regv along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail / PVC fencing Three -rail white a. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Ovi Zone District? Mutes Llamas .. Donkeys & Burros 5 . Other comments: OPTIONAL: NAME ADDRESS: PHONE: �' ® CITY OF LA QUINTA 0 EQUES_.t AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT ._{PANSION PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? OCT O S 1992 _ YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the future? YES - NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minimum 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and privi streets, and equestrian trails? �( YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requii along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Over Zone District? Mules 'C_ Llamas C Donkeys & Burros g . Other comments �R E rRa� �,�,piSc�✓ To Moy�aE' �- �9vF 1'v✓�- /�1/G�vDE1J /N i AYE OVE�P1 �3 Y. OPTIONAL: NAME: ADDRESS:.S� ounuF • �t'�'�� c ?�d 7_ /// S/ .�D /''I c� "P9 7fYZ gaa7 y A 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA O EQUES1 .AN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT L"ANSION vRnPVRTY nWWFR SURWY 1. Do you currently stable horses on your property? OCT 0 6 1992 YES NO 2. Do you desire to stable horses on your property in the futures , YES NO NOT SURE 3. In your opinion, what should be the smallest sized lot allowed for horsekeeping residential areas? 1.5 acre minimum 10,000 square foot minimum 1 acre minimum 20,000 square foot minim»m 4. How far should equestrian properties be located from designated equestrian trails? 1 mile 3 /4 mile 1/2 mile 5. Should there be fencing standards for equestrian properties fronting public and prii streets, and equestrian trails? YES NO 6. If you answered "YES" to the above question, what type of fencing should be requi along public and private streets and equestrian trails? Rustic split rail PVC fencing Three -rail white 7. What large animals, other than horses, should be allowed within the Equestrian Ove Zone District? Mules Llamas CJ_`�l l WGC J /l ViG Donkeys &Burros 8. Other commentsel Cam. v CL C L OPTIONALr\ I NAME: ADDRESS: VI\L G: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.117 TITLED "OVERLAY ZONE FOR EQUESTRIAN USES ON SMALLER LOTS" IN THE ZONING CHAPTER OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE CASE NO. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12th and 26th days of January, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to recommend to the City Council the amendments to Chapter 9 regulating the keeping of horses within specific areas of the City; and, WHEREAS, said Zoning Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" in that the Planning Director has determined that the Zoning Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Text Amendment: 1. The proposed amendment to the Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots are generally compatible with the goals and policies contained in the La Quinta General Plan. 2. That the proposed amendments will not significantly impact the environment. 3. That any environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of said amendment will be mitigated by existing measures to a level of insignificance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm and certify the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 92-243 that the proposed Text Amendment will not result in any significant advise effects and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted; RESOPC.049/CS -1- 3. That it does hereby Council of the above Amendment for the Resolution and as attached hereto. recommend approval to the City described Zoning Ordinance reasons set forth in this illustrated in Exhibit "A" PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26th day of January, 1993, 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.049/CS -2- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 25, 1993 CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073 (EA 92-243) APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: TO ADD THE EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT DESIGNATION TO EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS IN ORDER TO CREATE TWO NEW DISTRICTS (AREAS). LOCATION: THE AREA BOUNDED BY MADISON STREET ON THE WEST, 52ND AVENUE ON THE NORTH, MONROE STREET ON THE EAST, AND 55TH AVENUE (ALIGNMENT) ON THE SOUTH; AND APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE AND EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - RURAL RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY (0-2 DU/AC); NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL; RIVERSIDE COUNTY (FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA) RESIDENTIAL 3A (.4-2 DU/AC) 1/2 TO 2-1/2 ACRE LOTS RESIDENTIAL 3B (.2-.4 DU/AC) 2 TO 5 ACRE LOTS ZONING: EXISTING - R-1; R-1-10, 000; R-1-20,000; C-P-S RIVERSIDE COUNTY (R-1-14,000) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-243 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY THE IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED. PCST.095 1 (. L 001 SURROUNDING EXISTING & PROPOSED LAND USES: PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT #2 PCST.095 NORTH - EXISTING: VACANT, MOBILE HOMES, POLO CLUBS, RANCHETTES (CITY OF INDIO). PLANNED: COUNTRY ESTATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SOUTH - EXISTING: VACANT & AGRICULTURE PLANNED: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-015, 1,060 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND GOLF COURSE ON 265 ACRES; TT 26768, BESTCO, 21 SINGLE FAMILY R-1- 20,000 LOTS. WEST - EXISTING: VACANT & AGRICULTURE PLANNED: SPECIFIC PLAN 90-020, 850 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS IN 7 VILLAGES ON 271 ± ACRES; SP 90-019. EAST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) PLANNED: AGRICULTURAL (1 DU/10 ACRES). PROPOSED EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT #3 NORTH - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL (CITY OF INDIO), COUNTRY ESTATES TWO ACRES MINIMUM. PROPOSED: NO CHANGE SOUTH - EXISTING: VACANT, HORSE KEEPING, RURAL RESIDENTIAL. PLANNED: TENTATIVE TRACT 26855 - KANLIAN, 73 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23 ACRES; SP 90-016 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY 1208 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, GOLF COURSE, 21 ACRE COMMERCIAL ON 327 ACRES; TT 26718-HANSCH, 125 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 39.3 ACRES. 2 IL 002 WEST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURAL PLANNED: TOURIST COMMERCIAL, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OAK TREE WEST), AND SP 84-003 (THE ORCHARD- 86 ROOM HOTEL). EAST - EXISTING: AGRICULTURE, GREEN VALLEY ESTATES PLANNED: SP 90-016 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY CONTINUATION. RELATED PAST ACTIONS: On July 3, 1990, the City Council approved Ordinance 174 which added Chapter 9.117, Equestrian Overlay Zone, to the Municipal Code. On that same date Ordinance 175 was adopted that added the Equestrian Overlay Zone to the Green Valley Estates area in a prezoning action prior to annexation. This area was included in Annexation #5 that was approved in January, 1991. During the Council meeting of September 3, 1991, Council raised the issue of expanding the Equestrian Overlay Zone onto newly annexed properties. Council was advised by Staff, that if requested, such a zone could be processed. In October of 1992, Staff initiated a study of the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone and began the Change of Zone process. PROPOSAL: Staff proposes to expand the Equestrian Overlay District Zone designation to approximately 1010 acres in two separate new districts. The existing overlay area is to be designated as Equestrian Overlay District (EOD) #1. This district consists of the Green Valley Estates and is located within the eastern half of Section 4. The two proposed districts will be designated as EOD #2 and EOD #3. District #2 will consist of all of Section 10 and the northern half of Section 15. A portion of this district is within Riverside County and consists of approximately 240 acres. This land is within the Sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta and is slated for future annexation. By applying the EOD designation to the 240 acres, the City will be pre -zoning in anticipation of annexation. Proposed EOI) #3 originated through the request of the four property owners involved in this district. Staff received a letter on December 7, 1992 (dated October 15, 1992) from the four property owners requesting that they be included in the Equestrian Overlay Study. This district will contain four parcels totalling 30± acres. PCST.095 DISCUSSION: The historical tradition and land use of the eastern portion of the City of La Quinta has been rural and agricultural for many years. This area has been long considered a desirable area for the small gentleman farmer and rancher to live and work; a rural and open atmosphere offering a quiet and healthy lifestyle. A part of this lifestyle has included the keeping of horses. Policies contained in the newly adopted General Plan Update call for retention of the rural character in this area. One mechanism created to ensure that future development is consistent with the General Plan is the Rural Residential Overlay land use designation. Another mechanism is the Equestrian Overlay Zoning designation. The Equestrian Overlay currently allows property owners to keep horses on parcels at least 1.5 acres in size. Staff is proposing to reduce this to a one acre minimum. More information on this proposed amendment will be presented in the Staff report for Zoning Ordinance Amendment 92-029. The area currently designated with the Equestrian Overlay is relatively small when compared to the rural area that should be retained as a rural residential sector of the City. Horses are currently being kept on several parcels within proposed EOD #2 and EOD #3, as well as surrounding properties within the City of Indio and Riverside County. The exact number of horses kept within EOD #2 is not known. However, seven parcels in EOD #2 totalling over 330 acres do have horses. Within proposed EOD #3, there are approximately 41 horses currently kept on three of the four parcels. One of the four property owners does not now have horses but wants to have the option to so. The area proposed to be within EOD #2 was selected because of its traditional rural - equestrian land uses and the close proximity to surrounding equestrian uses such as the two large polo clubs nearby, the several smaller polo ranches and equestrian properties and proximity to trails. In recent years, the development of the Eldorado and Empire Polo Clubs has sparked considerable interest among equestriennes in purchasing smaller ranches and properties on which to live and keep their horses. This increase demand in horse -capable properties should be given consideration in the growth and development of south-east La Quinta. By creating the two new EOD's property owners will be given the option to keep a limited number of horses on their one -acre or larger lots for their recreational pleasure. Planned equestrian developments will be allowed within the EOD's. This type of development could consist of community equestrian facilities built within residential development and maintained by a property owner's association. FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Due to the cancellation of the Planning Commission Study Session for Monday, January 11, 1993, Staff feels that this change of zone should be continued to the next scheduled study session on January 25, 1993, and then for consideration on the January 26, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. There are important issues related to the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone that should have the benefit of study session discussion. PCST.095 4 IL: � !0 0 � ALTERNATIVE FOR EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT #3: The opposition to EOD #3 expressed by Mr. Kanlian and his willingness to negotiate an agreement with the property owners within this District has been considered by Staff. Staff is proposing an alternative for EOD #3 that would allow these four property owners to continue keeping horses on their properties at the existing number not to exceed a density of five horses per acre. For example, if owner "A" currently has three horses on his five acre parcel, then a maximum of three horses would continue to be allowed indefinitely, instead of a maximum of 25 horses. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed Equestrian Overlay expansion will not adversely affect the planned development as called for by the General Plan Update for the City of La Quinta. 2. The proposed Equestrian Overlay districts will further the intent and are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. 3. There will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the creation of the two new equestrian overlay districts that cannot be mitigated by existing measures. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- and confirm the Environmental Determination recommending to the City Council adoption of Zoning Ordinance 92-029, Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Environmental Assessment 92-243 3. Letter dated October 15, 1992 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93- PCST.095 5 005 AT • EOD st AVE 52 01 U) 0 • W, 0 tL AVE 53 -, C N NORTH Existing Overlay District Proposed Overlay District .. . . Study Area KAM A. A s. 4 ! 3 ►: L :•••. .� ' ...� .•.'.' :•i:• •:a•::-X. •N.: •'� t EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT STUDY • AL CASE No. Change of Zone: 92--073 LOCATION MAP ORT . SCALE: NTS 006 I. Background • 0 Environmental Assessment No. 92-243 Case No. CZ 92-073 ZOA 92-029 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent City of [-a ruin _a 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta CA 92253 619-564-2246 3. Date Checklist Prepared _ CPntPmhPr q, 19g2 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Planning & Development 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Equestrian Overlay District Expansion & Amendme Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lot II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? x c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? XAM T_T/1TfL AAA /n[• -1 - 007 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? YES MAYBE NO - X- --L YES 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, & aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish & shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? MAYBE NO 0 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 9 YES MAYBE NO a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing„ Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? 111 --L hazards to motor f. Increase in traffic vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? -- c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads? f. Other governmental services? O10 YES MAYBE NO 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: x a. Use of substantial amount of fuel / or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? --- e. Storm water drainage? -— f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X a. Creation of any health hazard or _1-1- potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 18 Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse P physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? Oil 10 V YES MAYBE NO c. Does the proposal have the potential to A - cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Xd. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. YX- a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) 012 0 0 IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date i nature of P eparer 013 171 CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-073 CASE NO. CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 92-029 EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT GENERAL DESCRIPTION The study area for the proposed Equestrian Overlay Zone District expansion consists of 2,800 acres located from 52nd Avenue south to where 55th Avenue would be if it went through, west of Madison Street, and as far east as Monroe Street. Figure 1 depicts the boundaries of the area assessed by this initial study. The study area is located in Sections 4,9, 10 and 15 of Township 5 South, Range 7 East as indicated on the USGS La Quinta, California, and Indio, California, 7.5 series quadrangles. The proposed expansion area consists of 720 acres within Sections 10 and 15. The study area currently contains seven zoning designations, (five residential zones, one commercial zone, and the Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas zone) . Existing General Plan designations within the area are Very Low Density Residential (0-2 DU/Acre), Low Density Residential (2-4 DU/Acre), and Special Commercial. Proposed designations in the Draft General Plan Update will be Neighborhood Commercial and a Rural Residential Overlay District along with the Very Low and Low Low Density Residential designations. A portion of the proposed overlay area consists of 240 acres within Riverside County. This land has already been pre - zoned for future annexation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF RESPONSES TO INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH Soil types found within the study area are Gilman Loam, Indio Sandy Loam, Myoma Fine Sand, and Coachella Sand and Loam. These soils are generally used for agricultural uses, wildlife habitat, recreational uses, and are found in watershed areas. Large portions of the proposed expansion area are either vacant or are used for agricultural and pasture purposes. Residential units are scattered throughout the area. The elevation of the study area ranges from approximately 20 feet below sea level in the northern end to 60 feet above sea level in the southern end. The Seismic/Geologic Hazard rating for this area is Zone 3 as indicated in Figure VI.1 of the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989) . Zone 3 is characterized as an area that experiences moderate groundshaking during earthquakes. Damage from earthquakes should not be a major problem in this area. There are two inferred, unnamed fault traces within the study area. These fault traces are not known to have had any movement over the last 11,000 years. 