The URL can be used to link to this page

1993 08 24 PCI x, A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California August 24, 1993 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEiXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution 93-031 Beginning Minute Motion 93-039 CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 25953, EXTENSION #2 Applicant .......... Mr. & Mrs. Harold Hirsch Location ........... Northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road Request ............ Approval of a one year extension of time. Action ............. Resolution 93- 2. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 Applicant .......... TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) Location ........... East side of Washington Street, south of 48th Avenue within "Rancho La Quinta" (formerly "The Orchard" and "The Py ramids"). Request ............ Approval of a tentative tract map to create 126 single family residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres. Action ............. Request to continue to September 14, 1993 PC/AGENDA 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 ............... SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) Applicant .......... TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) Location ........... East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue. Request ............ Approval of preliminary landscaping plans for Washington Street frontage. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 2. Item ............... SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) Applicant .......... TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) Location ........... East side of Washington Street south of 48th Avenue. Request ............ Approval of architectural elevations for residential units. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- 3. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE H Applicant .......... Forecast Homes Location ........... North side of Miles Avenue, east of Adams Street. Request ............ Approval of architectural plans for single family residences. Action ............. MMinute Motion 93- 4. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 93-215 Applicant .......... Roger Snellenberger Location ........... Northwest corner of Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive Request ............ Sign adjustment to allow permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower Drive. Action ............. Minute Motion 93- CONSENT CALENDAR App3 oval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 27, OTHER ADJOURNMENT 1. Al] Agenda items. PC/AGENDA STUDY SESSION MONDAY, August 23, 1993 4:00 P.M. 2 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California July 27, 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 Ellson led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Use Permit 93-015; a request of Pactel Cellular to allow the attachment and operation of a cellular antenna to an existing tower structure and the construction of a 484 square foot equipment support building. 1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry 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 the chainlink fence was in compliance with the City regulations. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) site was constructed under the County regulations and when it was annexed into the City the fence was grandfathered. Commissioner Ellson asked if it was landscaped. Staff stated it was not. PC7-27 1 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1993 3. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant had any comment. The applicant stated he was available to answer any questions of the Commission. 4. There being no questions of the applicant, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 5. There being no comment, Commissioners Abels/Ellson moved to adopt Minute Motion 93-037 approving Public Use Permit 93-015 subject to conditions. Unanimously approved. B. _Tentative Tract 23995 (3rd Extension of Time and Parcel Map 26860 (1st Extension of Time; a request of A. G. Spanos Construction, Inc. for approval of a one year time extension for two previously approved subdivision maps. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked if there were overhead power lines going through the middle of Parcel 1. Staff stated there were. 3. Commissioner Adolph asked if this was the last extension that could be requested. Staff stated this was the last extension for the tentative tract and specific plan as the two relate to each other and if one expires then both expire. The parcel map would remain and they would have to reapply for a development plan for the property. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the entire Parcel 3 is designated for a park site. Staff stated no, it would probably be modified sometime in the future to conform with the General Plan. Whoever develops the property will probably file a plot plan to reconfigure the project as only 1.4 acres is required for parkland. 5. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to explain the remainder lot. Staff explained the process. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Ray Hanes, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated they had a buyer for the project and asked for clarification of Condition #16. Staff stated this applied to the grading plan and asked the Engineering Department to address the question. Steve PC7-27 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1993 Speer, Assistant City Engineer stated this condition should apply to all plans prepared for the project. Mr. Bruce Maize, Vista Development the prospective buyers of the project stated he was asking for clarification because the condition applied to requirements regarding grading and now it applies to the whole project. He stated he would like it to be reworded to comply with the original condition. Mr. Speer stated that most of the condition was State law and the City does require supervision during construction and will also require this supervision. Commissioner Marrs asked for clarification. Mr. Speer stated this requirement was to augment City inspections as the City did not have the staff to handle all the necessary inspections. Therefore, the City has required the condition in order to obtain the necessary certification of the project. Discussion followed. 7. Commissioner'EMson asked if the buyer was purchasing the entire project or part. Mr. Hanes stated they were purchasing the entire project. Commissioner Ellson asked if they were planning to build the plan as shown or would they be revising the project. Mr. Hanes stated he could not speak for the prospective buyers. 8. Commissioner Adolph asked if there was any type of schedule for the project. Mr. Maize stated that the purchase will close in September and based on a timely process of the mapping and design they expected it to take 6-9 months to deliver a final map. All things are conditioned on the market but their position was to start in the second quarter of 1994. 9. Mr. Maize asked if Condition #24 had been addressed regarding the street setback for Adams Street. Staff stated that it had been revised to a ten foot setback. 10. There being no further questions, Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing. 11. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #29 in that she felt more trees were required. Staff stated that they were required to meet the R-1 standards according to Condition #25. Chairwoman Barrows asked that the Condition be amended to show five trees are required on a corner. 12. Commissioner Ellson asked what should be done to bring the map into compliance with the General Plan. Staff stated that the project has been conditioned to comply with the General Plan. Commissioner Ellson stated she still had a problem with the density of the project. She felt that a PC7-27 Plar.Lning Commission Minutes July, 27, 1993 multi -family project was needed in this area but the density was to much. Discussion followed regarding the density. 13. There being no further questions, Commissioners Adolph/Abels moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-029 approving Tentative Tract 23995, 3rd extension of time, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL `DOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 14. Commissioners Marrs/Adolph moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93-030 approving Parcel Map 26860, 1st extension of time, subject to condtions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Adolph, Ellson, Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None V. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Plot Plan 93-504; a request of Winchester Asset Management for La Quinta Golf Properties for approval of a maintenance building and security guardhouse. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was adequate drainage due to the location of the building. Staff stated this would be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 3. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Mr. Craig Bryant, applicant, stated that the maintenance facility was below grade and would not be visible. If any portion was visible, it would be landscaped to hide it. Mr. Bryant showed samples of PC7-27 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1993 the stone to be used. He went on to explain that the guardhouse was designed to be quiet and make a simple statement. Mr. Bryant asked that he be given permission to leave in or take out the columns that were required by the Design Review Board. 4. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern for the lack of shade for the project's customers. Mr. Bryant pointed out that most of the guardhouses throughout the Valley were not covered and he showed several pictures of guardhouses throughout the Valley and in other states. Commissioner Adolph stated 112 Quinta was not concerned with what other cities were requiring, but only what La Quinta wanted and he felt additional shade was needed. Discussion followed regarding overhangs. 5. Commissioner Marrs stated he did not think other country clubs had overhangs at their guardhouses. Commissioner Marrs stated he had no problem with the plans as presented. Commissioner Abels stated he concurred. Chairwoman Barrows stated she was in support of the understatement philosophy and she additionally felt the columns should be removed. 6. Commissioner Ellson stated she agreed with the understatement. She initially felt the shade was necessary but understood the reason for not having it. Additionally, she preferred the columns be removed. Her concern was for the use of grey stones and plants that are grey in color and there would be a lack of color contrast to make the building more colorful. 7. Commissioner Adolph asked the applicant why he did not use a mansard to tie the clubhouse and maintenance buildings together. Mr. Bryant stated he felt it would be a waste of money as the building will never been seen. 8. There being no further comment, Commissioners Marrs/Abels moved to adopt Minute Motion 93-038 approving Plot Plan 93-504 as submitted, subject to a condition that the columns be deleted. Unanimously approved. 