1993 09 14 PC•
f �e�af��fi7�1
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
September 14, 1993
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 93-032
Beginning Minute Motion 93-042
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item ............... CONTINUED 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", "The Grove",
and "The Pyramids").
Request ............ Approval of a tentative tract map to create 126 single family
residential lots and miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres.
Action ............. Resolution 93-
2. Item ............... CONTINUED CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 & PLOT
PLAN 93-502
Applicant .......... JASCORP (Mr. Joseph A. Swain, President)
Location ........... West side of Washington Street, north of Calle Tampico.
Request ............ Change of zone from R-1, R-2*8,000 and C-P to R-2 for
approximately 12 acres. Plot plan to develop a 124 unit one
and two story low and moderate income apartment complex.
Act:;on ............. Request to continue to September 28, 1993.
PC/AGENDA
3. Item ............... VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 27031 (MINOR
CHANGE, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant .......... Mr. E. George Marzicola (on behalf of the Washington
Square property owners)
Location ........... East side of— Washington Street and north of 47th
Avenue/Highland Palms Drive.
Request ............ A one year time extension.
Action ............. Resolution 93-
4. Item ............... PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016
Applicant .......... Bernardo Gouthier
Location ........... 57-325 Madison Street
Request ............ Approval of a sculpture park with art school, garden, gallery,
and administrative offices.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
]PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
BUSrNESS SESSION
1. Item ............... CONTINUED TENTATIVE TRACT 23913
(QUINTERRA) - PHASE II
Applicant .......... Forecast Homes
Location ........... North side of Miles Avenue, east of Adams Street.
Request ............ Approval of architectural plans for single family residences.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
2. Item ............... STREET NAME CHANGE 93-003
Applicant .......... La Quinta Golf Properties
Location ........... Tract 27728 (The Quarry)
Request ............ Approval of a Resolution of Intent to set a public hearing to
consider a street name change from Schwabacker Road to
Quarry Lane.
Action ............. Resolution 93-
3. Item ............... GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING
Applicant .......... Coachella Valley Water District
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ General Plan consistency findings for water and sanitation
projects throughout the City.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 1993.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
i . All Agenda items.
PC/AGENDA
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, September 13, 1993
7:00 P.M.
2
PH # 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14,
1993)
REQUEST: APPROVAL CF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 126
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND MISCELLANEOUS
LOTS ON 55+ ACRES.
APPLICANT: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT (CHARLES R. STROTHER)
OWNER: TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MARK
ELGIN, PRESIDENT
ENGINEER: SANBORN WEBB
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE
IN RANCHO LA QUINTA.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #90 WAS CERTIFIED BY
THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE PREVIOUS SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP 127-E) WHICH ENCOMPASSED A MORE EXTENSIVE
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL THAN THAT APPROVED BY
SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004. APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THEREFORE, NO FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS DEEMED NECESSARY.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: G (GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE) AND LDR (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, 2-4 DU/AC).
ZONING: R-2 20,000/PD
PCST.145 1
BACKGROUND:
This case was continued to your meeting of September 14, 1993, in order to allow revisions.
Those: revision shave been made and incorporated into the tentative tract map.
This property is a part of Specific Plan 84-004 which was approved by the City on November
20, 1984. A Development Agreement also exists on the property. To date, a parcel map
separating the residential areas from the golf course areas has been recorded over the entire
property which runs south of 48th Avenue between Washington Street and Jefferson Street, south
to 50t:h Avenue with the exception of the northeast quadrant of 50th Avenue and Washington
Street and the northwest quadrant of 50th Avenue and Jefferson Street. Additionally, a tentative
tract map (TT 24545) has been approved on the westerly half of the property. This tentative
tract map included approximately 278 acres (excluding the golf course area) and consisted of
approximately 273 residential lots. This map was never recorded. The current tentative tract
map request includes the northwesterly corner of Tentative Tract 24545.
The current tentative tract map area includes the area on the east side of Washington Street south
of 48th Avenue and north of Eisenhower Drive (extended). The easterly boundary is just
slightly east of the Adams Street alignment which does not run through this project.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
The tentative tract map proposes 127 single family residential lots, 5 recreational lots, and
several common area lots. The lots are spread out between the existing golf course. The tract
as previously noted, is located at the northwest corner of the site which is south of 48th Avenue
and east of Washington Street. The southern boundary of this tract is primarily Eisenhower
]Drive.
The lots are provided adjacent to the main entry drive in through Eisenhower Drive and along
cul-de-sacs provided off the main access. The location of the lots has been set and dictated by
the previous parcel map which created the golf course lots and residential areas.
The lot sizes vary with the typical lot being 50-feet wide and lot depth being approximately 150-
feet. There are approximately eight custom lots which are larger with a typical lot width being
105-feet with lot depth of 160-feet. The majority of the units proposed for these lots would be
detached single family residences which the Planning Commission approved recently. Five
recreation lots are proposed. These lots will consist generally of a swimming pool and restroom
building.