014 ® 0 Another potential soil hazard in the area is that of liquefaction. Liquefaction and dynamic settlement are produced in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with trapped groundwater causing dramatic deceases in the elevation of the ground. A moderate to high hazard exists for potential liquefaction events in the eastern region of the City. The extension of the Equestrian Overlay zone to the proposed study area will not result in any required changes to geologic substructures or create any unstable earth conditions. Any equestrian facilities that might be built will consist of corrals, arenas, barns, tack rooms, and other accessory structures that would not impact subsurface geologic conditions. It is possible that upon development of equestrian facilities that there will be earth - moving activities involved that will disrupt, displace, compact, or cover over the soil. Such activity is not anticipated to be of a significant level, and therefore, should not pose a major negative impact to the local environment. The proposed zone text amendment and change of zone do not propose any known changes in topography, the destruction or modification of any geologic features, or any increase in erosional conditions . There are no natural waterways to be impacted by deposition or erosion as a result of extending the Equestrian Overlay Zone within the proposed expansion area. The possibility exists that structures, people, or even animals located within the proposed zone expansion area could be exposed to the hazards of earthquakes. However, the surrounding region is also subject to the risks of earthquake hazards. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) Any development sites within the expansion area shall meet the provisions of the Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 since the area is located within a Seismic Zone. 2) All structures shall be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR The expansion area is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . The climate of the study area is characterized by high temperatures, low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing northwesterly winds funnel from the Los Angeles area into the Coachella Valley often transporting oxidants, sulfates and nitrates into the airshed of the project area. As a result, although the local contribution to air quality is not substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate state and federal standards for ozone. In addition, particulate standards are often exceeded because of wind -transported desert soils. The primary air quality concerns in the air basin are particulate matter (dust) and ozone. DOCLB . 001 2 015 The PM10 standards is exceeded as a result of activities in the Valley which contribute to fugitive dust. The Valley has the potential for generating significant fugitive dust as the area consists of alluvial materials, including sand dunes. The air mass from the South Coast Air Basin contributes to the PM10 violations, but the majority of the problem is caused locally by urban and agricultural activities of the existing population. Suspended particulates (PM10) are generated from either a pollution source or are formed in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions driven by sunlight. In 1990, SCAQMD prepared a State Implementation Plan for PM10 to define control measures to reduce the local contributions to the PM10 violations and to bring the Valley into compliance with Federal and State ambient air quality standards. Control measures will be directed toward five categories of emissions: (1) open area wind erosion; (2) unpaved roads, including farm roads; (3) paved roads, including storage and movement of fine particulate; (4) construction and demolition activities; and (5) agricultural operations. Local governmental agencies are responsible for implementation of most of the control measures. With any future construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project . Population increases contribute to long term air quality problems . The proposed zone district expansion is not anticipated to negatively impact the local or regional air quality. It is possible that objectionable odors could result from the buildup of horse manure. Regular and frequent manure removal from properties with horsekeeping facilities will mitigate any potential for culpable odors. MITIGATION MEASURES 1) Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of future 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, including the PM10 Ordinance, and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. All future development should also abide by the future PM10 Ordinance which is being drafted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments if it is ultimately adopted by the La Quinta City Council. 4) Equestrian facilities, such as arenas, training rings, and stabling areas should be watered on a regular basis to prevent a nuisance and health hazard problem from dust. DOCLB . 001 3 016 ® 0 3. WATER The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water, irrigation and sewer service to the study area. Irrigation water is provided to the City via the Coachella Canal. The canal, which loops through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla County Park and PGA West, receives its supply of water from the Imperial Reservoir on the Colorado River north of Yuma, Arizona. Irrigation is used to irrigate golf courses, agricultural areas, and to recharge the underground aquifer. Sanitary sewer facilities are currently located along Jefferson Street, south to 54th Avenue, east to Madison Street, south to 58th Avenue, and east to the Mid -Valley Reclamation Plant. This plant, currently only treats wastewater to secondary levels. Future development will require additional on and off -site improvements necessary to service the study area. CVWD does not foresee any adverse impacts, provided those additional facilities are funded by developers and constructed according to CVWD requirements. There are also several private wells in the study area that provide both domestic and irrigation water. Natural drainage patterns in the study area have not been altered by improvements. In the event of a major storm, flooding could occur. However, the nature of the soils in the area allow for rapid permeability. The proposed zone district expansion is not anticipated to have any effect upon the surface or ground water quality in the study area. The rate of absorption and drainage patterns in the area are not expected to significantly change because of the keeping of horses. MITIGATION MEASURES: All future development within the proposed Equestrian Overlay District shall comply with all applicable City and Coachella Valley Water District requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. 4. PLANT LIFE The study area is located within a Sonoran Desert Scrub environment. This environment is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Dominant plants include: Creosote Bush, Bur -sage, Ocotillo, Barrel Cactus, Jumping Cholla, Smoketree, Mesquite, Four -wing Saltbush, Agave and Desert Lavender. Because much of the study area has been under agriculture for many years, the natural vegetation has been altered. Relict plant communities can occasionally be found along fence rows, between fields, and in remaining dune areas. It is possible that there could be an impact upon native plant species resulting from an expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District. New plant species could be introduced into the area as a result of development and landscaping activities. It is also possible that there will be a reduction in agricultural land as new developments, including equestrian facilities, are constructed in the area. DOCLB . 001 4 017 9 0 No mitigation measures are deemed necessary concerning this issue for the proposed change of zone and ordinance amendment. 5. ANIMAL LIFE Mammalian species common to this area are small, nocturnal animals. Generally, the study area contains mice, kangaroo rats, desert cottontail, jack rabbits, and coyotes; animals noted to be active in the Coachella Valley region. The proposed zone district expansion will allow the keeping of two horses on lots with a minimum size of 20,000 square feet. The exact number of horses currently kept within the study area is unknown, however, if additional horse -capable properties are created and developed then the potential for an increase in the horse population exists unequivocally. Any significant impacts that could result from an increase in horses is -mitigated by controlling the density ( number of horses per acre) of horses on equestrian properties through the proposed standards of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District Ordinance. It is possible that the number of other animals will increase as a result of expanding this zone. The potential addition of horses and other animals to the area could change the diversity of animal species found. According to Figure 5-1 of the La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992) , there is existing habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringe Toad Lizard within the study area. This habitat is found in the southwest quarter of Section 9fand a large portion of Section 9, west of the proposed expansion area. The habitat a not Develophin the ment ment Fee Area. There are no otheey Fringe r Lizard siat Conservation gnificant animal Preserve p resources within the study area. Any new permitted species of animals that would be introduced into the study area as a result of extending the Equestrian Overlay Zone would probably consist of domestic horses, and llamas, which are used as pack animals. Other unpermitted animals could be brought into the area, however, the property owner could be cited for violation of the ordinance and forced to remove any such animal. The study area has historically had a rural agricultural character with horses having been kept on some of the ranches. Therefore, extending the overlay zone will not introduce a new element into the area, but rather expand and preserve an existing characteristic. No mitigation is deemed necessary on this issue. 6. NOISE The significant noise sources in La Quinta. are generated primarily from automobile and truck traffic. The existing areas of the City which are subject to high noise exposure levels are primarily along major street corridors such as 50th Avenue (Washington Street to Madison Street) . Rural environments with low traffic volumes typically experience noise levels ranging from 35 to 55 db(a), depending on the time of day. DOCLB . 001 5 018 ® 0 As the study area is developed there will be an incremental increase in the level of noise in the area. However, the low density planned for the area will prevent significant increases in noise levels. Therefore, the proposed expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the environment from the standpoint of noise issues. MITIGATION MEASURES: Future developments may be required to prepare noise analyses to access the impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to: landscape barriers, setback requirements, walls, building wall upgrades, or other measures deemed necessary to meet the City's guidelines. 7. LIGHT & GLARE It is possible that extension of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District will result in new light and glare. As the area develops, night lighting will be used for security. It is not anticipated, however, that there will be any significant adverse impacts from any additional lighting. It is possible that future equestrian facilities may have arena or playing field lighting which could create a significant impact to the surrounding area. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. All lighting will be required to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. 2. Any proposed arena or field lighting shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning & Development Department prior to installation. 8. LAND USE The proposed Equestrian Overlay expansion is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the present or planned land use in the study area. The study area is predominantly rural residential or agricultural in character, and the preservation of the rural character is planned for in the General Plan Update for the City of La Quinta. Expanding the area of the Equestrian overlay will not change the rural character, but rather enhance it by allowing horsekeeping on more properties than currently allowed. The Overlay District will regulate horsekeeping on future subdivisions and developments by requiring that particular development standards be adhered to. Such standards include minimum lot size, setbacks, fencing types, accessory structures, and number of horses allowed. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Minimum lot size allowed for horsekeeping shall be determined by the Planning Commission and the City Council. DOCLB . 001 6 019 0 2. Any changes to the existing property land use designations shall be made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The keeping of horses shall not be allowed in the Equestrian Overlay zoned areas unless the standards of the overlay zone are complied with. Violation of these standards shall be subject to citation and enforcement actions by the City. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES No. Natural resources as they relate to the Equestrian overlay District expansion may be grouped into two categories: 1) air, mineral, and water resources; and 2) resources which are used in construction (e.g. aggregate for concrete, metals for street) . The proposed expansion area does not contain any known mineral resources. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant amount of development of equestrian facilities in this area, therefore, the potential use of natural resources will not be consequential. 10. RISK OF UPSET No. The proposed Equestrian Overlay Zone District does not involve the keeping of explosives on properties with such designation. Hazardous substances of any significant quantity are not permitted in residential areas, either urban or rural in character. It is possible that herbicides, pesticides, and other such chemicals may be kept in relatively small quantities on horse -properties for weed and pest control purposes. However, no potential for a significant adverse impact to the environment is anticipated from the keeping of small quantities of legal chemicals. 11. POPULATION The proposed overlay expansion could result in future subdivisions that will tend to create "horse legal" lots of a size larger than what would have been created if the overlay were not extended. Larger lots will result in a lower population density within the district. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 12. HOUSING Expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District will not affect existing housing or create a demand for new housing beyond what has been planned for in the General Plan. 13. TRANSPORTATION If the overlay district is extended there will be no additional vehicular movement generated, no demand for parking facilities, and no substantial impact upon existing transportation systems than what will be generated in the area without the overlay. The overlay may even reduce potential traffic in the area by maintaining a lower density of development. The overlay designation will not result in any impacts to waterborne, rail, or air traffic, as none exist in the study area. With the future development of equestrian trails along Madison Street, existing and future right-of- way will be utilized. This will create a new feature to the circulation system in the immediate area. DOCLB . 001 7 020 ® 0 Any substantial hazards will be minimized by the design of the trails that will include landscape buffers, and rail fencing to separate riders from pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Intersection enhancement will be necessary to assist riders across streets. The keeping of horses will not pose any adverse impacts to the local circulation system. The burden of equestrian trail construction shall fall upon project developers . Maintenance of such trails shall be provided by the developer until such time that this responsibility is accepted by the City. No mitigation measures are anticipated for this change of zone and ordinance amendment. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Extending the overlay district will developmentave minimal already planned for by olice he General or the local schools, beyond that Plan. The proposed overlay extension e area and will result It the need connect for an to equestrian trail trail system to be developed to serve systems. Maintenance of local trails within the public right-of-way will be required of the City . There may be a need for additional animal control as a result of expanding the over ay is an increase in the number of horses in the area designation. Any increases in this area are anticipated to be incremental in nature, and should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. (Ron Vreeken, Animal Control Officer, City of La Quinta : Personal Communication) . Solid waste generated from the area is transported by a private hauling service to the Coachella Valley Sanitary Landfill operated by the County of Riverside. Currently, each resident in the city generates approximately 14 pounds per person per day of waste. It is estimated that horses will generate approximately 18 pounds per horse per day of manure that will either need to be hauled away or spread and mixed with soil to decompose. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future development, applicants will be required to pay the City's Infastructure Fee. Payment of this fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2. All future projects within the overlay district shall comply with all requirements of the County Fire and Sheriff's Departments. All mitigation fees imposed by these agencies shall be paid by the developer or property owner. 3. Developers will be required to pay school impact fees prior to obtaining building permits, if applicable to equestrian facilities and structures. 4. Water, sewer, and electric service shall be arranged for and secured prior to issuance of any building permits. DOCLB . 001 8 021 U 5. On -site green waste (grass trimmings) and manure should be composted on -site or hauled to off -site composting yards to reduce dumping at the local landfill. 6. On -site recycling programs should be developed by future Homeowner's Associations and large community or private equestrian facilities in conjunction with the city or the solid waste hauler to reduce household waste of aluminum, newspapers, glass and other materials. 15. ENERGY The overlay expansion will not in its self require the expenditure of energy or fuel. Any development on properties within the overlay will require incremental amounts of fuel and energy during construction phases. Energy expended in the keeping of horses is minimal. Therefore, no significant impact on the environment is foreseen from the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay designation, and the keeping of horses. Natural gas service is provided by Southern California Gas Company. Electric service is provided by the Imperial Irrigation District. 16. UTILITIES No new utility or infrastructure systems will be needed if the Equestrian Overlay is extended. The keeping of horses requires little in the way of utilities. No adverse impact upon utility providers and systems is anticipated from the expansion of the district overlay. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements, as required by the City or utility purveyor, shall be met as part of future development projects. 17. HUMAN HEALTH There are no known health hazards associated with the keeping of horses on residential property, aside from injuries from accidents and unsanitary conditions resulting from lack of or improper maintenance. Therefore, there should not be an adverse impact on public health from the proposed expansion of the Equestrian Overlay District. 18. AESTHETICS The expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District will not create aesthetically offensive sites or result in the obstruction of scenic views. Expanding the district will enhance and preserve the rural character of the area. Future equestrian trails will incorporate uniform fencing and landscape buffers of a pleasing design. Therefore, no adverse impacts to the aesthetic environment are anticipated to occur. DOCLB . 001 9 022 C� 0 19. RECREATION Equestrian activity has a long history in the Coachella Valley, and appears to be on the increase as exhibited by recent equestrian facility development (polo fields) in nearby Indio. By expanding the Equestrian Overlay District, recreational opportunities will increase in quantity and improve in quality. As projects are developed in the district, designated equestrian trails will be required to be constructed as a condition of approval. The General Plan Update calls for an equestrian trail along the east side of Madison Street. Therefore, all future projects along the east side of Madison Street will be required to construct their segment of that trail, with dedication to the City to follow completion. Additional trails could possibly be developed that will connect to the Madison Street trail in order to create a network of local trails that connect to nearby regional trails . Such a network of trails will provide a quality recreational opportunity for ide the area. Therefore, a local and uestrian Overlay District, as more horses ficial effect will result from expanding the Equestrian horses will be able tobe kept and used in the nearby area. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Future project developers will be required to contribute to the City's park in -lieu fund which is used to develop city parks for both residents and visitors to this area even though some projects might provide private on -site recreational facilities for residents . Private recreational facilities do not count toward the City's required park in -lieu fee. The current park fee is based on a ration of the assumed population of future housing tracts (1-5 acres of park land for each 1,000 residents) as it relates to the entire City, dwelling unit population, and finally land costs of the property. The current fee is based on 3 acres of park land per each 1,000 people generated by proposed developments. 2. Development along the east side of Madison Street will be conditioned to build their segment of the equestrian trail. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES It is possible that prehistoric and historic cultural resources exist within both study area and the proposed expansion area boundaries. The La Quinta area has a high potential for the existence of such resources based on recorded information about site locations and research documents on the history of the area. Any future equestrian developts could disturb or destroy such resources. also disturb and destroy cultural resources. Recreational horseback riding could MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. All future development projects should be required to have a Phase I reconnaissance survey conducted early in the planning review process . The recommendations of survey reports should be made part of project conditions of approval. DOCLB . 001 10 023 ® 0 2. All project applications within this area should be forwarded for comment to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society, the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission, and to the Eastern Information Center of the State Historic Preservation Office located on the U . C . R . campus in Riverside, CA. 3. All horseback riding should be restricted to existing trails and facilities. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the expansion of the Equestrian Overlay Zone District onto the proposed area, on plant or animal life, on long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Therefore, based on the above information, this overlay expansion will not have a major or significant impact on the environment provided the recommended mitigation measures are met. References: Draft EIR - General Plan Update (July 1992) General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (July 1992) Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989) Ron Vreeken, Animal Control Officer, City of La Quinta Prepared by: Leslie Blodgett Associate Planner Planning & Development Department, City of La Quinta DOCLB . 001 11 02e 0 M October 15, 1992 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: We understand the city is currently studying the feasibility of an "equestrian overlay" for an area bounded by Monroe on the east, Madison on the west and between Avenues 52 and 55. We, the undersigned property owners, request inclusion of the below parcel numbers in that study. We would also appreciate notification, if possible, of any hearings etc. relating to this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, eith Reese AP# 769-270-020 Je a P# 769-270-001 McAifas Forster AP# 769-270-004 W ynM41 eld 769-270-021 `4 0 2 F 1 /12/93 To whom it may concern: This letter is written on behalf of those who are interested in keeping the land use in this area as it stands "horse property." I have just recently become a horse owner and have found it to be very demanding and at the same time to be very rewarding. As and Educator in the valley for the past 8 years the question of what do our kids do when they are not in school poses some serious problems. Children spend many idle hours waiting for parents to come home from work or perhaps the gym or even a second job. Without something for the children to do the potential to get involved in gangs or other avenues of misconduct are wide open. I have had the good fortune of reacquainting my self with some former students through the love of horses. The students have developed a tremendous amount of responsibility through the caring of these animals. It is really a pleasure to see these young people get involved in an activity that demands the understanding and caring developed through this activity. It appears to me that we should be encouraging more of these activities rather than making it more difficult and harder for our youth to find activities that require the dedication needed to care for horses. Lance Brown 028 '-Iq 11- CALL 964 POI 0 1 0 SPECLALIZED JANITORIAL RVICE, 1,%C. 3anuary 12, 19q3 804 SOUTH BEACH BLVC SUITE 103 ANAHEIM, CA 9280 (714) 821.135H i"519),W4-23S Dear Honorable IChairvromen � mea6r,,ars of the[ Planning I-orumissicn: Being vn e. 1warwntil now and unable t attend the meeting tonight® we we 13 like to state hstre that tie enjoy the equestrian fir at 50th and Jefferson. vViel are anxious for the equestrian ovekay. We feel that Othcu3h proqress must 9c on, we do not wanL to spoil areas of ler..jcyment in process. Thank you -!:or i ur consideration. We will be at the weetinq on the 261t1h. Gene Hardin and Judy Munsen 48-145 Ca--,'e Serena- " 564-4075 1554-0799 0211 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CONCURRENCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO. CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073 - CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of January, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request for a Change of Zone to add the Equestrian Overlay Zone onto various existing zones, located in the area bounded by Madison Street on the west, Avenue 52 on the north, Monroe Street on the east and Avenue 55 (alignment) on the south; and approximately 32 acres located south of Avenue 50 and east of Jefferson Street; more particularly described as: ALL OF SECTION 10, AND NORTH HALF OF SECTION 15, TSS, R7E; AND A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TSS, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, said Change of Zone has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" in that the Planning Director has determined that the Change of Zone will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Change of Zone: 1. The proposed Change of Zone, is generally consistent with the goals and policies contained in the La Quinta General Plan. 2. That the proposed overlay zoning designation is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning designations. 3. Proposed Equestrian Overlay Districts No. 2 & 3 exceed the required minimum size of 2.5 acres to establish such a district. 4. That the overlay designation will enable those property owners who currently keep horses on their property to continue to do so at the density allowed by the ordinance. 0 3 P RESOPC.050/CS -1- 5. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment due to the proposed Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of the La Quinta Planning Commission. 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the above described Change of Zone 92-073 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 26th day of January, 1993, 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 031 RESOPC.050/CS -2- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 PROJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022 AND PLOT PLAN 92-490, JEFFERSON SQUARE APPLICANT: E. F. P. CORPORATION (ED CARNES, VICE PRESIDENT) ARCHITECT: MHA; MICHAEL HURST REQUEST: 1. SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022: A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A FUTURE SHOPPING CENTER PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON STREET. 2. PLOT PLAN 92-490: REQUEST TO DEVELOP A +251,550 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ON A PORTION OF A +23 ACRE SITE. THE CENTER WILL INCLUDE ON -SITE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON STREET. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) AND W-1 (WATER COURSE) BACKGROUND: The project was tentatively recommended for approval by the Design Review Board on November 18, 1992, and approved by the Planning Commission on November 24, 1992, subject to the final plans being reviewed by both groups prior to construction plan check. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: The City Council reviewed the proposal at their meeting of December 15, 1992, as a report of Planning Commission action. The City Council felt that the project architect and developer should reach a consensus on the final design of the shopping center prior to acquiring final approval of the project. PCST.102 1 The City Council voted to continue the case and requested that the project be re-examined by the Design Review Board on January 6th and by the Planning Commission on January 12th, if possible. The City Council concerns or questions on the case were: 1. Could the roof line on Building "B" be redesigned so that it is similar in design to the rest of the shopping center? 2. Could the architect refine or upgrade the pedestrian arcade along the south side of building, mainly Buildings "C" and "F"? 3. Was the exposed neon tubing necessary? 4. Would a more traditional Spanish design theme be more appropriate for this location? The City Council discussed other elements of the project. However, their directive to the Design Review Board was that they would like the Board and the architect to refine the project architecture so that everybody involved knows exactly how the design of the shopping center will look, if approved. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: The Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans on January 6, 1993 and January 13, 1993. The project architect has modified the architectural plans of the project in the following ways: 1. Upgraded the covered pedestrian arcade to include another design theme along portions of the south elevation (tile with double arch); 2. Varied the roof pitch throughout the project (4:12 & 3:12). 3. Changed the roof parapet design to include a rounded design and a tile roofed design (fake two story design) to accentuate the original design scenario; 4. Revised the access driveway on Jefferson Street so that the main entry is south of Building "G"; 5. Angled parking has been added to the overall parking lot design theme; and, 6. Changed the design of Building "B" to include some of the design features noted above plus modified the entryway design on both sides of the building (north and east). 7. An enlarged pedestrian arcade plan was prepared as well as a roof plan. 8. The colorboard was updated. PCST.102 2 As mentioned, the Design Review Board spend additional time with the Architect and his client to examine the finite features of the project. The major topics which were discussed were: 1. Neon Lighting - The Board requested that if neon lighting is to be used, they would prefer that the light tubes be recessed behind stucco channels so that the light source cannot be seen from within the parking lot. The Board stated that the final solution would be designed so that the light created is "soft" and does not create glare. Neon should only be used on the south side of the buildings and along Jefferson Street. 2. Building Colors - The Board initially was not comfortable with the foam -green accent color along the pedestrian arcade. However, after some discussion, they instructed staff to evaluate whether or not the colors blend well with one another. 3. C- nppy Awning - The Board would like the color of the maroon awning material to be lightened so that it is not so dark. 4. Trellis Building Connection - The Board did not feel that Building "B" and Pad Building "A" needed to be connected by a covered pedestrian walkway. They felt the architectural character of pad Building "A" should stand alone as an independent facility. The Board stated they would evaluate the architectural character of the pad site once a separate application was received. 5. Building Parapet Design - The parapet design was discussed and the Board felt that since there are various heights to the building complex it would be appropriate to have each building masses at particular height have its parapet be continual around all four sides of the building. This design would insure that the connections between each level of the building had uniformity and could stand alone as independent features. 6. North Side Building Elevation - The members expressed a desire to make sure that the north side of the structure (facing the wash) had many of the architectural characteristics as the south side with the exception of the neon lighting. 7. Glass Skylite Design - There was some discussion on whether the glass skylite was necessary, and whether another design would be more practical. The Board agreed that it was up to the developer to design the structure and pay for the cooling of the building, but it might be more cost effective to examine a prefabricated design instead of a field assembled custom design. The Board was not opposed to the overall design. S. Sign Program - The Sign ]Program should be submitted so that the members can get an idea of how the tenants will be identified. The Board stated that it would have been nice to see the program during the overall discussion of the center. PCST.102 3 CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Design Review Board voted 4-3 to accept the attached revised plan date stamped January 11, 1993, provided the above cited items are evaluated. A modified version of the original Planning Commission Conditions of Approval are attached based on the Design Review Boards action of January 13, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the attached plans with any modifications that the Planning Commission would feel are necessary. A copy of the recommended revised Conditions of Approval are attached. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Modified Conditions of Approval 3. New plans date stamped January 20, 1993 PCST.102 4 F L . A - .mum NI I A W 4J 0 VJ O C3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- CONDITION,S OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 92-022 & PLOT PLAN 92-490 (REVISED) JANUARY 26, 1993 * Modified by Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 ** Added by Planning Commission on November 24, 1992 + Revised by Design Review Board on 1/13/93 + + Added by Design Review Board on l/ 13/93 GENERAL: 1. Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This approval shall expire and become void within one year unless extended pursuant to the City's Municipal Code. 3. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department prior building permit issuance. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading or 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: - City Fire Marshal - Public Works Department - Planning and Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) - Caltrans District II Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. 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 CONAPRVL.071 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 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. 5. 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. 6. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined by the Building and Safety Director. FEES AND DEPOSITS 7. In order to mitigate impacts on public schools, applicant shall comply with the following: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide the Planning and Development Department with written clearance from the DSUSC stating that their impact fees have been paid. 8. The California Fish and Game Environmental filing fees shall be paid. The fee is $1,250.00 plus $25.00 for the Riverside County document processing. The fee shall be paid within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 9. Applicant shall pay all fees and deposits required by the City for processing, plan checking, and construction inspection. The fee and deposit amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 10. 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, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 11. Applicant shall construct, or enter into an agreement to construct, the on- and off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and any other improvements required by these conditions before approval of the final map. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obsti-uctions which are not part of the proposed improvements. CONAPRVL.071 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 If improvements are phased, off -site improvements and property -wide improvements such as perimeter walls and landscaping, common drainage basins or mains, and perimeter landscaping shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the plot plan. 12. The applicant shall develop phases in the order of the approved phasing plan so that improvements required of each phase are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy within any subsequent phases. The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of off -site and property -wide improvements normally secured with the first phase (i.e., off -site improvements, perimeter walls and perimeter landscaping) with the orderly development of all phases within the plot plan. 13. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans if any, and as required by Caltrans and the City Engineer. Right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs for State Route 111 improvements shall conform with Caltran.s requirements or as approved by the City Engineer. Right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs for all other improvements shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Dedications shall include: A. Jefferson Street - 60-foot half width, plus additional to accommodate any right turn refuges and dual left turn lanes and an exclusive right turn lane at SR 111, plus additional as required by the intersection alignment study required herein. B. State Route 111 - 86-foot half width, exclusive bus turnout, additional width as necessary to accommodate exclusive left and right turn lanes and alignment changes resulting from the intersection alignment study required below. C. Right-of-way or easements as required to provide access for emergency service equipment. D. Mutual access easement to adjacent property to the west over the most westerly access drive. E. Parcels and easements as required by CVWD. CONAPRVL.071. 3 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 14. Applicant shall create, and offer to dedicate, common area setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to the following street rights of way: A. Highway 111 - 50 feet wide; and B. Jefferson Street - 20 feet wide. 15. Applicant shall dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots for the purpose of sidewalks and/or bikepaths. 16. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to abutting public streets. Access to those streets shall be restricted to street intersections and approved emergency access locations. 17. Applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, common areas, and centralized mail delivery units. PROJECT DESIGN: 18. Development of the project site shall comply with Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92- 490 and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the plans and exhibits. 19. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the project design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.`, and other techniques. *20. A six -foot -high masonry wail or chain link fence (living fence) shall be provided along the north side of the project. The exact location, design, and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department in conjunction with the noise study and approved by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Landscaping shall be provided on both sides of the future wall or fence. 21. The requirements of the City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be met for each development phase of the project. 22. This approval does not authorize the construction of the pad sites. These buildings' specific locations, design, height, and size shall be subject to separate plot plan review and approval by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. CONAPRVL.071 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 23. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting along roads, if any, for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN 24. The development shall be governed by the following: A. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. B. No two-story buildings shall be allowed within 150-feet of Jefferson Street or Highway 111. C. All roofing material within the project shall be clay or concrete tile barrel. The color of the roof tiles shall consist of desert hues and be approved by the Design Review Board. D. A building addressing plan shall be submitted to Building and Safety and to the Fire Department for review during plan check. The minimum building address size lettering shall be eight inches. E. Screening of the parking lot surface shall be provided from all adjacent streets through use of berming, landscaping and/or short decorative walls. The minimum vertical height shall be 42 inches. F. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per Federal, State, and local requirements. G. No overhead or similar door shall open to the north or towards any residentially zoned property unless adequate screened from noise and visibility to the satisfaction of the Planning and Development Director. H. Variety in setbacks and siting shall occur in development of the future pad sites, but in no case shall the building setback line be less than the minimum building setback requirement. CONAPRVL.071. 5 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 No outside cart or other storage shall be permitted unless completely screened in a City approved area, excluding cart return areas within parking lot area. J. Parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of building permits. +K. Plot plan or conditional use permit applications, as deemed necessary by C-P-S Zone requirements, shall be processed for each pad site. The architectural features of the pad sites shall be consistent with the design theme of the main structure. L. The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this specific plan until the project is completed. During each annual review by the Commission, the developer/applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the specific plan. The applicant/developer of this project hereby agrees to furnish such evidence of compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, good faith compliance with the requirements of the specific plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the Commission may extend the approval period for 12 months at a time. M. The final landscape plan shall utilize trees and palms along Highway 111 and Jefferson Street and the entry drives into the project. Palms should not be used as shade trees for the parking lot areas unless they are massed because the applicant will not be able to meet the City's landscape shading requirements which call for 50 % of the parking shall be shaded. Canopy shade trees may be used in the parking lot. N. Accent tree uplighting shall be used along both major streets and along the main entry drives. +C. A master sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to any on -site building construction. The program should 'include uniform materials and colors for each tenant space. +P. A trellised or tiled roofed pedestrian arcade shall be built along the front of the shopping center to shield the customers and store owners from the intense summer sun. The location and design of the arcade shall be approved by Staff during plan check. The maroon canvas awnings may be used under the trellis or roofed arcade as an accent treatment to the overall design of the shopping complex. The awning color should be muted to a softer color. CONAPRVL.071 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 *Q. The exposed neon tubing which is mounted to the top of the building complex should be used sparingly throughout the shopping center because the neon will distract from the architectural elements of the center plus it could be a distraction to Highway 111 traffic. The exposed neon may be used on buildings C, F, and G on the sides of the building which face the shopping complexes primary parking lot (south side). The exposed neon tubing shall be mounted in a recessed stucco channel and the location and/or color shall be approved by the Staff prior to construction plan check. The neon tubing should create a "soft" light accent on the building but should not create glare. R. A special landscape design shall be submitted for the intersection of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street because it is a "gateway" intersection. The applicant should prepare a formal landscape plan which uses citrus trees, decorative hardscape, desert landscape, uplighting, and public art as a focal point for this primary intersection. The landscape area should be approximately 50 feet by 100 feet (5,000 square feet). The plan shall be approved by the Design Review Board and by the Arts in Public Places Committee. S. All roof mounted mechanical equipment should be screened by the building wall parapet (e.g., 32-inch parapet). T. The minimum dimension for a parking lot planter should be seven feet wide. *U. The final concept building plans shall be reviewed by the Staff during plan check. ++V. A trellised pedestrian cover between Buildings A & B is not necessary unless the applicant desires the facility for his patrons. If desired, the height of the structure shall be approved by the City Fire Marshall during plan check. The design and its location shall be approved by the Planning Department. + +W. The building parapet heights throughout the project shall be continual around each respective building masses to assure architectural continuity for the project. ++X. The design features of the south elevation should be reflective in the north elevations where appropriate. GRADING 25. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. CONAPRVL.071. Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 These shall include but not be limited to: A. The use of irrigation during all construction activities; B. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 26. 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. 27. Applicant shall comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of fees required therewith, and the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. 28. 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 and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 92-241, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 92-241, Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigating measures of Environmental Assessment 92-241, Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490. The Planning and Development Director may require inspections or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 29. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of the plot plan. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist shall certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. CONAPRVL.071 8 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 DRAINAGE 30. The project shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow into the Whitewater River Channel. Pipes shall be sized to prevent ponding in parking areas from exceeding six inches during a one hundred year storm event. The project shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. 31. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site. 32. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. 33. The design of the project shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the project. 34. Applicant shall construct storm water facilities along the north side of Highway 111 as required by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 35. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or on the proposed site or shall be installed in underground facilities. Electric power lines over 12,500 volts are not subject to this requirement. 36. Underground utilities in areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. Applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 37. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District including dedication of parcels, lining of the Whitewater River Channel and other requirements of their letter of October 2, 1992. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 38. The City is contemplating adoption of a Major Thoroughfare Improvements Ordinance. The Ordinance is intended to distribute the cost of major thoroughfare construction evenly and fairly on undeveloped land at the time the land is subdivided or developed for beneficial use. CONAPRVL.071 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 If the Ordinance is adopted at least 60 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, this project shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If the Ordinance is not adopted the Applicant shall construct street improvements within and contiguous to the project as listed below. 39. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements to State Route 111 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Caltrans and the City Engineer. Other improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings and as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall perform an alignment study of S.R. I I l and Jefferson Street to determine the design of the Jefferson/S.R. I I I intersection. The study shall extend 500- feet in all directions beyond the boundaries of the applicant's site. If total required improvements to S.R. 111 exceed $300,000, the applicant shall perform a Project Study Report if and as required by Caltrans. Pavement design shall consider soil strength, anticipated traffic loading and design life. The minimum pavement section shall be 3" AC/4" Class 2 base for on -site work and 4'/z "W" for arterial and collector streets. 40. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and centralized mail delivery units approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. Enhancements to existing i,rnprovements may be required to integrate the proposed improvements with existing conditions. This includes street width transitions extending beyond tract boundaries. 41. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Jefferson Street - Three travel lanes on west side (39' curb to curb) plus required turn lanes. Install 8-foot sidewalk. CONAPRVL.071 10 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 2. S.R. 111 - Install three travel lanes and shoulder on north side (estimated 46' curb to curb), median island, required turn lanes, exclusive bus turnout with pedestrian walkway to site, and 8-foot sidewalk. B. ON -SITE STREETS 1. As required by the City Engineer. Shall include at least one 24' access road each to Jefferson Street and S.R. 111. C. TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1. Jefferson Street at North Entry Drive - Full traffic signal. If the signal is warranted when this development occurs (as determined by the City Engineer), the applicant shall design and construct the signal at the applicant's expense. If the signal is deferred until warranted at a later date, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for 50% of the cost to design and construct the signal. 