8. Mr. Bryant asked for clarification as to which conditions the Commission was approving. Staff stated they were the last three pages of the staff report, Conditicns 1-22, with the addition of a condition to remove the columns. PC7-27 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1993 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioners Ellson/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of July 13, 1993 as corrected. Unanimously approved. VII. OTHER - A. Commissioner Ellson asked staff if the newsletter "Livable Places Update" was available to the Commissioners. Staff stated they would order the newsletter. B. Commissioner Ellson asked if staff could acknowledge Mr. Levin from Lake La Quinta and thank him for his comments regarding the landscaping at the One Eleven La Quinta Center. Staff stated they would do so. C. Commissioner Adolph asked for clarification regarding the memo they received concerning the roles and responsibilities of the Design Review Board and Planning Commission concerning the wording "conditional recommendation". Planning Director Jerry Herman explained this only applies to a condition that will cause any action to take place after the City Council approves a project. Commissioner Adolph asked for clarification on the word "major redesign". Planning Director Jerry Herman explained the Council wanted to approve the project in its final form. Discussion followed regarding examples. Staff stated the object was to get the project through in a timely manner. D. Commissioner Ellson asked if there was any additional City processing cost to the applicant for continuing the project. Staff stated there was no cost unless it was an appeal of the applicant. VIII. AI)JOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Adolph/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 24., 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 8:22 P.M., July 27, 1993. PC7-27 6 STAFF REPORT PL.A,NNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 24, 1993 CASE: SIGN APPLICATION 93-215; LAGUNA DE LA PAZ SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: ROGER SNELLENBERGER (ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES) REPRESENTATIVE: JEFF PETRIS SIGN CONTRACTOR: SIGNS BY MEL REQUEST: SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A PERMANENT MONUMENT SIGN ON WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND EISENHOWER DRIVE BACKGROUND: On June 22, and July 13, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request to install a new temporary sign on Washington Street (north property line wall) for the Laguna De La Paz condominium project (see the attached memorandum) . The Planning Commission denied the request at the July 13, 1993 meeting because the members felt the Applicant should install a permanent freestanding monument sign on Washington Street. The Commission was not comfortable with plastic letters being mounted on the perimeter masonry wall. NEW SUBMITTAL: On August 18, 1993, Staff received a conceptual sign sketch depicting a freestanding permanent sign for Washington Street identifying the existing residential development. Mr. Jeff Petris, the Applicant's representative, has verbally stated the sign could be either made of slumpstone block or poured in place concrete. The raised sign letters would be made of :1 /4" cast aluminum and painted teal. Mr. Petris has stated that they are contemplating uplighting for the non -illuminated letters. The new sign will be located approximately 600 feet north of Eisenhower Drive (i.e. where the existing city model home tour sign is 'located). STAFFRPT.012 STAFF COMMENTS: The Applicant's new submittal is consistent with the Planning Commission's desire to have a freestanding permanent sign for the project in lieu of a temporary sign mounted on the north property line security wall. Findings can be made to support this new submittal. FINDINGS 970 SUPPORT THE REQUEST: 1. The proposed sign is located in close proximity to an existing T-intersection (Washington Street and 48th Avenue) which could be considered an "entry" or focal point for the Laguna De La Paz development. 2. The proposed monument sign on Washington Street is more appropriate than a possible second sign on Eisenhower Drive at the westerly entrance to the project because the sign would not be highly visible nor necessary since the main Eisenhower Drive entrance (700 feet from Washington Street) includes the manned guard gate, fountain, and other architectural amenities. 3. No health or safety hazards would occur if the sign was permitted. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. The s''ign shall be a minimum of five feet from the existing property line. 2. If landscape lighting around the sign is proposed, the fixture type and wattage shall be approved by the Planning Director during plan check. 3. The final construction drawings for the sign shall be approved by the Design Review Board. 4. A building permit shall be required to construct the sign. 5. The sign colors shall be consistent with the existing color scheme of the existing signs on Eisenhower Drive. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission approve the 20+ square foot (4-foot high) monument sign submitted by the developer on August 18, 1993, subject to the recommended Conditions noted above„ Attachments: 1. August 18, 1993 submittal exhibits 2. Previous Planning Commission reports STAFFRPT . 012 K if DATE: CASE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLA.NMG CONESSION JULY 13, 1993 (CONTINUTED FROM JUNE 22, 1993) SIGN APPLICATION 93-215; LAGUNA DE LA PAZ ROGER SNELLENBERGER (ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES) SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A PERMANENT WALL SIGN ON WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND EISENHOWER DRIVE (1,600+ FEET NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE) On June 22, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request to install a new freestanding sign on Washington Street for the Laguna De La Paz condominium project (see the attached memorandum) . The Planning Commission continued the project at its last meeting because the Applicant did not provide a color sample of the sign color nor a scaled drawing of the signage report. The information was submitted to staff on July 2, 1993. The new material is attached. The Applicant's new request is to install one foot high letters on the wall instead of the larger letters which were originally proposed. FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE REig1UEST: 1. The sign location is at an existing T-intersection (Washington Street and 48th Avenue) which could be considered an "entry" or focal point for the Laguna De La Paz development. 2. The optional sign location on Washington Street is more appropriate than a possible second sign on Eisenhower Drive at the westerly entrance to the project because the sign would not be highly visible nor necessary since the main entrance (700 feet from Washington Street) includes the guard gate, fountain, and other architectural amenities. 3. No health or safety hazards would occur if the sign was permitted. STAFFRPT . 012 BECOMMDATION: The Planning Commission approve the painted plastic letters on the existing five foot high wall as submitted by the developer on July 2, 1993, provided the sign is removed within two years ,and the sign is a minimum of five feet from the edge of the wall as required by the City's existing Sign Ordinance. Attachments: 1. July 2, 1993 transmittal 2. Previous Planning Commission report STAFFRPT.012 2 r., C� Ju 02 1993 UIYtil ;1+t:I:;,Via PLANti:h , Ui:rAA7MENT R<L'. sm-v C3- ;,.\S ( A4, a Dc_1.,o, Pay.) C.O C SkrnPL.E Puax wzT,a F, �� V t>0.A►v •� S}�b..aT�`� �� ` li-1J CA3 -ilaL ♦JAB . '� rsF cr,k-'_ V\ �i��-,�) -41-4 - `� �_� rs rCx-� �4nVr rR;r t sypw-a-s.�. Lam" "✓ ;� I---- _ ----a BI 3 DATE: CASE: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1993 SIGN APPLICATION 93-215; LAGUNA DE LA PAZ ROGER SNELLENBERGER (ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOCIATES) FILE CO SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW A PERMANENT WALL SIGN ON WASHINGTON STREET, NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND EISENHOWER DRIVE (1,600+ FEET NORTH OF EISENHOWER DRIVE) Mr. Roger Snellenberger is the current developer of the existing Laguna De La Paz development. In May, the Applicant submitted a request to staff to install a new perrnanent sign on the northern property line wall on Washington Street for the Laguna De La Paz condominium project. The sign would be located so that it faces south bound traffic. The sign is generally located at Washington Street and 48th Avenue, westerly of the existing intersection. The signage request is not permitted Unless an adjustment is allowed by the Planning Commission. PROJECT BACKGROUND: In 1979, the County of Riverside approved Tract 13640, Conditional Use Permit 2262 and Variance 1370 which allowed 396 condominium units on 100+ acres. In 1980, the site was rough graded and Phase 1, 2, & 3 were recorded. The City of La Quinta issued the first building permits for the project in 1981. The tentative tract map approval expired in August, 1984. A new tract map (20052) was filed on the site in 1984 for the remaining unrecorded property or 336 units on 70+ acres. The additional phases of the tract were recorded in 1984, and at the present time there are 220+ units built within the first few phases of the project. No new units have been built in the last few years. Mr. Snellenberger's company purchased the remaining 40+ acres of the project in 1993, and consturction has started on 30+ units. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant would like to affix individual plastic letters on the existing five foot high slumpstone wall along the northern property line. The existing wall is painted white and is approximately 12 feet from Washington Street. The letters would be two feet high for the word "Laguna" and one foot high for the other portion of the sign. The letters will be painted teal to match the existing entryway sign for the project on Eisenhower Drive, west of Washington Street. STAF'FRPT.011 r t MISTING SIGN CODE PROVISIONS: The Applicant was informed that his sign could not be approved by staff because the present Sign Ordinance states: "Each development is permitted a sign which identifies the development name at major entrances determined during project review. The identification sign(s) may have a maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet and a height of e:ight feet. Illumination is not permitted." The proposed location does not qualify as an entrance into the development. The Applicant was informed that if a temporary sign Q6 months to one year) were proposed ( Special Advertising) the City Council could review the request, or if a permanent sign was necessary, an adjustment to the Sign Ordinance would be required pursuant to Section 9.212.030 F of the Municipal Code. The Applicant would like a permanent sign for his project and for the existing development. ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS: The Planning Commission can consider the Applicant's request for an alternative location to their future entry on Eisenhower Drive as noted in the Sign Adjustment guidelines. The provisions for an adjustment are: 1. Not applicable. 2. Additional number, to compensate for inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance. 3. Alternate Locations: "a. On -site. To transfer area from one wall to another wall or to a freestanding sign upon the finding that such alternative location is necessary to overcome a disadvantage caused by unfavorable orientation of the front wall to the street or parking lot or an exceptional setback; b. Lots Not Fronting on a Street. To permit the placement of a sign on an access easement to a lot not having street frontage, at a point where viewable from the adjoining public street. In addition to any other requirements, the applicant shall submit evidence of the legal right to establish and maintain a sign within the access easement; c. Additionally, alternative on -site locations may be granted in order to further the intent and purposes of this chapter or where normal placement would conflict with the architectural design of a structure." HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION APPROVAL: A letter from the Applicant's Homeowners' Association is attached. The Laguna De La Paz Association has approved Mr. Snellenberger's request. S'PAFFRPT.011 2 STAFF COMMENTS: During the initial review of the request, staff was more inclined to have the Applicant apply for a temporary sign at this site versus a permanent sign so as not to establish a precedence with this type of request. However, we have the following options for the request: 1. Temporary Sign: The Planning Commission could elect to approve the request on a temporary basis during the .current on -site construction activities to assist the developer in his marketing program. It is staffs understanding that the developer has purchased 40 acres and currently there are 30+ units under construction at the site. The Planning Commission might want to allow the sign for one or two years. 2. Permanent Sign: The Planning Commission could permit the sign on Washington Street if the Applicant and/or the Homeowners Association realize that another sign would. not be allowed at the westerly entrance to the complex in front of the new plase of construction. The Sign Ordinance permits a transfer provided a disadvantage exists to the placement of the sign. The Applicant's disadvantage is the project has two main entrances on Eisenhower Drive and no access points for the property on Washington Street. If the County of Riverside would have allowed a driveway on Washington Street, the Applicant could have applied for a permanent sign on this street. But since the access point was discouraged because Washington Street is a planned major arterial street, the City's Sign Ordinance precludes a sign on Washington Street. Most cities usually permit a project identification sign on each street frontage similar to the way the City's Sign Ordinance is written for commercial businesses. Thereby the development is not penalized for accommodating the City's need to increase traffic flow on Washington Street. 