ANALYSIS:
The specific plan allows a total of 1500 single family residential lots and 80 guest cottages. The
proposed map would be the first 127 of the potential 1500 units. The map is in compliance with
the previously approved specific plan and Development Agreement. There are several lots
PCST.145
which are not flag lots which have lot frontages of less than 50-feet. However, these lots are
approximately 145-155-feet deep which would provide adequate room for development.
The Engineering Department and Fire Marshal have reviewed the proposed tentative tract map
and feel that it is acceptable with conditions.
FINDINGS:
Findings to recommend approval of this tentative tract map can be made and are attached in the
draft :resolution.
]RECOMMENDATION:
By adoption of Resolution 93- , recommend approval of tentative tract 27840 to the City
Council, subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map.
2. Tentative tract map exhibit.
3. Comments from other City Departments and agencies.
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution and Conditions of Approval.
PCST.145 3
STATE NIq:
2 /NOrt7
IT
E Z
yw�vve so c . UA
W
(TT 27840) VIC/N/TY I SAP
N. T 5•
gAT ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 o COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M. DE LAY 11St 1O REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATrORNEYS
A11
THEODORE J. FISH g , 1993
Planning Conmission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
File: 0163.1
J-11
AU6 1 8 1983 ,
Subject: Tentative Tract 27840, Portion of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino
Meridian and the Northwest Quarter of Section 32,
Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from'stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The developer shall provide a flooding easement over a portion of the proposed
golf course which will be inundated from stormwater flows from the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel. The district shall be held harmless from any damage to the
golf course due to stormwater flows in the La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly
expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells,
reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to
provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites
shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such
purpose.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Planning, Commission -2- August 10, 1993
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RF:dr/e3/27840
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A 127 UNIT
SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE
AND EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET
CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 - TD DESERT DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of September, 1993,
continued from August 24, 1993, hold a duly -noticed Public
Hearing as requested by TD Desert development on the request to
subdivide 55 acres into a 127 unit single family residential
subdivision with associated street, common area and recreation
lots, generally located on the southeast corner of 48th Avenue
and Washington Street, more particularly described as follows:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1, 2, 5, & 8 OF PARCEL MAP 20469
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No.
83-63, that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and addendum
EIR have been adopted. Therefore, no additional environmental
documentation is deemed necessary; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on September
14, 1993, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation for
approval of said Tentative Tract map; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, said Tentative
Tract Map 27840 was recommended for approval by the La Quinta
Planning Commission based on said findings and subject to
certain conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission on
September 14, 1993, did find the following facts to justify
recommending approval of said tentative tract map:
1. The design and improvements of the approved Tentative
Tract 27840 are consistent with the current goals and
objectives of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. Tentative Tract 27840 is consistent with current
standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division
Ordinances.
RESOPC.057/CS -1-
3. The subject site is physically suitable for a 127 unit
development.
4. The design of Tentative Tract 27840 and its related
improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife
or their habitat provided that approval conditions
related to mitigation measures for the flora, fauna, and
archaeological resources are complied with during project
development.
5. The design of Tentative Tract 27840 and the type of
improvements are not likely to cause public health
problems nor would they conflict with existing public
easements.
6. There is no evidence to suggest that approval of
Tentative Tract 27840 could have a major adverse impact
on the environment.
7. The location and appearance of the proposed dwelling
units will be made compatible with the area in which the
127 unit development is located.
8. The proposed private circulation system will provide for
the safe and efficient movement of vehicles within the
project, and the use of small private streets within some
areas of the project will not impact the overall safety
of the future residents.
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 concur with the environmental
determinaticn and grant approval of the
above -described Tentative Tract 27840, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to
the attached. Conditions of Approval as recommended
by the La Quinta Planning Commission and modified
herein.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of
September, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
RESOPC.057/CS -2-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, CHAIRPERSON
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.057/CS -3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
CON13ITIONS OF APPROVAL
TENTATIVE TRACT 27840 - RANCHO LA QUINTA
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
GENERAL:
Tentative Tract Map 27840 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 and become void within two years unless
extended pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
- City Fire Marshal
- Public Works Department
- Planning and Development Department
- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
- Desert Sands Unified School District
- Coachella Valley Water District
Imperial Irrigation District
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
Applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans.
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
4. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable
provisions of Specific Plan No. 84-004 and applicable Development Agreement.
5. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
CONAPRVL.105 1
Condi.tio:ns of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
6. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as
determined by the Building and Safety Director.
7. Applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along Avenue 48.
Design of these setbacks shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved
by the Planning Commission. The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope
designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas along 48th Avenue. Use of lawn
shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of street curb.
8. Uidscaping and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park
facilities shall be prepared by a. licensed landscape architect and approved by the Design
Review Board and Planning Commission. The plans and proposed landscaping
improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of and be signed by the
Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
9. Applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide
visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
10. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans
to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the
District's Water Management Program.
TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN
11. Development of the project site shall comply with tentative tract map Exhibit A, as
contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Tract 27540,
and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any
conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map.
12. The development of custom, single-family lots shall be governed by the following:
A. The applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve
all custom home development within Tentative Tract 27840. The main objectives
of this Committee shall be to assure that building architecture, building materials
and colors, building height and setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate
design themes throughout the tract. Procedures and operation of the committee
shall be set forth in the Tract's CC & R's.
B. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract
27840, landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained.
CONAPRVL„105
conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
C. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design
of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from
view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department.
D. No two-story units shall be allowed within 75-feet of 48th Avenue per the specific
plan approval.
E. The minimum dwelling unit (living area) size for all residential units shall be
1,200 square feet (excluding attached or detached parking garage).
F. All dwelling units shall have a minimum two car garage measuring 20-feet by 20-
feet in overall size. The garage can be either attached or detached.
13. Any minor changes in lot mix, sizes, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to any final
map approvals for recordation..
]PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
14. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or on the proposed site or shall be installed
in underground facilities. Electric power lines over 66KV are not subject to this
requirement per the specific plan.
15. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City
Engineer.
MANAGEMENT:
16. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director
the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the
open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in
accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval.
A. The document to convey title;
B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and,
C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot
owners of this land division.
CONAPRVL . 10 5 3
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time
that the final subdivision map is recorded.
A Homeowners' Association with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the
individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously
maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who
default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any
encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in
good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the Homeowners'
Association.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
17. Applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and off -
site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and any
other improvements required by these conditions and shall meet all other obligations or
secured said obligations before approval of this tentative map or before any final map(s)
under this tentative tract map as specified hereinafter.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures
or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
18. If tract improvements are phased with multiple final maps, off -site improvements and
tract -wide improvements (i.e., perimeter walls, common areas and setback landscaping,
and gates) required of any final map within this map unless otherwise approved by the
City Engineer. Tentative map shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the
first final map.
The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of
off -site and tract -wide improvements with development of two or more final maps within
the tentative map.
19. The applicant shall reimburse the development to the north for the actual cost to that
development for construction of improvements to the south side of Avenue 48 contiguous
to this tentative tract. This reimbursement may be deferred until Phase II of the Rancho
La Quinta development provided the applicant provides security in guarantee of the
reimbursement.
ACQUISITIONS AND DEDICATIONS:
20. Applicant shall dedicate or deed public street right-of-way and utility easements for the
full Rancho La Quinta development of which this tentative map is a part. Said easements
shall conform with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans
and as required by the City Engineer.
CONAF'RVL . 10 5
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
Dedications or deeds required for approval of this tract include:
A. Avenue 48: 55-feet half width right-of-way.
B. Washington Street: 60-feet half width right-of-way from the specific plan
centerline of Washington Street as amended and provided by the City.
C. North boundary of tentative tract - easement for acceptance of drainage from
existing drainage facilities in sag point in Avenue 48.
Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
Dedication or deeding of street rights -of -way and utility easements shall be made within
60-days of written demand for such dedications by the City Engineer or concurrent with
approval of any final map within this tentative map, whichever event occurs first.
21. Prior to approval of the first final map under this tentative map, the applicant shall
dedicate or deed common area setback lots, of minimum width as noted, for the full
length of the Rancho La Quinta development adjacent to the following street rights -of -
way:
A. Avenue 48: 20-feet
B. Washington Street: 20-feet
Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
Where sidewalks, bikepaths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant shall
dedicate or deed blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
22. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights along the following streets from lots
abutting the streets:
A. Avenue 48
B. Washington Street
Access along these streets shalt. be restricted to approved project entries and emergency
access locations.
23. The applicant shall dedicate or deed any easements necessary for placement of and access
to utility lines and structures, park lands, drainage basins, common areas, and mailbox
clusters.
CONAPRVL.105 5
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
24. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of the
property included in this tentat:we map between the date of approval by the City Council
and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property
unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer.
25. The requirements of the City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be met concerning all
supplemental accessory facilities.
26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall
submit and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with
Chapter 6.10, ]La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant
shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to
guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit.
27. 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.
28. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
29. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s).
The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall
be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement
shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils
report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for
each building pad in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the
as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be
organized by the tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is
submitted at different times.
30. The tract shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out
of the tract through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief
roltte. Similarly, the tract shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property
at locations that have historically received flow.
CONAPRVL..105 6
conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
31. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100-year storm shall be retained on
site. The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to
the centerline of adjacent pubLc streets.
32. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless
applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
For common retention basins a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved
by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and
leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of
drainage area.
The retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the
retention depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
33. The design of the tract shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the tract.
34. The applicant shall consider drainage from adjacent developments as required in the
specific plan and hereinabove.
35. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If
the program is in effect 60-days prior to recordation of any final map for this
development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the Ordinance.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
36. Improvements plans for all on- and off -site street and access gates shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as
approved by the City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life
and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
CONAPRVL..105 7
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
Septembe= 14, 1993
If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during
development of the tract, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent
to the 20-year design strength.
37. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters
approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
Enhancements to existing improvements may be required. Improvements may be required
beyond the tract boundaries.
38. 'The following street and landscaping improvements shall be constructed to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1. Avenue 48 - 44' half width - with medians.
2. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 48' half width - with medians
3. Washington Street at Eisenhower Drive - modification of traffic signal for
four -legged intersecton. The Applicant shall pay all costs of the modification
and shall reimburse the City for its $3,400 cost of the design of said
modification. If the Applicant's total cost for the design and modification of
the signal exceeds by any amount the $25,000 cap set forth in the
Development Agreement underlying this tract, that amount shall be credited
toward the Applicant's obligation to participate in the improvement of Adams
Street between Ave 48 and Highway 111.
39. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Ave 48 at Adams Street - full -turn access to line up with Adams Street
.B. Washington Street at Eisenhower Drive - full -turn access to line up with Eisenhower
Drive.
LANDSCAPING
40. 'The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots and medians along
the following streets:
CONAPRVL.105 8
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
A. Avenue 48
B. Washington Street
The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter
landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray
irrigation within 5-feet of street curb.
41. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan
which shall include consideration of:
A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water, including water saving features
incorporated into the design of the structures, the use of drought tolerant and low-
water usage landscaping materials, and programs to increase the effectiveness of
landscape and golf course irrigation, as recommended by Coachella Valley Water
District and the State Department of Water Resources.
.B. Methods for maximizing groundwater recharge, including the construction of
groundwater recharge facilities.
C. Methods for minimizing the amount of water used for on -site irrigation, including
the use of reclaimed water from sewage treatment facilities. The water energy plan
shall be subject to review and acceptance by CVWD prior to final approval by the
City Engineer.
42. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, common retention basins and park
facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape areas shall have
permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer.
Coir,.mon basins and park areas shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be
mowed with standard tractor -mounted equipment.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the
:Planning Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the
:Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
43. 'The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
UAI.ITY ASSURANCE
44. 'The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, the applicant shall fully comply with the
quality -assurance program.
CONAPRVL..105 9
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho La Quinta
September 14, 1993
If the quality -assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
45. 'The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and
sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans,
specifications and applicable codes.
46. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have
the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on each
sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of
the drawings.
MAINTENANCE
47. 'The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of landscaping and related
improvements.
48. 'The applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as common lots,
'landscaped setbacks and retention basins until those areas have been accepted for
maintenance by a homeowner's association (HOA). The applicant shall maintain all other
'improvements until final acceptance of tract improvements by the City Council.
49. 'The applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for streets,
landscaping and related improvements, perimeter walls, drainage facilities, or any other
:improvements to be maintained by an HOA. The booklet should include drawings of the
facilities, recommended maintenance procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm
'with fixed and variable factors to assist the HOA in planning for routine and long term
maintenance.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
50. :Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide the Planning and
:Development Department with written clearance from the Desert Sands Unified School
:District that the per -unit impact fees have been paid.
51. 'The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits.
CONAPRVL.105 10
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho Ia Quinta
September 14, 1993
FIRE MARSHAL:
52. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 21/2 X 21/2 ") shall be
located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with
no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow
shall be 1000 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi.
53. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire
flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the
local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the
water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department."
54. 'The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an
individual lot.
55. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the
model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
56. Gates installed to restrict access shall be power operated and equipped with a Fire
Department override system consisting of Knox key operated switches, series KS-2P with
dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Improvement
plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
review/approval prior to installation.
57. If public use type buildings are to be constructed, additional fire protection may be
required. Fire flows and hydrant location will be stipulated when building plans are
reviewed by the Fire Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
58. On- and off -site grading, drainage, street, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, park, gate,
and perimeter wall plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for plan
checking. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the
City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.105 11
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho :La Quinta
September 14, 1993
59. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings within the tract, the applicant
shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those
buildings.
60. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales
facilities, and/or signs on the subject property.
61. Restroom facilities for the groundskeepers shall be provided in the vicinity of golf course,
and a permanent golf course and homeowners maintenance facility shall be constructed on
the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development.
62. All :lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be
designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be
installed, including street and common area, shall be subject to review and approval by
the Planning and Development Department.
63. Applicant/Developer shall work with Waste Management of the Desert to implement
provisions of AB 939 and AB 1.462. The applicant/developer is required to work with
Waste Management in setting up the following programs for this project:
A. Developer shall prepare a plan to provide enlarged trash enclosures for inclusion of
separate facilities for storage of recyclables such as glass, plastics, newsprint and
steel & aluminum cans.
B. Developer shall provide proper on -site storage facilities within the project for green
waste associated with golf course and common area maintenance. Compost materials
shall be stored for pick-up by Waste Management, or an authorized hauler for
transport to an appropriate facility.