2. S.R. 111 at 'Vest Entry Drive - Full traffic signal. If the signal is warranted when this development occurs (as determined by the City Engineer), the applicant shall design and construct the signal at the applicant's expense. If the signal is deferred until warranted at a later date, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for 25 % of the cost to design and construct the signal. 3. S.R. 111 at Jefferson - Traffic signal modifications as determined by the alignment study and as approved by the City Engineer. If the modifications are warranted when this development occurs (as determined by the City Engineer), the applicant shall design and construct the modifications at the applicant's expense. If the modifications are deferred until warranted at a later date, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for 25 % of the cost to design and construct the modifications. 42. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows: A. S.R. 111 - Unrestricted at most westerly access drive. Right-in/right-out at drive approximately midway between the west property line and Jefferson Street. B. Jefferson Street - Unrestricted at intersection with Vista Grande. Right -in only at drive between this intersection and S.R. 111 (Exhibit "G"). CONAPRVL.071 11 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 LANDSCAPING 43. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along Jefferson Street and State Route 111. Design of these setbacks shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of street curb. 44. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which shall include consideration of: A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water, including water saving features incorporated into the design of the structures, the use of drought tolerant and low- water usage landscaping materials, and programs to increase the effectiveness of landscape, as recommended by Coachella Valley Water District and the State :Department of Water Resources. B. :Methods for maximizing groundwater recharge, including the construction- of groundwater recharge facilities. C. Methods for minimizing the amount of water used for on -site irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities. The water energy plan shall be subject to review and acceptance by CVWD prior to final approval by the City Engineer. 45. Applicant/developer shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan, which shall be designated to feature drought tolerant plant species, and the latest water conserving irrigation technology. The plan(s) shall be subject to initial review by the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission, with subsequent final review and acceptance by Coachella Valley Water District prior to landscape construction. Evidence of CVWD acceptance shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 46. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planning materials shall be encouraged. Provision shall also be made for planting materials which provide forage and nesting areas for nearby wildlife. 47. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of, and be signed by, the Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. CONAPRVL.071 12 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment. 48. Applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 49. 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. PUBLIC SERVICES 50. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal, who may approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: A. The access road proposed along the northern boundary of the project shall be completed during Phase I to provide through circulation. B. All future building expansions shall be subject to a site plan review/approval prior to issuance of building permits. C. A minimum unobstructed width of 24 feet shall be maintained for all access roads, with certain areas designated as fire lanes. D. The water mains shall be capable of providing a fire flow of 5000 gpm and an actual fire flow available from any two adjacent hydrants shall be 2500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi. E. A combination of on -site and off -site Super hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") shall 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. F. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any combustible building material being placed on the site. CONAPRVL.071 13 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 G. Prior to issuance of building permits, the 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 spacing, and the system shall be designed to meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be designed to meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by the local water company and a registered civil engineer 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. H. Buildings shall be constructed so that the fire flow required for any individual building or unseparated area does not exceed 3500 gpm. I. Final conditions and requirements with regards to type of construction, area separations, or built-in fire protection systems will be addressed when the building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 51. Applicant/developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement provisions of AB 939 and AB 1462. The applicant/developer is required to work with Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project: A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and steel & aluminum cans. B. All on -site recycling bins shall be by approved masonry walls or other architectural features. 52. Applicant/developer shall provide for transit amenities as may be necessary. These amenities shall include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location and passenger waiting shelter along Highway 111, the precise location of which shall be determined by Sunline Transit. QUALITY ASSURANCE 53. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of the improvements required of this map, applicant shall fully comply with the quality - assurance program. CONAPRVL.071 14 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, applicant shall employ or retain a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer or land surveyor, as appropriate, 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 shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. Upon completion of the improvements, a statement on the "as built" plans as follows: "The construction of all improvements on these plans was properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision for compliance with the plans and specifications. The work shown hereon was constructed as approved except as otherwise noted. Noted exceptions have been approved by the City Engineer. " B. Prior to issuance of any building permit, a separate document bearing .the engineer's or surveyor's seal and signature, that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. 54. Applicant shall provide the City a set of "as built" reproducible drawings of all grading and improvements except water and sewer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer certifying to the as -built condition. MAINTENANCE 55. Adequate provision shall be made for continuous maintenance of all landscaping and related features. 56. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the project such as the landscaped setback lots and retention basins. Applicant shall maintain all off -site improvements until final acceptance of the improvements by the City. CONAPRVL.071 15 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 MISCELLANEOUS 57. Grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. 58. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales facilities, and/or signs on the subject property. 59. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. At a rninimum, the plan shall: (1) identify the means for digging test pits; and (2) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant material 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 effect;ve 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 diver, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation, or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analyses to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. CONAPRVL.071 16 Conditions of Approval Specific Plan 92-022 & Plot Plan 92-490 (Revised) January 26, 1993 60. All on -site billboards shall be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 61. The on -site parking spaces fronting Highway 111 will be allowed to be within 25 feet of the new property line provided visual screening is constructed. 62. A parldng analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department prior to any developer of the freestanding pad buildings in the future. The study shall. be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. **63. Angled parking stalls shall be used for the northerly one-half of the parking lot to the south of the shopping center complex. CONAPRVL.071 17 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 92-494 (EA 92-248) APPLICANT: THE LUBE SHOP (PETER STURGEON) ARCHITECT: GARY KNUTSON, ARCHITECT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AUTOMOBILE LUBRICATION SHOP AND COIN OPERATED SELF CAR WASH IN THE 111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET APPROXIMATELY 350 NORTH OF HIGHWAY 111. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY. ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: C-P-S - PART OF SHOPPING CENTER. SOUTH: C-P-S - SHELL SERVICE STATION AND ANOTHER PAD BUILDING WHICH ARE PART OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. EAST: C-P-S - VACANT LAND. WEST: C-P-S - PARKING AREA FOR SHOPPING CENTER. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-248 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION. PCST.104 1 BACKGROUND: The site is one of the pad locations approved by Specific Plan 89-014 (Transpacific Development Company). The Applicant wishes to construct and operate an automotive lubrication shop and coin operated self car wash on the property which is located approximately midway between the new Wal-Mart and Highway 111 adjacent to Adams Street. Presently, the Applicant operates a similar lubrication shop in Cathedral City. Generally the services consist of oil changes, checking of vital fluids, chassis lubrications, and maintenance inspections. PROTECT DESCRIPTION: The automobile lubrication operation is designed as a drive-thru facility with three lubrication bays which are entered from the south and exited to the north. There are no automobile hoists or lifts involved. Cars are driven onto racks and worked on from excavated pits below the cars. The self service car wash is located to the west of the lubrication bays and is attached as part of the same building. The cars again enter from the south and exit to the north. Across the aisle will be six parking spaces which can be used for drying the automobiles. Additionally, three vacuum islands are placed adjacent to these spaces. Due to the nature of the uses, the building is laid out in a long "L" shape with a small office area at the southeast end of the building. Adjacent to the office portion of the use, there is an outdoor covered patio area provided. At the northeast end of the building is an outdoor storage area for used oil and filters (to be recycled). North of the building at the westerly end is an enclosed trash enclosure in a planter area. North of the easterly end of the building a six foot high masonry wall is provided to provide visual screening and buffering from the proposed preschool to the north. This wall is located within a planter area. The total building square footage is proposed to be 3,740 square feet with the lubrication shop portion consisting of 2,560 square feet and the car wash portion consisting of 1,180 square feet. CIRCULATION PATTERN: To the south of the site runs a driveway which leads from the parking lot to Adams Street. Driveway access from this aisle is provided to the site. To the west of the project runs a driveway aisle running north to south. To both the north and south of the building, driveway aisles will connect to this parking aisle. To the north of the site, parking spaces and a large planter area adjacent to Adams Street are to be provided. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: The building has been designed to be compatible with the shopping center. The architect has designed it to be architecturally similar to the approved Shell service station at the corner of PCST.104 2 Adams Street and Highway 111 to the south. Both of these uses will be visible from Adams Street. The building is basically a flat roof structure which utilizes partial arches and stepped wall treatment. In the center of the south elevation between the car wash and lubrication shop is one rounded arch feature which is similar to that utilized within the shopping center. The exterior materials are proposed to be a combination of stucco and split -face block walls and facias with split -face columns and some tile accents. The three lubrication bays would be provided with painted roll -up doors to match the adjacent block columns. For the most part, materials and colors match or are very similar to those used in the shopping center. This project proposes to introduce split -face block to the shopping center. To date, this material has not been utilized for any of the projects. The split -face block is proposed to be painted. LANDSCAPING: As a part of the site plan, the Applicant has shown some conceptual landscaping. The plan shows locations and species of trees which are proposed to be utilized. The trees utilized are ones that are proposed for use within the shopping center area. The plan shows a curbside sidewalk. The sidewalk which was recently installed is a meandering sidewalk. Therefore, the landscaping plans when they are fully prepared will need to take into account the meandering sidewalk. Additionally, the power poles and utility lines which run adjacent to Adams Street will need to be shown on the plans and will influence the landscape design with regards to location of large trees. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of January 6, 1993. The Design Review Board did discuss the architectural style and project but had no major problems with the proposal. The Design Review Board on a 7-0 vote moved to recommend approval of the project subject to conditions pertaining to approval of the sign program, exterior colors, landscaping plan approval, trash enclosure relocation (this relocation has been done on most recently submitted site plan), and provision of screen walls (this has been incorporated in most recently submitted site plan). ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Department feels that the basic project is conceptually acceptable. Staff does believe that colors utilized on the project should exactly match those used in the shopping center. The incorporation of split -face block in this project is acceptable to Staff provided it is approved by the master developer. While it has not been proposed to be utilized in any previous approvals, Staff does feel that due to the long linear nature of the project it could be utilized in some of the buildings along the easterly side of the project to improve the existing architectural look of the easterly end of the shopping center. PCST.104 3 RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93- , approve Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and Plot Plan 92-494, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Site plan and elevation plans 3. Environmental Study 4. Comments from various City Departments and agencies 5. Draft Conditions of Approval PCST.104 4 v DAY—CARE 3500 SF C� �7 t 6G 9 100 o y S I GN ITS. A 60 ' i-1 A 0 o . , a: SHELL STATION & p 4. �� CAR WASH �c N_= r 8000 SF \ .•28 8 > (PAD 48.874 SF) S0 800 N1 r 4 CA Z � • ..-� _ — PAD odow Sf M T 9000 S'_ 100' - aw - WAOt4u ENT_ S t GN O ING -�� APPROVE; VIC I h ITY MAP c+ e P A 2- 4-�►4- a � m u Ctl vtl Z 0 H tl o o < e o. > W wa 5 SU mi a m m N �7i a M a 9 d Ic a ^ Ca Zn {{ f IO ppN UO j� F Iv lil f It I a W 1 = ri •� M �- 7 � Y Y O O 9 0 J s o e F U O O W Yo O uu Y Q VI 6 Q E ao x 4 N e 6 \gym -fir MID A�,J 1 F a o W" o �< m 9 13( 03 Qu 1 ffl1 c. •r. rr �r � `I�r,I, Environmental Assessment No. Q1-2+9 Case No. .44+ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent 2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent GT_411QrtA „U�-024 °1�235 3. Date Checklist Prepared Jctvl Z•O , ) r1g.$ 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable ''rkfi„ wkx, II. Environmental Impacts (Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface N relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification 111.4 of any unique geologic or physical features. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ f. Changes :in deposition or erosion of beach � sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? FORM.009/CS -1- YES MAYBE NO 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? d c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or �r temperature or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? V e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? \ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawls, or through interception of an aquifers by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal. waves? YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ` a. Change in the diversity of species, or V number, of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, & aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ` d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? V 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or y numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish & shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? \ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,y 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? 