3. Denial: The Planning Commission could deny the request based on the City's current requirements irregardless of the Sign Adjustment parameters. CONCLUSION: Staff' supports the Applicant's desire to place a sign on Washington Street to identify the project during the on -site construction of the additional condominium units. However, whether or not the sign should be temporary or permanent is the key question for this submittal. Staff would prefer that the sign not be installed for a period of time greater than two years based on the Applicant's request. Our reason is that we believe a higher quality type freestanding sign is warranted if the sign is to be permanent. We believe a freestanding monument sign with decorative planter would be more appropriate instead of the wall mounted proposal submitted by the developer. Washington Street is an image corridor and all buildings and/or signs need to reflect an integrated architectural character. Staff would also recommend that the height of the letters be reduced in size from by six inches to be in scale with the existing five foot high perimeter wall and because the sign will be highly visible since it is only 12± feet from the existing street. STAIc FRPT.011 3 r- FINDINGS TO SUPPORT TIIE NUEST: 1. The sign location is at an existing T-intersection (Washington Street and 48th Avenue) which could be considered an "entry" or focal point for the Laguna De La Paz development. Z. The optional sign location on Washington Street is more appropriate than a possible second sign on Eisenhower Drive at the westerly entrance to the project because the sign would not be highly visible nor necessary since the main entrance (700 feet from Washington Street) includes the guard gate, fountain, and other architectural amenities. 3. No health or safety hazards would occur if the sign was permitted. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission permit the painted plastic letters on the existing five foot high wall as submitted by the developer provided the sign is removed within two years and the height of the Ietters are reduced by six inches. Attachments: 1. Site Plan Ir Sign Exhibit 3. Letter from Mr. Snellenberger 4. Letter from Laguna De La Paz Homeowner's Association 'ISTA:FFRPT.011 4 Ln N rr F L.,A-- A - ch i 4J N C O 4.1 Qs C �r- t'; 1-1-11 ROGER SHELL BERGER & ASSOC., INC. LAND DEVELOPMENT 55-695 PEBBLE BEACH LA QUINTA, CA 92253 May 28, 1993 Mr. Greg Trousdell City Planning Comiuission City of La Quinta La Quinta, CA 92253 (619)777-7766 RE: Permanent Sign on the Northern Property Line Wall at Washington Street Dear Mr. Trousdell: We would like to submit to the City Council for their consideration to get the above referenced sign application for a permanent sign approved on the Northern property line wall at Washington Street. Sign Ordinance 9.212.030 allows for certain adjustments. We would respectfully request that although the proposed sign is not at the main entrance to the Project, there is no visual sign showing or letting people know where the property actually,is when driving down Washington Street. The Board of Directors at Laguna De La Paz has approved the sign plan as visitors will be able to more readily find the project. Also there is no sign at the second entrance on Eisenhower and to our knowledge will not be one at this entrance, so this could be a replacement location. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ;ROGER SNELLENBERGER & ASSOC. r 11 r 9 Snellenber er President INC. 1� ! JUN 0 = �sg� -� L� c11T �anera. 17 May 1993 Roger Snellenberger, Developer Laguna De La Paz La Quinta, CA 92253 Mr. Snellenberger: The Laguna De La Paz Homeowners Association has approved your request to mount a block letter (individual letters) sign on the exterior Wall at the north east corner of the property facing south bound Washington traffic. Said letters "LAGUNA" to be approximately two feet in height and "DE LA PAZ" to be approximately one foot in height per the sketch as submitted to the Boar+ All letters to be of the same color as the signs on the walls at the entrance of the complex..... teal. Sincerely, � Q, " ( ?/, — -t.. Ron Perkins, President Laguna De La Pat HOA !7 �►- .1 vV f ;fill a . r' •�f��t� I �Q Q � � a �1 `4 t0 a . v ►� 1) (h �. t u Q4 � v vQ W'",n V L 1t` c 1 IL •� ' S p V�� L 3 / C c n) •r y 1p •r W c o 4J d c X IC W i c W 1n STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 24, 1993 APPLICANT/ OWNER: MR. & MRS. HAROLD HIRSCH ENGINEER: J. F. DAVIDSON REQUEST: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 25953, (SECOND TIME EXTENSION) PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 25953, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 38.4 GROSS ACRES INTO 139 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, A WELL SITE, PARK AND RETENTION BASIN LOTS. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILES AVENUE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) EXISTING ZONING:, R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 90-162 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. NET DENSITY: 3.87 UNITS PER ACRE (NET ACREAGE 35.96). LOT SIZES: MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 7,200 SQUARE FEET AVERAGE LOT SIZE - 8,250 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM LOT SIZE - 17,300 SQUARE FEET DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: ON-STI'E RETENTION OF 100-YEAR STORM REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED. PCST,.069 1 ON -SITE CIRCULATIONS: PUBLIC STREETS PROPOSED. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE OFF DUNE PALMS ROAD. THE ROAD SYSTEM ALLOWS FOR AN ACCESS LINK TO TENTATIVE TRACT 23913 (QUINTERRA) TO THE WEST OF THIS PROJECT. INTERNAL CIRCULATION CONSISTS OF CUL-DE-SAC STREETS SERVED BY A COLLECTOR STREET. OFF -SITE: CIRCULATION: MILES AVENUE - DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL AT 110 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH AN 18 FOOT WIDE RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN. BACI(GROUND: Three years ago the City reviewed the request to divide approximately 38.4 acres into 139 single family lots. At that time, the property was zoned R-1-11,000/PD and R-1-12,000/PD and the Applicant processed Change of Zone 90-057 to change the property to R-1 (one family dwelling). The new R-1 category reduced the minimum lot size to 7,200 square feet. On June 26, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to the City Council and on July 31, 1990, the City Council approved both the land division and the change of zone requests. The case was given a two year approval subject to the rules and procedures of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant's first one year extension of time was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 11, 1992, and approved by the City Council on October 6, 1992. MAP EXTENSION REQUEST: Necessary paperwork was completed to extend the request prior to the maps expiration. A letter from the applicant is attached. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No major changes to the original Conditions of Approval have been made. However, Condition #32.g. has been added to insure that landscape irrigation and watering meets the City's newly adopted water conservation provisions, and Condition #34 was modified to add the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) to the local agency review provisions. All projects which grade more than five acres require a permit from the Board. The City's new Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance requirement (Ordinance #219) was added to Condition #30. Staff has also added Condition #47 which establishes a minimum house size for the tract of 1,200 square feet. PCST.069 2 CONCLUSION: Staff supports the Applicant's request for a one year extension of time. FINDINGS: Findings for Tentative Tract 25953 second extension of time can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolutions 93- , recommend approval of this second extension of time for Tentative Tract 25953 to the City Council subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Tentative Tract Map 25953 3. Surrounding Developments 4. Letter from Applicant 5. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93- PCST.069 3 i 1 7 FRED — _ _ _ r:41h Of. _AX4M-ai4a►— WAR&G_ ,- --.. ®... _ ... _ ....— ... 1" Li ou►fvn.— ... I m F Nto-I I II ;ACTUS FLOWER 09 VACANT i VACANT VACANT 0 _.91 Itl /LES— -- — — — — — - — — — — — — -IF r� .._ FUTURE PHASE - TOPAZ CITY OF INOIO N N2 SEC. 20 T.5 S. R.T E CASE No. CASE MAP Tentative Tract Map 25953 Time Extension LOCATION MAP NORTH SCALE: Q1�' /u _ ¢"•SDI 117 1ls - 123 ^ 124 12b 126 _ 127 14�rl 13s 134 1 119 120 121 12 132 ^ ^ !loo,87z �p:87 -8as Mp:B►.o -bss 85o no.t+.j wc,bsa ,w .w,Es• aar.c 135 60•d0 60 a 60' 60'60• d0• 40. g l .2w - - - - ' - �1' Q 136 67 .q .IAp•77.9 I,40.10, d y 60' , 11 137 `l = 7•b �P^Di a 90 105 104 ^• Jos' 102 93 - 92 ' 91 89° E81" ao - i79 - 74 , np=87-2 o:8Q - z ` •8az Ako:l3�t we 83+ JAp=sT ! p=va n4 p.gt ^to*.% %&71•s /wDaHt I 138 114 65 0• 65' 60 60 as' i :� 65' Iwo. 7.3 P40&63i 10. &,.o , 82 77 7s•O 8 YS 1» g o $ A 139 o`, 113 1 12 ` 12 vwo • 77•e P 840 • 120 1 i20' 100 Oy q7. 96 m° o ?. ° g vno,Q vwo=6te �1l�a:gz•o a �. as 140 S q l4 IMa_So.s- 76 ri.e Iwo�b.b 112 it r.+o �'^' a, n 125' 1 , of PADIZO30 I�oQ �? Ar Pwp=7az ,I $ vwol i %_- 86 b 84 rO �75 r' 141 0 a 111 o I I .64.t \ ."L 99 e /p ,n� fwp:80.o -H' �Mp: aze Iwa=N' 40 95' %�� T is� a5 M2 74 �i�'?!o �� 71 Proposed s„ 1 9 a ' 98 _ 97 q , Easemerd \ Ease c 'o ti Well site Pwa: So.e_ uA �8° • rZMN7X- . G6� 56. � rFo: v e - 69 611 h o:8r `4'1D'�) � ZQa � •i �55J 7T•p Iwo:7d- Avo=7'''g _ )� 71.E 7!p vwo•7A 1.00 AC7 o. J e �' er Nuev DrNe �• S ��b 4b,.s �b •'.� �. 62 PAD. �QT. e2 62' ` ao eo' 60' ao ;� 50 6 -� 3 64 63 n Sl =='t ai. �Iso7 wow 61 _ R N 57 SS - dd ^ SS 4) 62 62 e2' •1'!i �!� 62' AW.71 i AW, i.9.a PAP: g). 784 76 60' K i2s8125, 100' 1 is \, 3k L 32 3S , vwa• 38 S Q 42 43 44 Pwo� as't �� v,, :8/�.a.� NirJ�=.L.6` iY1D•7 •s Yt•s 'jpygp+83.7PMp=8't7 125' o AeO: \33 \\7 \ D - \ 40 vwo: &•b 1� s• ,., 36 3�9.Z $ 40 , �'` S sj4D :} c 8 3 125' .6 f �o� e' 9 . Sol / 0.31 08. a /J 41 \ r \ 45 1 T P 34 37 o - 83.e bM A+o= e�•° 4� \yry Q vwo. 3 Aao= o gyp' 6ro Awe.\ 63•`4 Arp+.�""� I1 1 + 40 A 100• lOQ' o P7_ 7/ 29 \803. of'E• A. -SW Lot' p '- i`o4i. �'4t-91.5 A. e.si _\ \pd 60' r." 6d 60 �,p, 60' Eo 67' 60' \ 60" ao \PAD' 6z I 28 �`' \ k' 3J, 27 n n ?A ? 23 2 21 20 19 ~ 17 It h ry ti 1 C 26 - / 5a 15 ` 14 13 ' •12 M, �•i Pwm=91.3 Iwo--v3 AOO:&. Apt--&.5 :& /hn.3.2 FAD- D fw:r-847 ,pc8:: wf� w,r.B3 43Iwa: vwo:$�t o,�=g,.� r1 rc:rxrurrAlps., 0' ioo us ce ■6r H ��r -' vr00. R.O.W. a.o.w Miles Avenue Vacant VdC3nt y Highway at Stree Typical Section . _.:__ ti a.,1rm Road TvnlcaQ Section .p & 'D' Cul-De-Sac Street • .�. � �Y a.�y!�! �I` • • I I / ! I �V �ICnMVVA �N14C•? � . I. •. • 1 V �. • i � I � � q I • I / N �, r ��• W .!/ • • r •� II N . II /I. •M W' • - . btb t ........ e • b • b. 0 r b. Me b . e `•r .-f . O / .i'• b • • b ,.•• Me b• b t b, e, be e. e. ®. e . e , e • /. , e , S z La Quinta Palms r r•; ;�,N—��`. • } TR 22982 R w if- f. - }� .. Icc �r Cactus L: s i,�r� ••t. _ .� r� dILN • t�f•t.r.t.w. 9 a m x_ W Z O A Z C m A x CASE No. i SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PLAN .e.e.e.e•e. e.e•. Project Location i NORTH SCALE : nts 756 Amalfi Drive Pacific Palisades, Ca. 90272 July 7, 1993 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department 78•-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ]Re: Tentative Tract Map 25953 Ladies,Gentlemen, This letter accompanies our application for an extension of Tentative Track Map 25953. are Wd are requesting the extension with the expectAion that the climate forhome construction in La Quinta will improve in the coming year, and that the existence of the approved map will reduce the time required to begin development of the property. Both La Quinta and we have expended time and effort to establish the approved map. Since approval, most of the work required to obtain a final map has also been accomplished. With extension of the tentative map, continuation of this work will be justified and,hopefully, the final map could be completed and work on the property started within the coming year. We earnestly request that an extension of the tentative map be approved. Harold Hirsch eavreo4f Gdlj4e14 Jane HirsC�V" / Qom- c.