C. Curbside recycling service shall be provided in areas where no centralized
trash/recycling bins are provided or utilized.
64. 'The specific plan requires ten acres of land to be dedicated for park purposes. 7.8 acres
has been dedicated to date. The balance of 2.2 acres shall be paid as a in -lieu fee prior
to recordation of the final map.
65. Per the specific plan Conditions of Approval, a contribution of $100,000 as a fire
mitigation measure, shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit for
production homes or any custom homes.
CONAPRVL,.105 12
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract 27840 - Rancho :tea Quinta
September 14, 1993
66. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department
prior to recordation of any final map under this tentative map.
The applicant shall develop tract phases in the order of the approved phasing plan so that
improvements required of each final map are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy within subsequent final maps.
Note: Conditions regarding the following will be presented prior to consideration of
approval of this tentative map:
• Applicant's participation in the cost of Adams Street between Ave 48 and
Highway 111.
• Disposition of the wedge-shaped property between this tentative map and
Washington Street.
• The length of right of way required for and improvements to Washington
Street.
• The required widths of on -site streets.
• The provision for non -automotive means of transportation within the tentative
map.
CONAPRVL..105 13
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
PROJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 91-066 & PLOT PLAN 93-502; LA QUINTA VILLAGE
APPLICANT: JASCORP (MR. JOSEPH A. SWAIN, PRESIDENT)
OWNER: AMCOR CAPITAL INC. (MR. ROBERT WRIGHT)
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CHANGE OF
ZONE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES OF PROPERTY
FROM R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), R-2 *8,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS), AND C-P (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) TO R-2 (MULTIPLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS) .
PLOT PLAN: TO DEVELOP A 124 UNIT ONE AND TWO STORY LOW
AND MODERATE INCOME APARTMENT COMPLEX ON APPROXIMATELY
12 ACRES OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET,
JUST SOUTH OF THE LA QUINTA STORM CHANNEL/WASHINGTON
STREET BRIDGE AND 700 FEET NORTH OF CALLE TAMPICO.
BACKGROUND:
This case was scheduled for a public hearing on August 24, 1993 for the Planning
Commission meeting of September 14, 1993. However, on August 30, 1993, staff met
with the Applicant to discuss his intent to submit a tentative tract map application
so that they can sell the units as condominiums. The Applicant is also discussing a
specific plan application to allow zero lot line units and possibly vary some of the R-2
development standards. ( See the attached letter) .
Based on this new information, staff would recommend that the case(s) be continued
to September 28, 1993 to allow staff and the Applicant additional time to examine and
process the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to
September 28, 1993 to allow the Applicant time to revise his initial development
request.
Attachment:
1. Location Map
2. Reduced Site Plan
3. Letter from Applicant
AVENUE
50TH
� o�
000a
o�oc
�Fo�LAuuu�u
�lo
innnnnnnnn
w
w
z
0
Site 1ze
a
3
CALLE TAMPICO D
Fz
-DOE
c:1D
I FF4TZ BURNS
PAAK LOCATION
- r! --
AVENUE :52
CITY OF PEA QUANTA
NORTH
SCALE.: )2=)000"
Plot Plan 93-502 and Change of Zone 9I-466
EIUJ0J!JUD'Ejuinor1 Y
Rids o 0 9 '►"%%'�1 - t- aM 1iv1A SAM
xl�
u - 1
V�
Project Site
Future
Commercial
Project
(Ralph's)
- -- _ _
CALLE TAMPICO
4
North
September 7, 1993
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampic!-
La Quinta, CA 92253
Planning Dept.
Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman
Ref: Plot Plan 93-502 and C/Z #91-466
Dear Jerry,
We are requesting -an extension on the above referenced
project which was scheduled to be heard on the September 14,
Planning Commissior. heaxi-ng. We would like to have it
changed to the September 28, hearing as we discussed in our -
conversation of August "J"], 1993 with Greg Trousdell.
We will submit the amended application, Specific Plan and
TerltaLive Ma,p to the City of La QULinta by September 8, 199,-..
Regards,
ell.
/jc, 1A
JASCORP
-Swa in
cc-. Bob Wright
cc: Dennis Moran
PH u3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
CASE NO: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27031 (MINOR CHANGE,
AMENDMENT #1) - FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
APPLICANT: MR. E. GEORGE MARZICOLA (ON BEHALF OF THE
WASHINGTON SQUARE PROPERTY OWNERS)
REQUEST: A ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION.
GENERAL
LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND NORTH OF 47TH
AVENUE/HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE, A SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION.
LARGER
LOCATION: NORTH OF 47TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF SIMON DRIVE AND
HIGHWAY 111, EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET, AND WEST OF
THE FUTURE ADAMS STREET.
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LANI) USE: NORTH: C-P-S/VACANT & SIMON MOTORS (ACROSS SIMON
DRIVE) AND VACANT AND THE PARTIALLY BUILT
ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
(ACROSS HIGHWAY 111).