1► 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a �► substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: \ a. Increase in the rate of use of any Y natural resources? YES MAYBE NO 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of 11 hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the �1 location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? 1*V d. Parks or other recreational facilities? V e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?y f. Other governmental services? -\V YES 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amount of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health). 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alter- ation of or the destruction of a pre- historic or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? MAYBE NO N YES MAYBE iNO c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ` d. Will the proposal restrict existing V religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? \ b. Does the project have the potential to Y achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one in which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well in the future). c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet IV 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. -14M 7.0 JAR03 U Date S gnature of Preparer ]FORM.009/CS -7- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-248 PLOT PLAN 92-494 M. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GENERAL DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of a automotive lubrication shop and coin operated self service car wash on a .69 acre site within the 111 La Quinta Shopping Center. The site is located on the west side of Adams Street approximately 350 feet north of Highway 111. Presently Wal-Mart, Albertson's, AM/PM, have opened along with several other small shops. The Automobile Club is presently constructing an office near the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111. PAST ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: During the review of Specific Plan 89-014 for the shopping center in 1989 and 1990, the City processed Environmental Assessment 89-150. A mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990. The master study examined the impacts of the project (618,000+ sq. ft. on 60+ acres). Therefore this past review can be used in the updated review of this case. The attached Environmental Assessment is supplement to the original document. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is recommended. ENVASS.006 1 PLOT PLAN 92-494 EA 92-248 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Earth: No environmental impacts are expected with regard to soil or erosion. The site has been graded with the driveways, same buildings, and parking lot areas installed. 2. Air: It is possible that the lubrication shop may create objectionable odors. However, any odors created should be of minor impact and rare in occurrence. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall be required to comply with all City, County, and State requirements regarding use of oils and other lubricants. 3. Water: It is not anticipated that there will be any impact on water or other drainage concerns. The building will be required to provide drainage to approved drainage ways. 4. Plant Life: Since the site has been graded and asphalt installed around the site, there is no plant life existing on the property. 5. Animal Life: ]Due to the grading of the site and installation of adjacent asphalt areas, there is no animal life existing on the site. The master developer has paid the required $600 per acre for payment to the Nature Conservancy for impacts created on the Fringe - Toed Lizard. 6. Noise: There is a possibility that there may be some periodic increase in noise levels. There will be some increase in noise levels during the construction. There may be some periodic noise increased due to car washing and the servicing of automobiles. However, this is anticipated to be of very short duration and low impact. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall be required to comply with any applicable noise requirements and restrictions of the City, including construction of a six foot high block wall north of the lubrication bays. ENVASS.006 7. Light and Glare: It is anticipated that the project will create new light sources in and surrounding the building. Any new lighting constructed will be in conjunction with the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project will be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and provide lighting which has minimum impacts on adjacent properties. 8. Land Use: The project will not result in the alteration of the planned commercial use of this property. 9. Natural Resources: It is not anticipated that the construction and operation of the use will result in an unusual increase in the rate or use of any natural resource. The car wash, being self operated will utilize a relatively small amount of water. Patrons of this facility normally would wash their cars at home if they did not use this facility. 10. Risk of Upset: There is a possibility of an explosion or a release of hazardous substances, such as oil or chemicals. However, such risk is considered low provided the operation is run properly and safely. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall be required to be operated with all City, County, and State regulations which should insure safety from explosion or release of hazardous substances. 11. Population: It is not anticipated that the project will have an impact on population distribution location, etc. The number of employees is anticipated to be low and should be drawn from the local existing population base. 12. Housing: It is not anticipated that the project will have an impact on housing. Employees are expected to be drawn from the surrounding existing population base. 13. Transportation/Circulation: Since the project site is within an approved shopping center where traffic and circulation patterns have been reviewed and established. It is not anticipated that the project will have any negative environmental impacts. 14. Public Services: Due to the relative size of the project, it is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental impacts on public services. 15. Energy: It is not anticipated that there will be any significant increase in the amount of fuel or energy necessary to implement or operate the proposed project. ENVASS.006 16. Utilities: It is not anticipated that any significant environmental impact will be created in the area of public utilities. The car wash can be expected to use water. 17. Human Health: There is a possibility that a health hazard or potential health hazard could be created as a result of the proposed use due to some of the materials and substances utilized. However, the possibility of such a situation arising is minimal. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project will be required to comply with all applicable City, County, and State regulations governing safety and health. 18. Aesthetics: 11be project is well designed and designed to be compatible with the shopping center. Therefore, no negative environmental impacts are anticipated. 19. Recreation: Due to the commercial nature of the project it is not anticipated that there will be any negative environmental impact created on recreational facilities. 20. Cultural Resources: The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact on cultural resources. The site was monitored by an archaeologist during the grading period, and the required documentation required has been completed. ENVASS.006 4 W ATE ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS. PRESICENT THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMONDR RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT December 1, 1992 BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M DELAY REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH _ ` ' . File: 0163.1 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: DEC 0 7 195Z Subject: Plot Plan 92-494, Portion of the Northeast Quarter of 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 X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, om Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RCM:cb/ell cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health, Bermuda Dunes TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY IV -RI I IRRI ti I tRl,if COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81.600 AVENUE 58 • P.O.BOX 1080 *LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253.1080 TELEPHONE (619) 398-5811 • FAX (619) 398.5848 PD-DDC December 1, 1992 Mr. Stan Sawa, Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-106 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Sawa: Subject: PP 92-494, The Lube Shop, West Side of Adams Street, North of Highway 111, Within Ill La Quinta Center In response to your letter dated November 17, 1992, relating to the above, please note the following: 1. The Imperial Irrigation District (District) has a restricted height easement of 21 feet maximum on any :landscaping along Adams Street adjacent to the 111 La Quinta Center. Therefore, we strongly obJect to the use of California Pepper, Mexican Fan Palm, Chilean Mesquite, Sonoran Palo Verde, and any other type of trees or vegetation that can obtain a height of 21 feet or greater. 2. This project will not, in itself, have a significant .impact or adverse effect on the District's power system. However, combined with all of the other proposed additions in the area, the peak demand that would be generated by a project of this nature would result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation(s) and distribution facilities. Also, additional generation purchases to provide service to the development will impact future power rates in the District's service area. 3. 'The District will be installing a padmount transformer approximately 100 feet to the south of this location. The load used for this facility was 600 amps at 120/208 volts. If the load size or voltage is different than stated here, the District needs to be notified immediately. 4. No mention as to the location of the service panel. It is assumed to be in the equipment room between the lube bays and the self wash bays. If the panel is to be located in a different area, the District needs to be notified immediately. City of Indio -2- December 1, 1992 Should you, have any questions, please contact me at 398-5854. Yours very truly, -.;(¢��K- �i THOMAS F. LYONS, JR. Engineer, Senior Coachella Valley Division LUBESHOP.LTR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN 92-494 - THE LUBE SHOP JANUARY 26, 1993 PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: 1. The development of this site shall be generally in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for Plot Plan 92-494, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of Planning Commission approval; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. All applicable conditions of SP 89-014 and Parcel Map 25865 shall be complied with as necessary. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lighting fixtures shall be down -shining and shielded to eliminate glare onto adjacent streets for parking areas. 5. Should mandatory recycling be required at any time in the future, recycling bins shall be provided within the existing masonry enclosure. If an adequate enclosure does not exist, a new enclosure shall be constructed by the applicants/operators. 6. Equipment utilized for vacuum islands shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. Staff will be looking for architectural compatibility with structure. Included in vacuum island should be trash can which is architecturally compatible with the facility. 7. Location of any exterior sinks shall be shown on final working drawings and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. Location and design of handicap stall shall be subject to final approval of City at time of plan check. 9. The gates on the trash enclosure and storage facility shall be constructed of metal, be solid, painted to match the adjacent enclosure, and mounted on steel poles embedded in concrete. CON"RVL.073 1 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494 January 26, 1993 10. End spaces on the south side of the car wash area shall be widened to be 11-feet wide as required by Code. 11. Final site plan which is submitted with working drawings shall include parking spaces, driveway aisles, planters, etc., which are existing or proposed immediately surrounding the site. 12. 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. 13. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 14. Prior to the issuance of a grading or 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: - City Fire Marshal - City -of La Quinta Public Works Department - City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District - Imperial Irrigation District - Waste Management of the Desert 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. CITY FIRE MARSHALL: 15. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering gpm for a 1750 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. CONAPRVL.07:3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494 January 26, 1993 16. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1/2"), located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 17. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground/aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 18. Install portable fire extinguisher per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Lock Boxes. This form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 20. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Know 14AZ MAT Date and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper switches shall be used. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system, the lock boxes will require a "tamper" monitoring. 21. 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. PUBLIC UTILITIES. 22. All conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District as noted in their letter dated December 1, 1992, on file in the Planning and Development Department shall be met. 23. All conditions of Imperial Irrigation District in their letter dated December 1, 1992, in file in the Planning and Development Department shall be met. 24. Final trash enclosure location and design shall be reviewed and approved by Waste Management of the Desert. Trash enclosure shall comply with requirements of Waste Management of the Desert, including provision of concrete pad in front of trash enclosure. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD: 25. The exterior colors utilized on the building shall match those used in the shopping center and be approved by Staff at the time working drawings are submitted. CONAPRVL.073 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 92-494 January 26, 1993 26. A preliminary landscaping plan showing the existing meandering sidewalk shall be Prepared and submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to final working drawings for the landscaping and irrigation being prepared. Plant material shall be the same or similar to that used along the perimeter or parking lots areas of the project:. Landscaping immediately adjacent to the building in high visibility may be modified to reflect the desires of the applicant. The landscaping plans shall show the location of the power poles and utility lines along the east side of the site, and all utility pads, transformers, fire hydrants, etc. Irrigation system to use drip system as much as possible. 27. A screen wall as shown on site plan dated January 15, 1993, shall be installed along the northeast corner of the site. 28. Business signs for the project shall be approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Signage shall comply with approved sign program for the shopping center. ENVIRONMENTAL: 29. Within 24 hours of approval by the City Council, applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a check for $25.00 (payable to County of Riverside) for "de minimis" Notice of Determination to comply with the State Department of Fish and Game fee requirements. 30. All mitigation measures as noted in Negative Declaration shall be complied with. CONAPRVL.073 4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: MINOR TEMPORARY OUTDOOR EVENT (MTOE) 92-045, AMENDMENT #2 APPLICANT: THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS (JUDI COMBS) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MTOE FOR FINE ART SHOWS AT PLAZA LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET BACKGROUND: In September, 1992, Thunderbird Artists was granted approval of a MTOE to hold fine art shows from November, 1992, through March, 1993. In November of 1992, an amendment was granted to allow the relocation of the art show within the center to be relocated back to its original location. AMENDMENT REQUEST: As previously noted, approval runs through March, 1993. The Applicant is asking that she be allowed to hold art shows on the weekend of April 3rd and 4th. Additionally, the Applicant is asking that she be allowed to add Monday, February 15th (President's Day) to the weekend show of February 13th & 14th. The Applicant is also asking for approval to hold art shows on the Monday following a Saturday or Sunday which is rained out. The Applicant is asking for this due to the wet winter conditions which we have been having. She has verbally indicated that the artists find it financially difficult to operate on weekends when they have one day rained out. ANALYSIS: The Planning Department Staff has no objection to the amendments as requested by the Applicant. The Conditions of Approval has been amended as needed to allow the requested amendments. PCST.105 1 RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 92-, conditions. Attachments: approve MTOE 92-045, Amendment #2, subject to the attached 1. Letters of request from the Applicant 2. Proposed Conditions of Approval PCST.105 01-11-1993 10:03AM FROM THu,IDEPEIRP ARTISTS Jerry Herman CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca 92253 Dear Jerry, TO 1b19�5.35b.7 P.02 THUNDERS10 ARTISTS January 11, 1993 o- Uj JAN 1 1 1993 CITY Q LA OMINTA PlANNNG DEP.;RTMENT ymy„yW.:rwse+srt..r.rrxr•r.'