�. R JUL 09 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 25953 (SECOND EXTENSION), TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON A +38 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 25953 - MR. & MRS. HAROLD HIRSCH SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of August, 1993, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the request of Mr. & Mrs. Harold Hirsch to extend for one year their tentative tract map approval which subdivides ±38 acres into single family development lots for sale, generally located on the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN. WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment 90-162) was adopted by the City Council in 1990 for this case. Therefore, no further environmental review is necessary for this time extension request. WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 25953, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of a one year extension of time for said tentative tract map; 1. That Tentative Tract 25953, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. RESo:Pc. C79 1 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes with the east central area being the lowest part of the site. The proposed circulation design and single- family lot layouts, as conditioned, are therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 25953 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 25953 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 25953, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 25953, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract time extension, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm and recertify the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 90-162 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject time extension for Tentative Tract 25953 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. RESOPC. Q 79 2 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of August, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESo]?C.079 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 25953 - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME AUGUST 24, 1993 + Added by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1993 ++ Modified by the Planning Commission on August 24, 1993 G_ EN1 iRA]L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 25953 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. ++2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on July 31, 1994, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City has formed a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. The Applicant shall comply w:,th the archaeological assessments for the tract area done by J. Salpas (February, 1984.), and K. Swope (June, 1990). The studies shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. CONAPRVL . 0 6 0 1 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data ana].ysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 6. A temporary road access, for model home access purposes, may be provided off Miles Avenue. This access shall be terminated upon the completion of model complex use provided a secondary access is installed. A drawing showing details of this proposed temporary access point shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department and Engineering Department for approval. Traffic and Circulation 7. Applicant shall dedicate right -of ---way for public streets as follows: a. Miles Avenue: half street (55-feet) right-of-way for 110-foot wide Primary Arterial. b. Dune Palms Road: half street (44-feet) right-of-way for 88-foot wide Secondary Arterial. C. Interior public streets: full street (60-feet) right-of-way for a local street per General Plan, plus corner cut backs at intersections, plus suitable right-of-way conforms for "knuckle" turns all as required by the City Engineer. d. Cul-de-sac: full street (50-feet) right-of-way, plus 5-feet wide public utility easements, plus suitable right-of-way conforms per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 800. CONA]?RVL.060 2 Conditions of Approval Tentative? Tract 25953 August 241, 1993 8. The Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, street improvements for the following streets to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code including all appurtenant conforms and amenities prior to approval of the final map. a. Interior public streets: 40-foot wide street improvements per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 104 for street that join directly into streets in other tracts, and 36-foot wide street improvements per Standard Drawing No. 105 for cul-de- sacs and other local residential streets serving fewer than 100 lots. The improvements at cul-de-sac ends shall be per Standard Drawing 800. b. Miles Avenue: half street improvements per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 100, including one half of raised median, plus suitable conforms to match existing improvements including a transition beyond the tract boundary along with other appurtenant amenities as required by the City Engineer. C. Dune Palms: half street improvements per Riverside County Standard Drawing No. 102, plus a 10-foot wide northbound lane plus suitable conforms to match existing improvements including a transition beyond the tract boundary along with other appurtenant amenities as required by the City Engineer. 9. Applicant shall install decorative block wall around water well site per Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) requirements. Wall plan and landscaping plan for area between wall and property lines shall be approved by Planning and Development Department. Any CVWD required landscaping changes shall be submitted to City for review. All plan approvals shall be prior to any applicable work beginning. 10. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements (i.e., City of Indio). CON;DIT]:ONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 11. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code by either providing a combination of one acre of parkland plus in -lieu fees for the balance of the parkland requirement or by providing the total required parkland dedication requirement as parkland. Additional area shall be provided in the proposed park/retention basin area, if needed, for water retention capacity and to meet security safety, maintenance and recreational concerns of the City. Sufficient park (not retention) area shall be set aside for park CONAPRVL . 060 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 25953 August 241, 1993 equipment and other park uses not suitable for a retention basin area. The retention basin/park area shall have slopes of an acceptable standard. A park/retention basin plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. 12. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated. into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (terming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 13. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning and Development Department. 14. Owner shall execute and record a "Declaration of Dedication" in a form acceptable to the City and offering the dedication of drainage retention basin(s) and hardscape buffer areas to the City for future acceptance and maintenance. In the interim, the owners shall maintain the basin(s) and perimeter landscaping and provide bond assurance accordingly. 15. Applicant shall enter into agreement with the City prior to recording the final map to mzdntain the retention basin and landscaped setback lots on Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road until the City Engineer accepts them for maintenance by the City. In no event will the City accept the retention basin and setback lots for maintenance until the lots within the subject tract are included on the tax assessment roll and producing tax revenue to the Lighting and Landscape District. 16. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. Grading and Drainage 17. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. CONA:PRVI� . 0 6 0 4 Conditions of Approval Tentative? Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 18. A registered civil engineer shall exercise sufficient supervision and control of the tract grading to insure compliance with the grading plans, specifications, and applicable codes and ordinances. The registered civil engineer charged with the compliance responsibility shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: a. All grading work was properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the grading plans, specifications, and applicable codes and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. b. The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plan. 19. The tract shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining existing tracts or ap;?roved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall not exceed five (5.0) feet. If the Applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the City's intent to promote and ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 20. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. 21. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 22. Any earthwork on contiguous properties requires a written authorization from the owners) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.060 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 23. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 24. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the tract grading and all public improvements before the final map is recorded. Applicant shall pay a cash fee, in -Lieu of, and equivalent to the respective construction cost, for those improvements which involve fair share responsibility that must be deferred until the full compliment of funding is available. Payment of the cash -in -lieu fee may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by the Applicant and City Engineer, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. Traffic and Circulation 25. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan), shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). C. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the Developer in accordance with City standards. 26. Applicant shall vacate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of - way. 27. Traffic signals are required at the intersection of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. The Applicant is responsible for 25 % of the cost to design and construct the signal. The signals will be installed by the City when traffic conditions warrant the installation. CONAF'RVL . 0 6 0 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative! Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 Tract Design 28. A minimum 20-foot and 10-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road respectively. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 14, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 29. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. Walls„ Fencing. Screening, and Landscapin ++30„ Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control (PM10/Ordinance 219). The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction 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. 31. 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. CONAPRVL.060 Conditions of Approval Tentative? Tract 25953 August 254, 1993 32. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a preliminary plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location of the meandering sidewalk along Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road. Note this sidewalk shall meander within both the landscape buffer and the parkway area. C. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. d. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. e. Landscaping of retention basins and proposed park, i.e. grass with accent trees and an irrigation system. f. No lawn shall be planted within five feet of Miles Avenue and Dune Palms Road street curbing. All plantings within the five foot area shall be irrigated by emitter type irrigation system. +g. The provisions of Ordinance #220 (water conservation) shall be met during plan check. 33. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for shrubs, two trees (five trees on a corner) and an irrigation system. C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the: following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District CONAF>RVL . 0 6 0 8 Conditions of Approval Tentative! Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o+ California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Divis:.on at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 35. 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. 36. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150-feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20-feet in height. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for the approval a drawing showing the location of any units higher than one story located along Miles Avenue frontage. Along north property line of tract, all of the dwelling units shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20-feet in height, except for units on Lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story. 37. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 38. The Developer shall construct landscaping and irrigation systems for drainage retention basin(s) and perimeter areas. The Developer shall maintain the drainage basin(s) and perimeter areas in accordance with Condition #14. 39. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning znd Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of TT 25953 and EA 90-162, 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 EA 90-162 and TT 25953 which must be satisfied prior to the; issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures of EA 90-162 and TT 25953. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. CONAi?RVL . 0 6 0 9 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 25953 August 24, 1993 40. The Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for the Design Review Board and Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item prior to building permit issuance. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the CC & R's. The latter shall be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for review. Traffic and Circulation 41. Prior to the final building inspection of the 30th unit two publicly maintained roads shall be provided connecting this subdivision to Dune Palms Road, Miles Avenue or Adams Street. The Model home temporary access shall be considered one of these access points until that access is terminated in accordance with condition number 6. 42. The termination point of the street shown as Lot "Nuevo Drive" (street name not yet approved) on Exhibit A (Tentative Tract Map), shall be barricaded to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, If the road network for the adjoining tract has been constructed and completed, then the above street shall be constructed to connect with these subdivisions, in accordance with the approved street improvement plans and the requirements of the City Engineer. Public: Services and Utilities 43. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal's dated June 1, 1990, except as follows: a. Condition #5: prior to building final of the 30th dwelling unit, a secondary public access road shall be provided. 44. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. 45. All on -site and off -site utilities including any existing utility poles shall be installed underground and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer retained by the Applicant shall provide the necessary certified compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. 46. Prior to issuance of applicable permits for area along north property line, plans for grading, walls, dwelling units shall be given to La Quinta Palms Homeowner's Association for their information. 47. The minimum dwelling unit s:.ze for the tract shall be 1,200 square feet (excluding the garage). CONA:PRVI . 0 6 0 10 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 24, 1993 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 126 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS LOTS ON 55+ ACRES. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN "RANCHO LA QUINTA" (FORMERLY THE ORCHARD AND THE PYRAMIDS). The applicant has requested a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting which is September 14, 1993, in order to allow some additional revisions to the tentative tract map. RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing and continue this request to the meeting of September 14, 1993, as requested by the applicant. Attachments: 1. Letter from applicant requesting continuance. PCST.141 1 $:I I W -JJ 10; Z 4 j4UWjIt n I Ki I "r-K IIUINJ I MUI� I I LJTN r'Hur- Ul T.D.I)tWLT I)'rd'IPIr_'I_WP?ttXT onl= PA$LTNn=�%V C.-M CIDC& strwt PatmDuat. CA 92280 619-773-3302 VAX 019-540-0910 August 19, 1993 Mr. Stan Sawa City of La Quints. P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Stan: Please consider this letter our request Commission Public hearing of Tentative to Sept. 14, in order that we cart solve goverrunental agencies. We understand 21 agenda for City Council, assuring w -el , "Y 'e Si Aarie.,s R. Strother CRS/kc CC., Guy Balencie to reschedule the Planning Tract Map 27840, from August 24 some design questions raised by that we will still be on the Sept. e are approved on Sept. 14. AUG 1 9 1993 � s..... . ..... 'J DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: OWNER: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 24, 1993 SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT ROBERT LAMB HART APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR WASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE. EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE. The subject project which was previously known as "The Pyramids" was granted specific plan approval in November, 1984. Previously in June, 1993, under the developers, an entry design for Washington Street was approved and general architectural guidelines were reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The entry area only includes landscaping for an area of approximately 100 feet on each side of the entry area. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for the balance of the Washington Street frontage. The plan which has been submitted includes the previously approved entry design as well as the new landscaping plan. To date, one 18-hole golf course has been installed. This golf course is presently being renovated so that it may be opened this season. A temporary clubhouse structure is presently being constructed on the site. LANDSCAPE DESIGN: The Washington Street landscaping is an extension of the Washington Street entry landscape plan which was recently approved. The plan indicates that a vine and shrub covered chain link security fence six feet in height, would be placed 70 feet behind the right-of-way line which would be approximately 82 feet behind the curb. Along the front of this security fence will be PCST.,139 1 three rows of citrus trees, 30 feet on center and off -set to provide dense screening. A meandering sidewalk eight feet in width will be provided varying from eight feet to 15 feet behind the curb. Ground cover beneath two rows of the citrus trees will be a drought tolerant ground cover (Aptenia). The closest row of citrus trees to Washington Street will be provided in a tree well surrounded by lawn. Between the sidewalk and curb, drought tolerant ground cover and small shrubs will be provided. Palm trees are only proposed to be utilized within the Washington Street entry area as stipulated in the previously approved entry landscaping plans. At the corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street, the applicant proposes an "Rancho La Quinta" sign on a raised planter wall. The project sign at the corner of 48th Avenue and Washington Street, was approved in concept as part: of the landscape guidelines approved in 1989, for this project. The applicant indicates that the letters would be raised metal letters. However no details on size, color, or exact material is given. Landscape planting in this area will consist of citrus trees behind the wall with smaller palm trees and bougainvillea planted in the raised planter. In front of the raised planter, the applicant proposes annuals and dwarf natal plum. Within this corner area, the applicant is proposing to utilize lawn between the sidewalk and curb. Due to the. grading of the golf course, the citrus trees and Aptenia will be planted on a slope. This slope area will continue around behind the project sign. DESIiGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board considered this request at their meeting of August 4, 1993. There was discussion regarding the use of the citrus trees, how much meandering the sidewalk should have, the use of the Aptenia ground cover, the tie-in with the Parc La Quinta landscaping, and use of the Oleanders. The applicant indicated that he would look into an alternative ground cover since Chairman Harbison felt that it may not survive the summer heat. On a unanimous vote, the Design Review Board moved to recommend approval of the landscaping plans subject to the following conditions, with Condition #2 being amended to allow the staff to determine the amount of meandering for the sidewalk. The recommended conditions are as follows: 1. Prior to completion of final working drawings, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Planning and Development department a detail of the landscaping adjacent to Parc La Quinta showing the existing landscaping and existing wall within 100 feet of the southwest corner of the property as measured at the curb. 2. That the sidewalk along Washington Street shall meander as approved by staff. 3. The "Rancho La Quinta" sign at the corner of Washington Street and 48th Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. It should be noted that landscape lighting of the signs specifically is not permitted by Code. However, landscaping lighting of the adjacent shrubbery is acceptable. PCST.139 2 4. The new meandering sidewalk shall be installed to meet the existing Parc La Quinta sidewalk. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 93- , approve the preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage, subject to the attached condii:ions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Design Review Board staff report dated August 4, 1993. 3. Draft minutes for the Design Review Board meeting of August 4, 1993. 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval 5. Landscape plan (reduced copy) PCST.139 3 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 ��i ifi nU y�ac 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. s� 2. Mr. C}iisck Strother gave a presentation of the units proposed. Chairman Curtis asked how the units would be mixed. Mr. Strother stated the styles would be grouped together with the ' mix of the different sizes. 3. Boardmember Wright asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strother stated the largest unit would sell for $399,000, the tennis units $160- 175,000, and the 18005,square foot model $219,000. 4. Boardmember Campbell- stwpd his concern about the applicant using simulated materials instead of the authentic materials. Mr. Strother stated that the authentic materials ma&, he project exceed their intended costs and the decision was made to reduce,. material costs and spend the money on the public building. 5. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant hide any concern regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strother stated `he did not. 6. Boardmem'bers Anderson and Planning Commissioner Ellson moved and seconded a motion to recommend approval of Sp6lRifrc Plan 84-004, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. --- - E. Specific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage south of 48th Avenue within "The Orchard" project. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the citrus would be used similar to his other project where they are individually irrigated. Mr. Strother stated he would be utilizing the citrus from the south side of his property and would be planted the same way. Boardmember Harbison asked if they were mature trees. Mr. Strother stated they were. Commissioner Ellson asked if the fruit would be harvested. Mr. Strother stated he would not. They would be available for the homeowners. DRB&-4 9 po te 1 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 3. Boardmember Wright asked when the project would start. Mr. Strother stated they were in the process now. Bids were out and they hopes to have the main street paved and landscaped by Thanksgiving. 4. Boardmember Harbison asked what the length would be for the lawn strip at the corner for the street curb. Mr. Strother stated it would be approximately 25-30 feet coordinating with meandering sidewalk. They proposed to be 8-12 foot meander but they will work this in conjunction with the trees as well as the Imperial Irrigation District transformer box locations. 5. Boardmember Harbison stated he felt the use of the Aptenia ground cover would not survive the summer well as there was to much sun exposure. The applicant sated he would look into an alternate and asked for any suggestions the Board would recommend. Boardmember Harbison asked if lawn would be planted around the citrus and what type of irrigation would be used. He stressed that water was not thrown onto the trees and large headers around each of the trunks and individually irrigation the trees and irrigate the grass separately. Mr. Strother stated they were aware of the problem and plans will be made to cover the irrigation problems. 6. Commissioner Ellson questioned Condition #1 regarding the landscaping to work with Parc La Quinta. Mr. Strother stated his landscape architect would be working to make the two sides compatible. 7. Boardmember Harbison noticed Condition #2 Oleanders are to be used and it should be stated they be dwarf Oleanders. Discussion followed as to where to use each type of the Oleanders. 8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/Anderson to recommend approval of the preliminary landscaping plans for the Washington Street frontage for Specific Plan 84-004, subject to conditions with the amendment to Condition #2 that the meandering sidewalk be approved by staff. Unanimously approved. IV. -CONSENT CALENTDAR Chiµ Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 2, 1993. Com ssioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission Representative be corrected to ad i3prnmissioner Adolph. Boardmember Campbell asked that the word "weld" on DRB8-4 10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 - RANCHO LA QUINTA LANDSCAPING PLANS (WASHINGTON STREET) AUGUST 24, 1993 1. Prior to completion of final working drawings, the applicant shall submit for review and approval to the Planning and Development department a detail of the landscaping adjacent to Pare La Quinta showing the existing landscaping and existing wall within 100 feet of the southwest corner of the property as measured at the curb. 2. That the sidewalk along Washington Street shall meander as approved by staff. 