SOUTH: R-1/SINGLE FAMILY, LAKE LA QUINTA, VACANT.
EAST: C-P-S/ PROPOSED REGIONAL MALL SITE (ACROSS
ADAMS STREET).
WEST: R-1 RESIDENTIAL/SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
(ACROSS WASHINGTON STREET)
]BACKGROUND:
Property Summary: The Washington property has received various approvals over the last few
years. They are:
1. Specific Plan 87-011/Change of Zone 87-028; The original specific plan was approved
by the City Council on March 21, 1989, and consists of 348,000 square feet of retail,
19,000 square feet of restaurant area, 90,080 square feet of office, 350 hotel rooms, and
two hotels, and 900 seat cineplex. The property is 65.4 acres in size and vacant at this
time. At that same time a change of zone for a majority of the site was approved from
PCST.039 1
R-1 and R-1 12,000 to C-P-S. Since the time of the original approval, the City Council
has amended the plan once and the approved specific plan now runs currently with
approved Vested Tentative Trait Map 27031. The Amendment was approved in 1991.
2. Vesting_ Tentative Tract Map 27031; The Vesting Map was processed concurrently with
Specific Plan 87-011 (Amendment #1) in 1991. The Map was approved in July and it
allows eight lots on approximately 65.4 acres.
3. In 1991, Desert Hospital (of Palm Springs) submitted a request to develop a three story
medical complex on a portion of a ± 65 acre site. The +83,000 square foot facility is
designed for out -patient surgery and medical offices. The Planning Commission
approved the request on February 11, 1992 and was accepted by the City Council on
February 18, 1992. A one year time extension was granted in 1993 for this development
application (PP 91-473).
4. The developer in 1991 and 1992 also processed a minor change to Tentative Tract Map
27031 in order to reconfigure the previously approved lot subdivision and Desert
Hospital processed Tentative Parcel Map 27399 to subdivide their ± 19 acre site into four
parcels.
Ori ig nal Approval (1991)
1992 Map Approved
Lots 1
3.15 acres
Same size
2
1.90
Same size
3
9.21
Same size
4
3.62
Same size
5
15.43
19.00 acres (Desert Hospital site)
6
11.95
15.39 acres
7
14.63
7.62 acres
8
.61 (Retention)
Same size
APPLICATION STATUS:
Desert Hospital has prepared final construction working drawings and landscaping plans for their
site. The applicant and the master developer (Birtcher) have been working diligently on their
project for the last year and a half and to date they have finalized and/or completed their
archaeological work, Noise Study, Photometric Light Study, paid their Fringe -Toed Lizard fees
for the Desert Hospital site, and have rough graded a portion of the site in anticipation of the
Desert Hospital building permit. The six foot high wall along Washington Street has also been
built. The billboards on Highway 111 have also been removed.
FINDINGS:
The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan and
the standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division Ordinances, subject to conditions.
PCST.039
RECOMMENDATION:
That tl!ie Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 27031 (Minor Change), first time extension, subject
to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Vesting Tentative Tract
3. Agency comments
4. Draft Resolution
PCST.039
0 o
0 a
U
o €�
zUU
uj
C
m
_L
Ou
Q
i�
L
Z U
zt
gQ
W
C
3
Q
Zzs
H
go
8=�
Z
<Z
L3
Z
W
to
/=ww
V
w,Y+f+�w
OLU
0
1N
J.:
p
N H
d �
u
133mis snvav
IL
t;!
mru 1_
i ale,
5,0
--� .
fit
93
ti I
e r l
u.
a h--•4 �' '' � fir+ "r � _ .� r7 . . r • f �{d't �
or
te
I y.
of
in
' +CSC•. I - s-' � •'��(�J` �,•- ..•.i �- ;( � ��
to
t It
------------
ram_ �-• ..
r-1 r- -- r— • r or,
',� mawss.•�,rs�•�eWn•a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186.5406
(619) 688-6002' AI G 1 9 1993
,mot„
.August 17, 1993 -
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attention Greg Trousdell:
We have reviewed Tentative Tract Map 27031, (1 st Time Extension), subdivision of
65.4 acres into 8 lots, located east of Washington Street, south of State Route (SR-1 11), north
of 47th Avenue and west of Adams Street. We have the following comments:
A hydraulic and hydrology study is required to address the existing and future
impacts to SR-1 11. All negative impacts to our facility will need to be
mitigated.
On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR), for
improvements to SR-111(PM 33.1 - 34.2) was approved by Caltrans District
11. The proposed improvements were designed to accomodate traffic
generated by proposed commercial development north of SR-1 11 between
Adams and Washington Street, as well as the anticipated growth to the year
2010. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing highway to a six lane
conventional highway through this area was also included in this report.
Any improvements necessary to SR-1 11 due to the proposed development
must meet Caltans standards and aiso be in conformance with the PSR/PR
referenced above.