•r�r� ` • 4 at the plaza This letter is to request aaddit�ONDERBIRD ARTISTS fine art shows.a Quinta, Hwy 111 & Washington Blvd for the I would like to know if it is possible to have a rain date during the week when the show is lost due to bad weather (immediately following the rained out days). I am paying for this grass pad for each day of the month even though I am restricted to weekends. is it possible to include a Friday or Monday due to &A Jerry a quick respcnse is much appreciated. You can FAX me by calling our phone number first at 602-437-9608. Thank you very kindly Judi Combs THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS E1-14-1953 Pr T4j.4LLt='ZIPL �-;;TI T it ,terry Herman CITE' OF LA QUINTA 78-105 Cake Estado La Quinta, Ca 92253 Dear ,ferry; THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS Jan 14, 1993 :H i a J AN 1 4 199's ENT Thunderbird Thunderbird Artists requested adding holidays in the letter dated January 11, 1992, i was informed 5y Stan Sawa that I need to be more specific with a date. The holiday that I would live to inrd+,de is Washington's birthday, Feb 15th (Monday). Should you reed more information please call 602-437-9808. TFank you very much, ,fudi Combs ,� THUNDERBIRD ARTISTS -. v'+► ------._.. w sicoof i f Vt , eej�e, 9%&w PROJECT: Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center is located in La Quinta, in the Coachella Valley near Palm Springs, California. The Coachella Valley has a population of over 190,000 permanent residents. Because of the large seasonable population estimated at over 230,000. employment is greatest in restaurant and resort oriented businesses. The beauty of the surrounding Santa Rosa Mountains makes La Quinta a place of peaceful serenity, beauty and charm. PLAZA LA QUINTA La Q dnca Ctatilbrnia TRAFFIC: Highway III — Ia•� Washington St; — 4•3w TRADE AREA DEMOGRAPHICS: Ibpulation-3-Mile Radius— 17.X0 Seasotul _M000 Average Household Income— S31$17 VAPM VM. U-n Thrifi-v low s" A: 1'»i wp} U.9:1 Olrtzr. MU: (2t+d 01wt) Roger tom- : M Seel and Steyr. 6AS: sub -Toed pad F 10.w toot bu& Pero * s.aa Inol two sub -Tool Total Swldirls Aran: ®owtttor Sdrt./Rtat1: :.3C PARK04 PROVIDE Q 5" salb 4 3/ 1000 �j EMBtt 1nprmateon contained larva bes been obtained horn wuna dee+ntd ►('WNt. Met no wpontees art ma4. INS HI expre.wd a implied :nth ,e-trwf to ale'u►oty. Sett Plan r< 4utwo to (►east utithout notut. . EXHIBIT a 0 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED MTOE 92-045 - AMENDMENT #2 JANUARY 26, 1993 1. The event shall be conducted per the information submitted on the plans (Exhibit A-1) and the following conditions: 2. This approval shall be valid for the period between November, 1992, to April 4, 1993, on Saturdays and Sundays with the exception of November 28, and 29, 1992, March 20 and 21, 1993; the show may operate between 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If the art show is rained out on Saturday and/or Sunday, the Applicant is permitted to hold an art show on the Monday immediately following the weekend. Additicnally, the Applicant is permitted to hold an art show on February 15, 1993 (President's Day). 3. Proof of $1,000,000 liability insurance policy naming the City as a co-insured shall be in force during the shows. 4. Food will not be sold as part of the event. 5. Electricity will not be available to the site. 6. No art displays shall be located within the first 20 feet behind the Highway 111 sidewalk. 7. Applicant shall provide a minimum of one portable restroom on the site during shows. The restrooms shall be on the site from only immediately proceeding the show on Saturday to the conclusion of the show on Sunday (or Monday). 8. Artists shall park their vehicles in areas crosshatched, shown on Exhibit A-1, except for loading and unloading. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for cleaning trash and debris on and around the site during show times and at the end of each day's show. 10. Two portable 2-foot x 3-foot high "Art Show & Sale" signs shall be allowed during art show hours. Signs to be placed far enough back from roadway so as to not obstruct traffic visibility. il. During hours of show operation, Applicant shall provide "No Parking" signs adjacent to Highway ill and the driveway next to Downey Savings and Loan where parking is not permitted. 12. There shall be no sale of clothing or other cloth products unless they are hand made or hand decorated. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 1 - 13. Violation of any of these Conditions of Approval or unresolved problems arising from operation of shows, shall be cause for immediate closure by Sheriff's Department. Thereafter, Planning Commission and/or City Council shall review the violation or problem to ensure that it is resolved prior to shows being allowed to continue. 14. Use of open flame devises and smoking within booths is prohibited per Fire Marshal. 15. A minimum width of 44 inches in aisles for exiting shall be maintained. 16. A type 2AlOBC fire extinguisher with a conspicuous sign shall be available within 75-feet of display. 17. Booth material and any decorative material shall be flame retardant. This does not apply to merchandise on exhibit. 18. All the artists, within the show, must obtain from the Sales Tax Division, State of California, a temporary sales permit, to report said sales in the City of La Quinta. 19. There shall be no loading or unloading of equipment or art work in the driveway next to Downey Savings and Loan. 20. Exhibitors adjacent to Highway ill orientate their art work away from H-ghway ill. BJ/CONAPRVL.059 - 2 - STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 93-022 REQUEST: CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR STREET VACATION 93-022; A REQUEST TO VACATE AVENIDA BUENA VENTURA AND A PUBLIC ALLEY BETWEEN AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE. PROPERTY OWNERS: NCR ASSOCIATES AND EDDY & LINDA NICHOLSON APPLICANT: MR. MIKE ROWE, THE KEITH COMPANIES LOCATION: NORTH OF AVENIDA LA FONDA, SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS, AND WEST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE. GENERAL PLAN ZONING: C-V-C (COMMERCIAL VILLAGE -CORE) SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: SITE: VACANT EXCEPT FOR JENNY BOWER'S COFFEE HOUSE RESTAURANT (SOUTH OF ALLEY) & 8 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION (SOUTH OF ALLEY). NORTH: C-V-N, LA QUINTA PHARMACY, SAND BAR RESTAURANT, CIRCLE K MARKET AND VACANT PROPERTY SOUTH: C-V-C, PEARL KNIGHT CHIROPRACTIC, LA QUINTA LIQUOR, ROBI'S RESTAURANT AND CHEZ MONIQUE'S RESTAURANT. EAST: C-V-C, GTE SUBSTATION AND VACANT PROPERTY. WEST: C-V-C, ACE HARDWARE AND OTHER VACANT PROPERTY. PCST.101 1 BACKGROUND: The street vacation has been filed with Staff because the two property owners in the subject area would like to reduce their future City Assessment District fees. The City's current fee assessment is based on the improvements to each of the existing parcels and a requirement that each parcel have water and sewer laterals. Since each parcel will require a lateral, the cost of the improvements will be borne by the owner. The Applicant has spoken with the City Engineer, and one way to reduce the assessment would be to vacate both public streets between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive and after the streets were vacated adjust the properties into two new parcels. SITE INFORMATION: The subject area is vacant except for an eight unit apartment complex, Jenny Bower's restaurant, and the La Quinta Arts Foundation building on Avenida La Fonda (not a part). The Arts Foundation is aware of the request, and they have stated that they are not opposed to the Application provided the public alley in back of their building is left as a private easement in the future. Imperial Irrigation District currently has existing low voltage overhead lines in the public alley. the alley is unimproved. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: Staff mailed on January 5, 1993, a request to all public agencies a request to vacate the two public ways as shown on the attached exhibits. Their responses are attached. No major negative comments were received. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS: The Planning Commission is required to examine the consistency of this request with the existing City General Plan (see the attached Government Code Section) and any adopted specific plans which are pertinent to the subject area. The current General Plan does not identify Avenida Buena Ventura (a 50-foot wide public street) nor the public (20-foot wide) alley as major components of the existing General Plan Circulation Plan. The two public ways are classified as local streets. A local street is designed primarily to provide access to abutting properties with movement of traffic given secondary importance. The key question to ask is will the vacation of the street landlock any parcel? The answer to this question is no. The vacation request in conjunction with the lot line adjustment case will create two parcels with direct access to four existing public streets around the perimeter. PCST.101 2 ADOPTED VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN: The Village Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on October 17, 1989. The adopted plan guides development in the Village area. The specific plan establishes land use, circulation, public parking, and public improvements for the Village. In the Village Plan, the City recommended that Avenida Buena Ventura be eliminated or realigned between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club because the street has an irregular intersection design at either end, and the intersections are too close to Calle Tampico, a major arterial. Therefore, the vacation request would be consistent with the adopted Village Plan. CONCLUSION: The street vacation request is consistent with the adopted City documents, and the vacation request will not impact the existing local public or quasi -public utility companies based on their attached written transmittals. FINDINGS: 1. The vacation of Avenida Buena Ventura and the public alley between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive will not adversely affect the City, nor impact any local public or quasi -public utility company. 2. Both right-of-way easements are no longer necessary since the site is also bounded by four other existing public streets and the adopted Village Plan specifically recommends that the City close Avenida Buena Ventura to reduce traffic conflicts at Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive at Calle Tampico. 3. The vacation request is in compliance with the City's existing General Plan and Village Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of each of the respective public easements is in compliance with the adopted La Quinta General Plan and the downtown Village Specific Plan, provided a private reservation is made to retain the 20-foot wide public alleyway for private vehicular movement and for utility company purposes. Attachments: 1. Case map 2. Project area map PCST.101 3 CALLE TAMPICO (public street) A is �» 5/ St ,,. ,. C y, ss `°� Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant O Q �. ♦ O O ,O O rs O ti ' w 034 + r o• �•°n } �•w r Street)' y AVEN/DA BUENA VENTURA--- acant Vacant 1 8 unit 3/ t JO 49 J r; O O Apartment V > N• ro. tsas I 2 Vacant Vacant Vacant W 34 = 33 32 10 O V ca t ac ntj i U N N P fI N f0 M 1 M °f i tl I If I I/ h M O0 O (� O O O 3 K AWN10A lam---�) 1 ILA NNIN 1I 7S. IN 11, Existing Commercial Developments CASE Nm EXISTING LAND USES STREET VACATION 93-022 rk N4 `U / to ORTH SCALE : nts 76 - 0 A 44 Iorth 53 T C. A. 020 - 016 020- 047 t_ N Nw 4 sw4 CALLE TAMPICO (public street) 5/ sJ SEC. 0 u l :s 60 J a w Nyl1 `S a� `rs�j1. street) AVEN/DA BUENA VENTURA ».N so.I� �♦..,� IOI.�= 54 Q 53 ; 52 5/50 2 m 26/ I I I I I i ao ' n ' it ' ra mu j n N ,a Foundation t+, AWN/DA ( I ��---� �— 1LA rONDA I — — K ♦ m `` Q t! I I it i1 N i♦ /t Y q O t � r � .,4.1 I i t4i N � " � I I o.,♦S. p 2S % I Sr B. 2//60 Desert G°/ub TrocJ V No. 4 /O -T Pro,;ect Area (existing lotting pattern with existing streets) FEB. 1967 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California January 12, 1993 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows; Commissioner Adolph led the flag salute. IL ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman and Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Leslie Blodgett, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. M. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Conditional Use Permit 92-004; a request of Carl's Jr. Restaurant for approval to construct and operate a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff if the building changes would come back before the Planning Commission. Discussion followed regarding the roof line. 3. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff to clarify the request for the playground equipment relating to its height and color. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff about the location of the trash enclosure. Discussion followed regarding the location of the trash enclosure and traffic visibility by both the dumpster and parked cars. PCI-12 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, JL993 5. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff to clarify where the shading of the pick- up areas would be. Staff and Commissioners discussed the shaded area as well as the retaining wall and bermed area. 6. Commissioner Ellson asked why the building was excessively high. She felt it detracted from the appearance. 7'. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. 8. Mr. Frank Oley, project manager for Carl's Jr., discussed the following issues with the Commission: a. Line of sight for the trash enclosure. b. Regarding the height of the building, they conformed with what was requested by the Design Review Board and create compatibility with the shopping center. C. Regarding the awning colors, the sign program allows red and it is a predominate color used in the center. The proposed awning colors help to identify the building to passing motorists. d. The retaining wall will be combination of block wall and berming. e. In reference to the flag pole, the Design Review Board granted 13- feet above the roofline. They would like the original request of 40-feet permitted. 9. Mr. Oley asked Staff to clarify why the sign program would have to come back for approval. Staff discussed the discrepancies. Mr. Oley went on to explain the double drive-thru window to the Commissioners as well as the playground equipment. 10. Chairwoman Barrows asked what type of screening would be used for the playground. Mr. Oley stated it would be a dense landscaping at the base with high growth. The exact details would be worked out with Staff. 11. Commissioner Mosher asked what the height of the flag pole would be. Mr. Oley stated they are requesting 40-feet. Commissioner Mosher asked for clarification of the shade over the pick-up windows. Staff stated it was a code requirement and it provided shade for the patron at the windows as well as the workers. PC1-12 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 3.993 12. Commissioner Ellson asked what color the building would be painted. It was stated the stucco would be an off-white. She then asked what the material of the playground structure would be and what if other colors could be used. Mr. Oley explained the material to be used and stated that when dealing with children they prefer the bright colors. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives. 13. Commissioner Marrs asked what was the difficulty with the wrought iron fence. Staff discussed with the Commissioners the Design Review Board's request to have alternative fencing looked into. 14. Discussion continued between the Commission, Staff, and the Applicant regarding the playground equipment, landscaping, and the color of the proposed awnings. 15. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that the playground and the building were to high and needed to be reduced in height to balance with the center. 16. Mr. Colin Macken, TDC Development clarified with Staff the sign request and stated he felt it was in compliance with the sign program. Discussion followed regarding the sign program, the number of signs requested, and the size of the signs. 17. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 18. ]Following lengthy discussion regarding signs, awnings, playground equipment and color, Planning Director Jerry Herman clarified the Commission's changes. a. Condition #13: the flag pole allowed to be 40-feet high. b. Condition #15: the horizontal awnings which are visible from Highway 111 (on the east and west sides) shall be beige with a red stripe. C. Condition #17: the TDC sign program shall be met but a sign adjustment will be permitted for the freestanding menu sign. d. Condition #18: the playground equipment shall not exceed two levels or 157' and the fence shall be painted beige or white. PC1-12 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 19. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to approve the Conditional Use Permit as amended. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: Commissioners Ellson & Adolph. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 92-029; a request of the City to amend Chapter 9.117, Overlay Zone for Equestrian Uses on Smaller Lots. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Blodgett presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commission members discussed with Staff the change in the one acre parcels, what constituted a residence in regard to caretaker residences, and whether the fence ordinance was compatible with the Ordinance. 