3. The "Rancho La Quinta" sign at the corner of Washington Street and 48th Avenue shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department. It should be noted that landscape lighting of the signs specifically is not permitted by Code. However, landscaping lighting of the adjacent shrubbery is acceptable. 4. The new meandering sidewalk shall be installed to meet the existing Pare La Quinta sidewalk. 5. That all signs shall be approved by the Planning and Development staff through application of a sign permit. CONA3?RVL . 099 1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 24, 1993 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 (RANCHO LA QUINTA) APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, WITHIN "RANCHO LA QUINTA". BACKGROUND: General The subject project which was previously known as "The Pyramids", was granted specific plan approval in November, 1984. Previously in June, 1993, under the new developers an entry design for Washington Street and general architectural guidelines was reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted for five different residential structures. Those structures are as follows: 1. A casitas duplex with units containing 1400 square feet and 1500 square feet. 2. A hacienda with garden bedroom containing 1800 square feet. 3. A 'hacienda containing 2,000 square feet. 4. An enstancia containing 2,750 square feet. 5. An enstancia with garden bedroom containing 3,000 square feet. Except for the duplex unit, each unit will have a detached two car with golf cart garage. The duplex will have a two car garage for each unit. The garden bedrooms for the 3,000 and 1,800 square foot units will also be detached and located between the main house and garage unit. Architectural Design The architectural style of these units Ere early California/Spanish and are designed in a manner similar to the entry guardhouse which you recently reviewed in June. All of these units are one MST.,140 1 story with maximum height of 18± feet. All units have chimneys which will be slightly higher. Except for the duplex unit, the units will have enclosed front yard patios. The exterior materials will consist of stucco walls, painted metal gates or wood gates, raised panel wood roll -up garage doors, painted wood windows and doors with clear glass and applied grills, two piece clay roof tiles (color blend of five colors), exposed wood framing and trellis work, and exposed rafter ends. The units have been designed with minimum three foot overhangs. Around the glass areas wood trim is indicated on the plans. Due to the fact that the views are to the rear, the majority of the glass areas are on the rear elevations of the units. The stucco walls which enclose the patio areas are proposed to be stucco to match the units. Landscanina The submitted plans show very conceptual landscaping. The applicant intends to submit further detailed landscaping plans for approval at a later date. ANALYSIS: General The submitted plans indicate an archi,.-ectural style which is compatible with that presented by the applicant in June. The units are early California/Spanish and have been provided with adequate cave overhangs and except for the duplex units, patio trellis' along the rear elevations where there is more glass area. The unit siting on a typical lot is shown on the submitted plans. However, they are proposed to be modified to comply with applicable building code requirements. The unit siting will be reviewed in conjunction with processing of Tentative Tract Map 27840 which the applicant recently submitted. This tentative tract map is for the first phase of 126 single family lots. Des, ign Review Board The Design Review Board considered this item at their meeting of August 4,1993. There was a short discussion regarding the use of materials for the exterior. The Design Review Board then gook action to recommend approval of these architectural units, subject to the following conditions: 1. All exterior lighting shall be in conformance with the adopted Dark Sky Ordinance. 2. Preliminary landscaping plans for the residential unit area shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to installation. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the production units, a unit siting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. PCST.14C 2 4. The applicant shall have the right to provide some front -loading garages if deemed necessary due to the layout of the unit on specific lots. RECC)MI\'IENDATIC)N: By Minute Motion 93- approve the architectural elevations for the residential units, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Design Review Board staff report dated August 4, 1993. 3. Draft minutes for the Design Review Board meeting of August 4, 1993. 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval 5. Architectural plans PCST.I4C 3 TY1 STAFF REPORT DESIGN'REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: AUGUST 4, 1993 APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER) OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (MARK ELGIN, PRESIDENT) CASE; NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE WITHIN "THE ORCHARD". BACKGROUND: Ceneral The subject project which was previously known as "The Pyramids", was granted specific plan approval in November, 1984. Previously in June, 1993, under the new developers an entry design for Washington Street and general architectural guidelines was reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted for five different residential structures. Those structures are as follows: 1. A casitas duplex with units containing 1400 square feet and 1600 square feet. 2. A hacienda with garden bedroom containing 1800 square feet. 3. A hacienda containing 2,000 square feet. 4. An enstancia containing 2,750 square feet. 5. An enstancia with garden bedroom containing 3,000 square feet. Except for the duplex unit, each unit will have a detached two car with golf cart garage. The duplex will have a two car garage for each unit. The garden bedrooms for the 3,000 and 1,800 square; foot units will also be detached and located between the main house and garage unit. Architectural Design The architectural style of these units are early California/Spanish and are designed in a manner similar to the entry guardhouse which you recently reviewed in June. All of these units are one story with maximum height of 18± feet. All units have chimneys which will be slightly higher. Except for the duplex unit, the units will have enclosed front yard patios. DRBST . 10:1 tg Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993 offered, as required by law. Plan #2 was 11,00 square feet and Plan #3 was 1237 square feet. 10. Commissioner Bllson stated she would fce the units to be a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Mr. Strickland `cussed the different type of units they build and the reason for the 1,1 square foot house size. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant would bject to the Board placing a minimum number of these units in the C ditions of Approval. Mr. Strickland stated he would prefer to have a flexibility to sell what the market is asking for. Discussion folio ed as to what other developments were offering regarding unit sizes. It was stated that La Quinta Del Rey offers a similar type home size toheir request. 11. Commissioner Elson questioned the use of the half round windows on the right side and rear elevtion regarding the amount of heat they allow in. The applicant stated th y were designed to add light to the dining rooms. 12. Boardmember Campbell asked about the multi -pane windows. Mr. Strickland stated they were metal inserts painted white. 13. There being no further discussion, Boardmembers Harbison/Campbell moved to rer�oramend approval of Plot Plan 93-505 subject to the conditions with the following conditions being added: a. T! deletion of Condition #8. b. L%t 2 would be either a Plan 5 or 6; lot 96 would be a Plan 6; Lot i 00 would be a Plan 5; lot 101 would be a Plan 6; and lot 116 would be a Plan 5. c. The yellow area which contains lots 6, 7, 74-80, 102-104, 114, and 115 would only contain Plans 4, 5, or 6 to allow a transition from the existing tract (Phase I). c. s No dark colors will be allowed on lots 2, 6, 7, 74-80, 99-104, or 114-116. d. An alternate desert tone to be offered in -lieu of the river rock. e. The elimination of Condition #10. Unanimously approved. D. Specific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of architectural elevations :For residential units located on the east side of Washington street south of 48th Avenue within "'The Orchard" project. DRB8-4 8 Design Review Board Minutes August 4, 1993'"'` 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation of the units proposed. Chairman Curtis asked how the units would be mixed. Mr. Strother stated the styles would be grouped together with the mix of the different sizes. 3. Boardmember Wright asked what the price range would be. Mr. Strother stated the largest unit would sell for $399,000, the tennis units $160- 175,000, and the 1800 square foot model $219,000. 4. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern about the applicant using simulated materials instead of the authentic materials. Mr. Strother stated that the authentic materials made the project exceed their intended costs and the decision was made to reduce material costs and spend the money on the public building. 5. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any concern regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strother stated he did not. 6. Boardmembers Anderson and Planning Commissioner Ellson moved and seconded a motion to recommend approval of Specific Plan 84-004, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. E. Spe6ific Plan 84-004; a request of TD Desert Development for review of preliAnary landscaping plans f the Washington Street frontage south of 48th Avenue"'within ithin "The Orchard; project. 1. Planning Director rry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff report, a cg6y of which is on file in the Planning and Development 2. BoardmenAkr .Anderson asked if the citrus would be used similar to his other project where they are individually irrigated. Mr. Strother stated he wouloli' utilizing the citrus from the south side of his property and would be slanted the same way. Boardmember Harbison asked if they were mature trees. Mr. Stiother stated they were. Commissioner Ellson asked f the fruit would be haivested. Mr. Strother stated he would not. They would be available for the,homeowners. DRB8-4 9 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 - RANCHO LA QUINTA ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AUGUST 24, 1993 1. All exterior lighting shall be in conformance with the adopted Dark Sky Ordinance. 2. Preliminary landscaping plans for the residential unit area shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to installation. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the production units, a unit siting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Development. 4. The applicant shall have the right to provide some front -loading garages if deemed necessary due to the layout of the unit on specific lots. conaprv1.100 DATE: PROJECT: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVES: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 24, 1993 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE 2; APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES PLOT PLAN 93-505 (MODEL HOMES) FORECAST HOMES TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER BRUCE STRICKLAND, V. P. OF LAND ACQUISITION NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET The tract is a 116 lot subdivision approved by the City in 1988. The subdivision map was recorded in 1990. The original applicant, Waldon Financial, had anticipated building single family homes ranging in size from 1,670 to 2,570 square feet on the property.. In 1990, 'Windsor Construction Company purchased the project. The existing 18 homes within Phase 1 were developed by Windsor Construction Company in 1990 & 1991. The homes built by Windsor Construction Company were one and two story units. Three floor plans were used varying in size from 2,072 to 2,593 square feet excluding; garages. A Mediterranean architectural style was used and the exterior materials consist of stucco, wood. trim, tile accents, and multi -colored roof tile. Colors are earth tones with Southwest accent colors, and a brown/beige roof tile. Three elevations were available for each plan. The homes sold for over $200,000. The Planning Commission approved the house plans on December 11, 1990. NEW PROPOSAL: The Applicant is in the process of purchasing the remaining lots within Phase 2 to develop single or two story homes on the existing +8,000 square foot lots. The Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 23913 require that the Applicant submit to Design Review Board and Planning Commission architectural plans of any type of unit design to be built within the tract. Based on this requirement, the Applicant has submitted their plans which includes five home sizes which range from 1,106 square feet to 1,659 square feet (3 & 4 bedroom units) . Each unit has an attached two car garage. Plans 2 thru 6 include three elevation types per size of home. Plan 6 is the only two story plan. The Applicant has stated that they would like to build their model complex on Ocotillo Drive and Adams Street. STAFFRF'T . 