Dedication of right of way from the developer to the City of La Quinta is
necessary in order to meet the current Transportation Concept Report. A
minimum right of way width of 172 feet would be required to accommodate the
six lane highway. The typical section for the six lane highway assumes a
raised median and does not include additional right of way which may be
required for structures, additional grading, intersection channelization and
drainage facilities. In the area of major intersections up to an additional 24
feet may be required to accommodate dual left tum lanes and/or exclusive
right turn lanes. In areas of limited grading and existing development, the
right of way width can be reduced to 150 feet. It should be noted that existing
development adjacent to SR-1 11 may require the non -symmetrical widening
of existing SR-1 11 in some areas to minimize the cost right of way
acquisitions. It is recommended that right of way be reserved or dedicated for
this future expansion.
Mr. Trousdell
August 17, 1993
Page Two
• Improvements proposed as part of this project should be coordinated with the
development of the proposed State highway improvements and
improvements to the existing local street system. In order to minimize
potential congestion, the improvements stipulated in the PSR/PR should be
in -place prior to the addition of traffic generated by this development.
• All roadway connections to SR-111 should have curb returns to accommodate
the required turning moves.
• We will be interested in the extent of all impacts on SR-111 and the
mitigations being proposed when they are determined.
• Any proposed access or work within Caltrans' right of way will require an
encroachment permit. Information regarding encroachment permits may be
obtained by contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688-6843. Early
coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all encroachment
permit applications.
• For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way
requirements, please contact the Project Manager, Allen Kosup at
(619) 688-3392, or the Project Engineer, Chris Calvi at (619) 688-6733.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions,
please call Jim Buksa, at (619) 688-6968.
Sincerely,
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
BD/BD:ce
cc:CRWest
AKosup
FYazdan/JFeuerstein
CCalvi
DPound
JBuksa
PLANNING C014MISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
ANNOUNCING :FINDINGS, RE -CONFIRMING THE
ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND
GRANTING APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27031 (MINOR CHANGE,
AMENDMENT #1) TO ALLOW A MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL PROJECT ON +65.4 ACRES.
CASE NO. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 27031
WASHINGTON SQUARE PROPERTY OWNERS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did on the 14th day of September, 1993,
hold a meeting to consider the request of E. George Marzicola
for a one year extension of time for an approved 8 lot vesting
subdivision map on 65.4 acres in the C-P-S zone in the area
generally bounded by Highway 111, Adams Street (future), 47th
Avenue, Washington Street, and Simon Drive, more particularly
described as:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 30, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, a mitigated Negative Declaration has been
adopted for this case; therefore, no further Environmental
Review is necessary; and.,
WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts
have been identified and. will be incorporated into the approval
conditions for Vesting Tentative Tract 27031 (Minor Change,
Amendment #1) in conjunction with this tentative tract, thereby
requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be
undertaken to assure compliance with them; and,
WHEREAS, at said meeting, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts to justify the
Applicant's request for a one year time extension:
1. That Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, (Minor Change,
Amendment #1) as conditionally approved, is generally
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La
Quinta General Plan for land use density, circulation
requirements, C-P-S Zoning District development
standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance.
RESOPC.056/CS -1-
2. That the subject site is generally level. The proposed
circulation design and lot layouts, as conditioned, are,
therefore, suitable for the proposed land division.
3. That the design of the tract, as conditionally approved,
will be developed with public sewers and water, and
therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
4. That the design of Vesting Tentative Tract 27031 (Minor
Change, Amendment #1) will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through the
project, since alternate easements for access and for use
have been provided that are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public.
5. That the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map 27031,
(Minor Change, Amendment #1) as conditioned, provides for
adequate maintenance of landscape common areas.
6. That the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, (Minor
Change, Amendment #1) as conditioned, provides storm
water retention, and noise mitigation.
7. That general impacts from the proposed Tract were
considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in
conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
8. That the city has provisions to permit vesting of
commercial tentative tracts.
WHEREAS, in the review of this Vesting Tentative
Tract Map, Minor Change Amendment #1, 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 physical 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 reaffirm the conclusion of
Environmental Assessment 90-207 relative to the
environmental concerns of this tentative tract;
3,. That it does hereby approve the subject Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 27031 (Minor Change, Amendment #1) for 8 lots
(7 developable) for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
RESOPC.056/CS -2-
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at
of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held
September, 1993, by the following vote, to
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
a regular meeting
on this 14th day of
wit:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.056/CS -3-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 27031 - MINOR CHANGE, AMENDMENT #1
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
Mitigation measures for Environmental Assessment 90-207
+ Deleted by the Planning Commission on 9-14-93
++ Modified by the Planning Commission on 9-14-93
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract 27031 (Amendment #1 for 8 lots), marked Exhibit "A", 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire on July 16, 1994, unless
approved for extension pursuant to the State Subdivision Map.
*3. Development of lots in this Vesting Tract shall comply with all provisions of Specific
Plan 87-011, Amendment #1, as approved.