3. Before Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing, Planning Director Jerry Herman clarified for the members of the audience the zone change and the amendment. 4. Mr. Bob Kuhl, Monroe Street, stated he was in favor of the annexation of his property as long as his lifestyle could remain the same and he was in agreement with the Ordinance Amendment which would allow this to continue. He did question the limitation on stallions. He felt this should be extended or omitted. 5. Commissioner Marrs asked if Mr. Kuhl's property would be grandfathered in or would the Ordinance affect his property. Staff stated the way the Ordinance was written, Mr. Kuhl's operation would be affected, but the Ordinance could be rewritten to address stallions. 6. Mrs. Wanda Reese, 50th Avenue, expressed her concern regarding the keeping of stallions. Commissioner Marrs asked how many acres Mrs. Reese had. She stated she had 7.5 and was leasing the 5 acres next door. Commissioners discussed the practical requirements of keeping a stallion with Mrs. Reese. PCl-12 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 7. Mrs. Debbie Scriven, Indio Hills, stated she kept her stallion at Mrs. Reese's stables and would like to continue doing so. 8. Mr. Donald Scrivens, Indio Hills, stated his concern for losing his place of stabling his stallion. 9. Mr. Frank Gavin, representing Mr. Mery Griffin, stated he managed Mr. Griffin's stables which included three stallions, a breeding program and their desire to continue doing so. 20. Dr. James Clark, Veterinarian, clarified some issues regarding stallions for the Commission. He stated that the most important issue was that there be proper housing and help sufficient to handle the stallion. He suggested that inspections or permits be added to the Ordinance. 21. There being no further comments, Commissioner Marrs moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to continue the public hearing to their meeting of January 26, 1993. Unanimously approved. C. Change of Zone 92-073; a request of the City to add the Equestrian Overlay Zone District designation to existing zoning designations in order to create two new District. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Blodgett 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 Staff if there was any way for a person in Equestrian Overlay District (EOD) #3 to get a horse to the trails. Staff at present there was no trail system on 50th Avenue. Discussion followed regarding establishing a trail system to link up with ones being created in La Quinta. 3. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. 4. Mr. Sonny lKanlian, Jefferson Street, stated his opposition to the horses and stated which properties around EOD #3 did not want horses. He would be willing to work with the horse people to develop a program that could work. He suggested a limit as to the number of horses and a time limitation as to how long the horses would be permitted. PC1-12 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 5. Ms. Melitas Forster, 50th Avenue, stated she felt it was unfair to take away the horse owning people's lifestyle. She saw no reason why commercial, residential and the horse community could not co -exist. 6. Mrs. Kathy Cole, 50th Avenue, stated her desire to continue with the lifestyle they have which included the keeping of horses. She also felt golf courses and residential properties could co -exist. 7. Ms. Martha Tureen, Palm Desert, stated she was a school teacher and questioned how much time and money the City was paying to repair all the damage done by the graffiti and here was a lifestyle that provided children/teenagers with an alternative to destructive behavior. She further stated that with the rate of urbanization that was taking place, the City should not lose the opportunity to keep the rural atmosphere and lifestyle that was there. There were a number of alternative lifestyles available in La Quinta and these should be maintained. She then read a letter from Mr. Lance Brown, Vice Principal La Quinta Middle School, who also expressed his desire to see the keeping of horses kept in La Quinta. 8. Mrs. Keith ]geese, 50th Avenue, expressed his desire to continue his current lifestyle for himself and his family and grandchildren. 9. Mr. Bill Popowich, Palm Desert, stated his daughter boards her horse in EOD #3 and wanted her to be able to continue with to enjoy the clean and wholesome atmosphere. 10. Ms. Jill Popowich and Tamara Soto, Palm Desert, stated they were boarding their horses within EOD #3 and would like to continue with their desire to ride and work with animals. As teenagers, there are so few wholesome activities to get involved in. 11. Ms. Kay Menefee, works for Indio Police Department as a dispatcher and took up horseback riding as a means of relieving stress. She would like to be able to continue this lifestyle. 12. Mr. R. N. Simpson, stated his wife boarded her horse within EOD #3 and as they were retired, this was her chosen recreation and she would like to be able to continue doing so. 13. Dr. James Clark, Veterinarian, stated his support to the comments that had already been given and urged the Commission to keep the rural atmosphere for this generation as well as future generations. He stated PC1-12 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 other areas where equestrian uses exist with commercial and residential uses. He stated that the City of Indio had created an equestrian area adjacent to EOD #3 and was trying to establish a trail system. 14. Ms. Carole Herrera, La Quinta, stated she purchased ten acres in the EOD #2 area and had just built a home and planned on keeping horses. She stated that all the homes in this area that maintained horses were well kept and an asset to La Quinta. 15. Mr. Chad Skarin, stated his agreement with what had been said. 16. Mrs. Sheila Brashear, Indio, boards her horse in EOD #3 and a large portion of her recreation time was spend with the horses and in addition she served with the Riverside County Sheriffs Posse and this location allowed her close accessibility to her horse. She further stated that with so much of the rural area being developed there was a need for the equestrian people to maintain their lifestyle. She reiterated that there was a need to establish a trail system. 17. Mrs. Julie Reeske, La Quinta, read a letter from Mr. Matt Morris who had to leave before speaking. He stated his support of the Overlay District. 18. Mr. Mike Reeske, La Quinta, stated he grew up in this area and remembers how the area was open to hunt, hike, and horseback riding and now so much was being lost to development. He urged the Commission to keep the rural atmosphere. 19. Mrs. Julie Reeske, stated she was employed at Rancho Del Sol on 50th Avenue and wanted to maintain her employment and recreational choice for herself and her family. 20. Mr. Bob Kuhl, Monroe Street, stated his agreement with the Overlay and stated further that the City of Indio Empire Polo fields was bringing all the major horse shows to Indio which would be something La Quinta might want to capitalize on. 21. Mr. Sonny Kanlian, Jefferson Street, stated that he didn't like to see development take place either as he grew up in a crowded area, but change comes and he had to accept it. He further stated his willingness to work a compromise with the horse people. PC1-12 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 22. There being no further public comment, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to continue this matter to their meeting of January 26, 1993. Unanimously approved. IV. ]PUBLIC COMMENT: - None V. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Tentative Tract 23269; a request of Century Homes for review of house mix change and architectural elevations for proposed Unit #5. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Blodgett 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 for clarification on the space between the living room and bedroom. 3. Mr. Bob Diehl, applicant, gave a description of the project for the Commission. 4. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Minute Motion 93-001 approving the house mix change for Tentative Tract 23269 and new Unit #5 as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. Approval of Landsca?e Design for Center Medians; a request of the City for approval of landscape design for Washington Street center medians between Highland Palms and 4-8th Avenue. 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. Mr. Tom Doczi, TKD Associates presented the design plan to the Commission and explained why the Design Review Board requested the Date Palm and the more intensified lighting. Discussion followed regarding the Date Palm and the lighting. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked what type of irrigation would be used. Mr. Doczi stated it would be drip. PCl-12 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 4. Commissioner Mosher asked Mr. Doczi to explain the area designed for maintenance vehicles. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked if there would be a problem with the maintenance of the Palm trees. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 93-002 approving the landscape design for the center medians as submitted. Unanimously approved. C. General Plan Consistency; a request of Coachella Valley Water District for approval of installation of force main and sewage lift station. 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. Commissioners asked Staff if there would be housing over the station and to identify the location of the station. Discussion followed. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 93-003 approving the installation of the force main and sewage lift station as being consistent with the General Plan. D.La Ouinta 66-Acre Master Plan; a request of the City for review of alternate plans for the City owned property located north of 48th Avenue west of Jefferson Street. 11. 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 Adolph asked Staff if the commercial property would be easy to market. Staff stated it would be. 3. Commissioners discussed with Staff the alternate plans. 4. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern for the number of traffic signals on Jefferson Street. PC1-12 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 1993 5. Commissioners discussed the following suggestions: a. Move 48th Avenue access at the golf driving range to the east. Could possibly have a frontage road. b. Too few parking spaces at the post office. C. Could the park facility be included in the senior area. d. Could the driving range be a public range. e. Different fence around the post office. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-004 recommending Alternate #4 to the City Council. Unanimously approved. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Mosher asked that spelling errors on pages 3 and 4 be corrected. There being no further corrections Commissioner Mosher moved that the Minutes of December 8, 1992, be approve as submitted. Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VH. OTHER - None VIH. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Adolph to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 26, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta ]Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:05 P.M., January 12, 1993. PC1-12 10 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 26, 1993 CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 93-022 REQUEST: CONSISTENCY FINDING FOR STREET VACATION 93-022; A REQUEST TO VACATE AVENIDA BUENA VENTURA AND A PUBLIC ALLEY BETWEEN AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE. PROPERTY OWNERS: NCR ASSOCIATES AND EDDY & LINDA NICHOLSON APPLICANT: MR. MIKE ROWE, THE KEITH COMPANIES LOCATION: NORTH OF AVENIDA LA FONDA, SOUTH OF CALLE TAMPICO, EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS, AND WEST OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE. GENERAL PLAN ZONING: C-V-C (COMMERCIAL VILLAGE -CORE) SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: SITE: VACANT EXCEPT FOR JENNY BOWER'S COFFEE HOUSE RESTAURANT (SOUTH OF ALLEY) & 8 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION (SOUTH OF ALLEY). NORTH: C-V-N, LA QUINTA PHARMACY, SAND BAR RESTAURANT, CIRCLE K MARKET AND VACANT PROPERTY SOUTH: C-V-C, PEARL KNIGHT CHIROPRACTIC, LA QUINTA LIQUOR, ROBI'S RESTAURANT AND CHEZ MONIQUE'S RESTAURANT. EAST: C-V-C, GTE SUBSTATION AND VACANT PROPERTY. WEST: C-V-C, ACE HARDWARE AND OTHER VACANT PROPERTY. PCST.101 1 BACKGROUND: The street vacation has been filed with Staff because the two property owners in the subject area would like to reduce their future City Assessment District fees. The City's current fee assessment is based on the improvements to each of the existing parcels and a requirement that each parcel have water and sewer laterals. Since each parcel will require a lateral, the cost of the improvements will be borne by the owner. The Applicant has spoken with the City Engineer, and one way to reduce the assessment would be to vacate both public streets between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive and after the streets were vacated adjust the properties into two new parcels. SITE INFORMATION: The subject area is vacant except for an eight unit apartment complex, Jenny Bower's restaurant, and the La Quinta Arts Foundation building on Avenida La Fonda (not a part). The Arts Foundation is aware of the request, and they have stated that they are not opposed to the Application provided the public alley in back of their building is left as a private easement in the future. Imperial Irrigation District currently has existing low voltage overhead lines in the public alley. the alley is unimproved. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: Staff mailed on January 5, 1993, a request to all public agencies a request to vacate the two public ways as shown on the attached exhibits. Their responses are attached. No major negative comments were received. STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS: The Planning Commission is required to examine the consistency of this request with the existing City General Plan (see the attached Government Code Section) and any adopted specific plans which are pertinent to the subject area. The current General Plan does not identify Avenida Buena Ventura (a 50-foot wide public street) nor the public (20-foot wide) alley as major components of the existing General Plan Circulation Plan. The two public ways are classified as local streets. A local street is designed primarily to provide access to abutting properties with movement of traffic given secondary importance. The key question to ask is will the vacation of the street landlock any parcel? The answer to this question is no. The vacation request in conjunction with the lot line adjustment case will create two parcels with direct access to four existing public streets around the perimeter. PCST.101 ADOPTED VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN: The Village Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on October 17, 1989. The adopted plan guides development in the Village area. The specific plan establishes land use, circulation, public parking, and public improvements for the Village. In the Village Plan, the City recommended that Avenida Buena Ventura be eliminated or realigned between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club because the street has an irregular intersection design at either end, and the intersections are too close to Calle Tampico, a major arterial. Therefore, the vacation request would be consistent with the adopted Village Plan. CONCLUSION: The street vacation request is consistent with the adopted City documents, and the vacation request will not impact the existing local public or quasi -public utility companies based on their attached written transmittals. FINDINGS: 1. The vacation of Avenida Buena Ventura and the public alley between Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive will not adversely affect the City, nor impact any local public or quasi -public utility company. 2. Both right-of-way easements are no longer necessary since the site is also bounded by four other existing public streets and the adopted Village Plan specifically recommends that the City close Avenida Buena Ventura to reduce traffic conflicts at Avenida Bermudas and Desert Club Drive at Calle Tampico. 3. The vacation request is in compliance with the City's existing General Plan and Village Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion adopt the findings that the vacation of each of the respective public easements is in compliance with the adopted La Quints General Plan and the downtown Village Specific Plan, provided. a private reservation is made to retain the 20-foot wide public alleyway for private vehicular movement and for utility company purposes. Attachments: 1. Case map 2. Project area map PCST.101 r i I A CALLE TAMPICO (public street) 51 st � nt Vacant Vacant Vacant tS *' S6 37 4Vacant 6/ D 2- I&S.34 , AVEN/DA BUENA VENTURA � )1 . . . . . . . r I --Vacant �,� acntj i 1 i n' x ,. sr ' t t w x x a x x �• « i x �� i e i �s F x '� © (D(D '[f) O E 00 O I I I M +� 7F �1 `u `.. v I 4 � w 1 � \ 1 N AVfN/Q4 (I 11 ( -- `)LA FONDA ( �1 1� r Existing Commercial Developments CASE Nm EXISTING LAND USES STREET VACATION 93-022 ORTH SCALE : nts T. C. A. O o0o a16 2 4 4 N NW SW SEC. CALLE TAMPICO (public street) 51 st orth �• � O • ` O v yr ; O w O �� � O � Q • l i ♦ � w Nils �f� t� ,,.�. ,...► •} � m 4VENIDA ` Sire VENTURA' . BUENA �btio� 6 W 54 53 " 52 �82 5/ Z 50 49 J Q je .J O O O O O V fs.fl toe • I� � Q I �O � 4®OO 26/ I I I I� Q 000E I. ® � .. I• I I owr, • I — ----t— - _ _ LQ Arts Foundation t + C, .a. --� - AVfN/©A1LA ---�--- FONDA I 1 I 262 ,®I • r ,� r! I rl I rI A /I to I, /i d /1 I! Q /• to 1 �!� I 1 , ® 1 0 0 Q 0 0 Q D © 2 a • r ,, r ! • 1 I r I e �W y 0 ` ra acr � r a . Sr Af B. 21160 Desert Club Troct Unit No. 4 i0 Project Area (existing lotting pattern with existing streets) FEB. 1967