015 The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1. The front facades vary from stucco, to stucco with brick or stone veneer. The masonite lapsiding (i.e., Elevation "C") will not be used in this project because it cannot withstand the harsh desert climate. The units include covered entry patios, varied roof designs and embellishments, and other architectural characteristics. The homes are 17+ to 24+ feet in overall height. The exterior building colors will be similar to Phase i except for one color sample includes a gray combination. The colorboard will be available at the meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed units are smaller in size than those built in Phase 1. The Applicant has stated that their market research has shown that smaller, more affordable units are selling whereas the larger homes are not as marketable in today's economic climate. The R-1 Zoning Code does not define the size of home which can be built similar to the SR Zoned areas which prescribe minimum 1,200 square foot homes. However, there is a section in the general guidelines which requires all homes in the City to be greater than 750 square feet. Staff has also researched both the tract Condi.tior:s and CC&R provisions -to make sure the proposed homes can be built, as proposed. The Applicant's proposal meets these minimum standards. The front elevations are attractive and well proportioned. However, the eave overhangs are generally minimal except for the entry door locations. The side and rear Elevations are plain and should have some additional architectural treatment similar to the front elevations (e.g. stucco pop -outs around the windows). The recommended architectural features will complement the overall building design and supplement the State's Title 24 Energy Efficiency requirements. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: On August 4, 1993, the Board met with Mr. Bruce Strickland of Forecast Homes to discuss his model home and unit type submittal. Mr. Strickland explained that his company has developed (or is developing) this type and style of house in the southern California area and they develop entry level housing for their buyers (ie. $103, 000 to $130, 000+) . Fifty percent of their homes are sold to first time home owners. Their company does not build speculative housing. Mr. Strickland stated that they are sensitive to the Phase I home buyers but they do not build homes which are larger than 1, 700 square feet. He also explained that they would be placing their mod'''el homes on Ocotillo Drive at Adams Street to be sensitive to the existing owners. He thought his homes would be compatible with this existing project. The Board initially felt the homes were quite small and not compatible with the Phase I units. They asked if larger homes (1,800 + square foot) could be offered and developed adjacent to the existing homes. The applicant stated his company used to build a. 1,800 square foot home but they do not provide this home in their current market schedule. The Plan 2 home (1,106 square foot) was also discussed at length. STAFFRPT . 015 The ]Board noted that this home was not in keeping with the abutting 2, 000 + square foot Phase I homes. They hoped the applicant would delete this model from the project. Mr. Strickland stated that they normally only sell a small percentage (10%) of this s'.ize home and that he would like to keep this plan in the Phase 2 program. Mr. Strickland stated that they would only build Plans 4, 5, & 6 adjacent to the Phase 1 homes, and that they would encourage three car garages on the lots adjacent to the retention basins. He said he would put Plans 5 & 6 on Lots 99, 100, & 101 and a Plan 6 on Lot 2 because this area is near the entry on Miles Avenue into Phase 1. The Design Review Board members requested that the existing homeowner's receive a public notice from the city notifying them of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. This would ensure that they understand that smaller units are proposed within their tract. Staff noted that this will be done. Mr. Strickland stated that Kaufman & Broad had initially attempted to purchase the property a few months ago and at that time it was his understanding that Kaufman & Broad informed the residents that the Phase 2 units would be smaller than Phase 1. Kaufman & Broad withdrew their application on June 2, 1993 prior to Design Review Board review. The Kaufman & Broad homes were similar to the Forecast application. The Design Review Board members discussed whether or not the homes should have larger roof eaves to provide additional shade as well as enlarge the appearance of the house so that it will have more "bulk". The larger eaves would also assist the applicant in his Title 24 (Energy Conservation) requirements. Mr. Strickland said he could add the larger eaves to the homes but the cost would be borne by the purchaser and it would cost approximately $1,500 for this feature. He also said he could add stucco pop -outs but he would prefer to add the pop -outs on the Plan 6 home because it is his largest home. The Board debated the exterior colors and textures of each unit type. A few members did not think the River Rock veneer alternative was appropriate. They though a desert material should be used and that it might be nice to have the veneer used under the window ledge instead of to the top plate line. Mr. Strickland stated their veneer materials are well liked by their customers and they create a customize feature for their product line. He said he could find an alternative product for the units abutting Phase 1 but he would like to use the River Rock veneer on the lots on the northern portion of the tract. In summary, the Design Review Board felt the applicant was very informed about the local market conditions. The Board voted to allow the 5 new model types within Phase 2 of the Quinterra tract. However, they recommended that the larger units be placed in the immediate area of Phase 1, and these units should have 3 car garages. The applicant should also use similar desert colors and tones for Phase 2 in the vicinity of Phase 1. The Design Review Board required the Applicant to put larger roof eaves on his buildings and add the stucco popouts to the homes. The attached Conditions reflect the actions of the Design Review Board based on their August 4, 1993 meeting with minor amendments by staff. STAFFRPT . 015 3 CONDITION #11 (PARKLAND FEE: Staff has, added Condition #11 to the recommended conditions in order to inform the developer that the Quinterra Tract has not paid the City's Parkland fee for recreation purposes as outlined in Chapter 13.24.020 (et al.) of the Municipal Code. The existing fee or outstanding amount is $52, 500. The fee or other land dedications shall be made prior to any building permits being issued for Phase 2. (Condition #7 of Tract 23913) . HOUSE SIZE DISCUSSION: Staff had originally suggested that the Design Review Board consider a minimum house size of 1, 200 square feet for this tract based on the premise that the approved tracts in the immediate area exceed this standard. The only exception to this size is the La Quinta Del Rey (Century Homes) project within the La Quinta Highlands Tract generally south of Fred Waring Drive, west of Adams Street. See the attached housing tract survey. As mentioned above, the Design Review Board deleted the recommended condition establishing a 1,200 square foot standard because they agreed with the Applicant's proposal to buffer the existing Phase 1 homes from his smaller Plan 2 home. Lastly, the Design Review Board did not require the Applicant to build any homes larger than 1,659 square feet based on their August 4th meeting. RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE: On August 17, 1993, the Desert Sun published an article regarding this case in their newspaper. A copy is attached. Since the article was published, staff has received various phone inquiries and letters of opposition from both Quinterra residents and residents of adjoining tracts (a sample copy is attached) . As of the writing of this report staff has received 39 letters of opposition. The general consensus of the existing residents is that the Planning Commission and the City Council should maintain a house size and price comparable with the existing single family homes . A few adjoining tract residents stated they will examine modifying their CC&R's to establish a minimum house size tc insure that this issue does not become a problem in their 'tract. The also requested that the Planning Commission consider larger houses on the perimeter lots of the Quinterra tract to buffer their investment. The attached Design Review Board conditions do not require the Applicant to build a certain size home on any lot abutting the north and east sides of the tract. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Continue the matter to September 14, 1993 when all Planning Commissioners are present. 2. Deny the request. This action keeps in place the size and unit type currently approved for.the development. 3. Require larger house sizes then proposed. 4. Change the buffering requirements along the existing units and the developments perimeter. STAFFRPT . 015 4 5. Approve the project as recommended by the Design Review Board. G. Any combination of options 3, 4, & 5. Draft: Conditions of Approval are provided for your consideration. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan of Tract 3. Architectural plans 4. Housing Tract Survey 5. Phase 1 Housing Survey 6. Newspaper Article 7. Letter of Protest (Sample) 3. Letter from Best, Best & Krieger 9. Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) STAFFRPT . 015 5 y "» FN ArJ17T OF QUINPV A LA MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 2, 1993 SUBJECT: HOUSING SURVEY At the request of one of the Design Review Board members, staff has prepared a housing site and price survey for the tracts surro-inding the Quinterra project. The housing price information is based on a 1992 survey. Topaz - TTM 23935 1,407 to 2,864 sq. ft. ($168,000 to $234,990) Cactus Flower South - TTM 24208 1,633 to 2,134 sq. ft. ($147,900 to $185,900) Cactus Flower North - TT 22982 1,340 to 1,870 (N/A) ancho Ocotillo - TTM 24517 1,700 to 2,550 sq. ft (N/A) [AcaciaHomes - TTM 23268 1,400 to 2,200 sq. ft. ($147,990 to $189,990) a Quinta Del Rey - TT 23269 1,006 to 1,732 sq. ft. entury Homes/La Quinta highlands ($115,990 to $139,990) Phase 5 A few of the approved tentative maps surrounding the Quinterra project have not been placed on the list because the developer has not submitted or decided what type or size of home to build. * La Quinta Highlands - 1,220 to 1,840 sq. ft. ($139,900 to $169,900) t�4 • • i'. �` N QQQ Fi.�±♦ •r N lM (n {N : I • • i NY O M i1) 4J co ty w w w 0 `Q O NNN J OC •r•- ti Q Q OG U y -- : r— Q) — of L �. o • ✓. 0 " v ` O c m f/' U ' Q ' • �. ® Cti 7 O .. 1 1 , • � L 'Zi ,io H r V MANOS---- T— - DRIVE' - `o (� S LO ,� �r °s , of N e ;1 tA•f- 46 Air% '^ 6' cs.o ti � W F� c ,4 ® p •� c\ `li' Io6f7 Q 00. w . -- Of IVE- — — t"S o(Z) E , qt° p" mQU i os ol Cc LU v) / • t v s• ff p O v •i V of ��m � .'C •• pO f n The Desert Sun LA QUINTA — Homeowners are protesting a developer's plans to complete the Quinterra subdivision with much smaller houses than those already built. They complain Ghat a change in the original plans might lower the value of their homes and affect the overall look of thei: neighborhood "It was represented as a fairly nice development," Quinterra homeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now we think that they're trying to come in here with homes that may be less than $100,000.11 He paid $200,000 for his home in December, be said. A vice president with developer Forecast Homes of Rancho Cuca- monga said the company is planning to build homes in the low $100,000s, aimed mainly at young families. "That meets market demand," vice president Brace Strickland said. The homeowners plan to present Petitions to the Planning Comtais- sion at 7 P.M. on Aug. 24. Only 18 homes have been built in au riterra so far. The subdivision :on*ains 116 lots. !sert Sun Newspaper igust 17, 1993 AM OFMZ/The Desert Sun WOO-RfEf11: Jim Hanson of La Quints opposes a developer's plans to finish Quinterra subdivision with smaller homes. Hanson and others fear the change will reduce values in the entire neighborhood. Those already built have square footages of 2,072, 2,363 or 2,593. Forecast is p; oposing new units with square footages of 1,106,1,237, 1,415 or 1,659. "They're attractive homes," Strickland said. Forecast is not the original de- veloper. Strickland said a partner- ship that was building Quinterra folded and the lender bank took over the property. Forecast became interested in the property about a month ago, he said. If its plans are approved, the val- ue of existing homes will drop, Han- i .. son argued. Quinterra plans WHAT: La Quinta Planning Com- mission discusses Forecast Homes' proposal lbr Quinterra subdivision. WHElt 7 p.m. Aug. 24. WHERE City Councii chambers, the new City Hall, at Washington Street and Calle Tampico. "Their property values have al- ready been diminished," Strickland responded. "The market has done that." Homeowners in the nearby Ran- cho Ocotillo and Topaz develop- ments also are signing the petitions. Some of those signing said that when they bought their homes they were told the rest of the develop- ment and nearby subdivisions would consist of homes of more than 2,000 square feet. Rancho Ocotillo homeowner Diane McMahon said she would like her neighborhood to consist of houses that look more or less the same. "You want it to remain what you thought it would remain from the beginning," she 31. DORS" PR= N/Tne Desert Sun The city's Design Review Board voted Aug. 4 to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Forecast's plans. If homeowners or the developer are unhappy with the Planning Commission vote, they can appeal to the City Council, PIanning Direc- tor Jerry Herman said. e August 12, 1993 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning and Development Director City of La Quinta P.O. BOX 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT' QUINTERRA TRACT (PHASE 2) Dear Mr. Berman: �t,JJ1� ty AUG 1 G 1993 I am opposed to the request by Forecast Homes to complete Phase 2 of the Quinterra project. The project will significantly and permanently decrease the p):operty value of my home in that the planned homes are not equivalent in construction, size, or value of the existing homes in this area. ANY DEVELOPMT ON THE REMAINING LOTS SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEER COKPLEM. I urge you and the Planning Commission to DENY Forecast Homes request to complete phase 2 until they submit plans that are in keeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community. Very truly yours, a concerned homeowner. c Homeowner Address Z5AK�tem (Owner within Phase 1) BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A ►ARTWRWV 0.CLL0Pd2 N10r[3W4X4Y 00W0"TMG LAWYERS ARTHUR L UTTLEWCRiTH• DOUGLAS S PHILLIPS- ELJSE K TRAYMUM CYNTHIA M. GERMANO SUITE 212 GLEN E STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPHOS WILLIAM O DAHUNG. JR. MARY E. GILJSTRAP 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE WILLIAM R OSWOLFE• BARTON C GAUT• GREGORY K WILKINSON WYNNE S FURTH MATT H MORRIS JEFFRIY V DUNN GLENN P SABINE CHRISTINE L. RICMAROSON POST OFFICE Box 1555 PAUL T SELZER• DAVID L BARON STEVEN C O.SAVN JOANE GARCIA-COLSON RANCHO IIRIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 DALLAS HOI-MES• CHRISTOPHER L CARPENTER• GENE TANAKA BASIL T CHAPMAN ERK; L GARNER DENNIS M COTA ►HILIP J. KOEHLER DUNE C. WIESE TELEPHONE (619) SW2611 RICHARD T ANDERSON• TIMOTHY M CONNDR RACHELLE J WICOLLE REBECCA MARES GURNEY TELECOPIER (619) 340-6696 JOHN D WAHUN• VICTOR L. WOLF ROBERT W HARGREAVES DOROTHY 1. ANDERSON MICHAEL D HARRIS• DANIEL E OLIVIER JANICE L WEIS G. HENRY WELLES W CURT EAL" DANIEL J. McHUGH PATRICK H W F PEARCE JAMES R. HARPER THOMAS S SLOVAK- HOWARD 8 GOLDS KIRK W SMITH DINA O. HARRIS JOHN E BROWN* STEPHEN P DEITSCH JASON 0 DABAREMER BARBARA R. BARON MICHAEL I RIDDELL" MARC E EMPEY KYLE A SNOW RICHARD T. EGGER MEREDITH A JURY* JOHN R ROTTSCHAEFER MARK A EASTER PATRICK 0 DOIAN OF COUNSEL MICHAEL GRANT' MARTIN A MUELLER DIANE L FINLEY DEAN R DERLETH JAMES B CORISON f RANCIS J BAUM• J MICHAEL SUMMEROUR MICHELLE OUELJ.f_TTE HELENE P DREYER ANNE T THOMAS• VICTORIA N KING DAVID P PHIPPEN. SR. EMILY P. HEMPHILL D MARTIN NETHERY" JEFFERY J CRANDALL SUSAN C NAUSS SONIA RUBIO SHARMA GEORGE M REYES SCOTT C SMITH CHRISTOPHE R DODSON JOHN O. PINKNEY WILLIAM W FLOYD. JR JACK 8 CLARKE. JR. BERNIE L WIWAMSON GREGORY L HAROKE BRIAN M LEWIS EWNE E. HILL OFFKYS IN KENDALL H MmVEY 13RADLEY E NEUFELD KEVIN K RANDOLPH RIVERSIOE (909) SS&1AS0 CLARK H A_SOP• DAVID J ERWIN• SHARYL WALKER PETER M BARMACK JAMES 8 GILPIN MARSHALL S RUDOLPH RAYMOND BEST (ISSS-1967) JAMES H KRIEGER (1913-1975) PALM SPRINGS (SIM32}7264 MICHAEL J ANDEL.SGN• JEANNETTE A PETERSON KIM A BYRE NS EUGENE BEST (1893-1981) ONTARIO (9M 989-B594 • A P.Tpi E540MA. CORH0RATCOv August 19, 1993 i . Planning Commission AUG 19 1993 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 - Re: Plot Plan 93-505: Approval of Forecast Homes' Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision Dear Commission Members: This lawfirm represents a number of homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller homes. These homeowners are very concerned that if Forecast is allowed to build homes that are half the size of existing homes, the quality of their neighborhood will be substantially reduced and a substantial part of their investments in their homes will be lost. On their behalf, we respectfully request that Forecast's plans for smaller homes not be approved and that the City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that values in existing neighborhoods are preserved against efforts by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not maintain the quality of existing neighborhoods. As you may know, the Quinterra tentative tract map was approved in 1988. Condition 28 of the Conditions of Approval required that the Planning Commission approve the plans for all models to be built within the subdivision. In 1990, the previous developer of the subdivJ;sion (Windsor Construction Company) submitted, and this Commission approved, three floor plans which varied in size from 2,071 to 2,593 square feet. The currently- )196 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August. 19, 1993 Page 2 existing 18 homes in the Quinterra subdivision were built using those plans. These are all quality homes which originally sold for between $200,000 and $250,000. At the time Quinterra homeowners purchased their homes, they were assured by Windsor that the quality of the neighborhood would be maintained throughout subsequent phases. The subdivision's CC&R's call for the establishment of an Architectural Control Committee that will review and approve all homes to be built in the subdivision (other than those built by the developer) to insure that standards within the neighborhood are maintained. Based on these representations, homeowners felt secure in investing a significant part of their life savings in their new homes. Forecast Homes now proposes to build significantly smaller homes (from 1,106 to 1,659 square feet) that will sell for half the price of the existing homes. We all know that the quality of a neighborhood significantly affects the value of each home within that: neighborhood. Forecast undoubtedly foresees that the value of its smaller homes will increase due to their close proximity to the larger existing homes. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. The value of existing homes will be reduced if smaller homes are allowed to be built in the same tract. In essence, approval of the smaller homes will. allow Forecast to transfer value from existing homes to the new, smaller homes. Forecast will then sell this transferred value at a profit, while existing homeowners will suffer a loss in the value of their investment. We are mindful that, :in today's market, requiring Forecast to proceed with the project as originally planned may not provide Forecast with the fastest method of making a profit. But land -use planning is not about maximizing short-term profits for developers. It .is about achieving coherent and consistent development of property that will preserve and enhance property values for all concerned --the developer, the surrounding property owners and the City. Forecast's request comes before this Commission for design review as a plot plan. One of the goals of design review is to "foster attainment of those sections of the City's general plan and specific plans which refer to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character and unique assets of the City and its harmonious development ." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan "conform to the logical development of the land and to be )t96 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page► 3 compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property." (La Quinta Municipal Code S 9.180.040(B).) Forecast's proposed plans do not comply with those requirements. Degregation of the neighborhood through the construction of lower - value housing is not compatible with current development nor does it preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. For that reason alone, Forecastfs request should be denied. As the principal planning agency for the City of La Quinta, this Commission is encharged with implementing a long-range perspective for the development of the City. The Quinterra neighborhood will exist for years to come. By investing a substantial part of their life savings in quality Quinterra homes, existing homeowners have made a long-term investment in, and commitment to, the quality of their neighborhood and the City of La Quinta as well. This Commission should not allow that investment and commitment to be undermined by short-term market forces and Forecast's desire for a quick profit. It is our understanding that there are other subdivisions within La Quinta that face a similar dilemma. Initial phases of those subdivisions were built with larger, quality homes. Now, due to the depressed housing market, developers desire to build smaller, inferior homes within those developments. In an effort to move product, developers are sacrificing the quality of their projects. We believe that fairness and good planning demand that the City of La Quinta carefully examine the situation and craft a comprehensive, City-wide response. We suggest that a "neighborhood preservation ordinance" be implemented. The ordinance would use zoning controls to balance the need to maintain existing neighborhood values with the desire of developers to respond to market conditions. Similar ordinances have been enacted in other cities to preserve existing neighborhoods from uncontrolled development that threatened to destroy the character of those neighborhoods. Such an ordinance would give La Quinta city planners, this Commission and the City Council increased ability to respond in a reasonable way to the needs of all segments of the community and to allow for the development in a manner that is fair to all. Until this City has had an opportunity to fully assess and respond to the threats to existing neighborhoods posed by subsequent, inferior development, we respectfully request that Forecast be required to continue to develop the Quinterra subdivision as previously planned by Windsor and approved by the LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Planning Commission City of La Quinta August 19, 1993 Page 4 City. A hasty decision to allow lesser -quality development in this neighborhood will unfairly detract from the substantial investments made in good faith by Quinterra homeowners and from the reputation of the City of La Quinta as a secure place for quality investment. Very truly yours, DOUG S S. PHILLIPS of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER DSP:RWH:js cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney City of La Quinta Client 96 _W% oWOa ._._.— 2 =N = LLN H y� 9NIZY1 ; n o W N s $ O J 8a3A 1 VS ZIN' 810S j z try�(J • lO lI 1 ♦] Q 34 ` 1 �• S¢�y'j3 ? dO1S3U3 c� NMOONnS O 1 c �M 6 = U U o�Yoti t3 y L5 .a V1S3tlO �' > > > > t ¢ ¢ u a �'11aO1 c o 1S Smov o • 00! /R ! AM VSOHV ¢ ' ��0� % o V; Y° y �Q j in IS a� s '� 30 OR ¢ d0,�j tV� �d d j s ¢ o a z �_ 6 IM O6$7 00VIA m / < ate¢- o • t g$ p A do U N C) 1 g Z�Caii 2 ¢H o cr IN t MONTE; •�•� Ewa i ,w� 10. The Applicant's model complex shall be built north of the existing homes (e. g. Ocotillo Drive & Adams Street) to reduce vehicle traffic to and from the sales area. 11. No building permits shall be issued for Phase 2 until the developer has paid the City's Parkland fee or dedicated land to the City to fulfill this outstanding tract map obligation. 12. The River Rock veneer shall not be used on any new homes within the immediate vicinity of the existing (Phase 1) homes, but the Applicant will have the option to submit other exterior veneer materials to staff for review and consideration provided the veneer material is compatible with Phase 1. 13. The perimeter tract fencing shall be finished to match Phase 1. The individual lot fencing, if build, shall meet the R-1 Standards. 14. A minimum four -inch stucco popout shall be used around all exterior sliding glass doors and windows to ensure architectural compatibility to the Phase 1 units and to provide minimum shading from the exposure to the sun. The minimum roof eave shall be 18-inches or the windows should be recessed into the building facade. CONAPRVL. 005