+4. Appr-oyal of this Vesting T-r-aet shall be subjeet to appr-ey.-' of Speeiffiee Plan 87
5. Applicant shall submit proposed private street names with alternatives to the Planning and
Development Department for approval prior to final map approval by City Council.
6. 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.
7. Previsions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted
Infrastructure Fee Program now in effect.
8. If lot mergers or lot line adjustments are necessary to accommodate development,
applications for them shall be submitted with the applicable plot plan or conditional use
permit requests.
CONAI?RVL . 09 6 1
Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Tract 270311, 1st Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
9. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance
*++ with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as
required by the City Engineer, as follows:
a. Highway 111 - Major Arterial (half width) or as required by Caltrans;
b. Adams Street - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width;
Street right-of-way shall be dedicated or deeded to the City within 60-days of the
approval of the first time extension of this tentative map.
*10. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Highway 111, Washington Street, Adams
Street, and Avenue 47 from all abutting lots. Access to these streets from this land
di -vision shall be restricted to street access points shown on the Internal Circulation Plan,
Figure V-1, in Specific Plan 87-011 (Amendment #1).
*11. Turning movements of traffic accessing the subject subdivision shall be as follows:
Highway 111
a. Simon Drive: left and right turns in and out are allowed;
b. Lot D between lots 2 and 3: left and right turns in and out are allowed;
C. Lot D between lots 1 and 2: right turn in and out only.
Washington Street
a. Simon Drive: right turn in and out only;
b. Lot E: right turn in and out only; an opening in the median island to permit left
turns in and out may be approved by the City Council at a future date if a traffic
study confirms the need for this median opening.
C. Figure V-1, north of 47th Avenue: right in and out only at access locations
shown in Specific Plan 87-011, Amendment #1.
Adams Street
a. Lot C: right turn in and out only.
Avenue 47
a. At access locations shown in Specific Plan 87-011 (Amendment #1) Figure V-1
(revised on 7-16-91 at City Council meeting): right and left turns in and out are
allowed.
CONAPRVL.096 2
Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, :1st Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
12. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot or easement of noted
width adjacent to the following street right of ways:
a. Highway 111, 38-feet wide;
b. Washington Street, 20-feet wide;
C. Adams Street, 20-feet wide;
d. Avenue 47, 10-feet wide;
e. Simon Drive, 10-feet wide.
13. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall
be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report
recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan
approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the
adequacy of the grading plan. 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.
14. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by
the City Engineer prior to final map approval.
*15. 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 approved 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 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.
* 16. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site
in landscaped retention basin(s) or discharged to the Whitewater Channel via a storm
drain system installed by the Applicant. If the retention basin option is elected, it shall
be designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall
not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour
unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. 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.
CONAPRVL.096
Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, 1st Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
1.7. Lot 8 shall not be used as a retention basin as shown on the vesting map. All retention
basin locations shall be approved by the City Engineer.
18. Applicant shall install a trickling sand filter and leachfield in the retention basin to
percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The
sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 160 gallons per 5000 square feet of
landscaping per day.
* 19. Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer.
Street improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed
subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these conditions of approval. All street
improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC and
adopted Standard Drawings,and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant
components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited
to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised
medians where required by city General Plan. Street design shall take into account the
soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, and design life. The minimum structural section
for residential streets shall be 3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base.
Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements
where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as
required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are
appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with city standards
and practices. This includes tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract
boundaries and join the widened and existing street sections.
The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General
Plan street type noted therewith:
a. ON -SITE STREETS
1.) All streets shown on vesting map: One 14-foot wide travel lane in each
direction separated by a 12-foot wide continuous two-way left turn lane,
or approved equivalent; minimum total width shall be 40 feet, or as
approved by the City Engineer.
b. OFF -SITE STREETS
1.) Highway 111 (Simon Drive to Adams Street) Install, or participate in the
cost of, one-half Major Arterial improvements per Caltrans' requirements,
improvements includes half of the raised median, refer to the Project
Study Report/Project Report approved by Caltrans in March 1991.
CONAPRVL.096 4
Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, Ist Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
2.) Washington Street (Simon Drive to Avenue 47) Install half width Major
Arterial, improvement includes one half of raised median, refer to General
Plan Figure VII-2. Applicant shall reimburse City for improvements
previously installed on east side of centerline.
3.) Adams Street (Highway 111 to Avenue 47) Install three-quarter width
Primary Arterial (3 of 4 travel lanes for 86' width improvement option),
improvement includes full width raised median and 16-foot wide north
bound travel lane, refer to Std Dwg #100. Applicant to be reimbursed for
street improvements between south property line and 47th Avenue based
on fair share determination of land mass.
4.) Avenue 47 (portion contiguous to tract) Reimburse developer that
installed improvements for that portion located on the north side on the
centerline. Reimbursement shall include responsibility for 25 % of the cost
to design and construct the signal at Avenue 47 and Washington Street.
*20. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site
public improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the
final map is recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the
respective fair -share construction cost, for those improvements that the Applicant has
partial cost responsibility and construction must be deferred until the full complement of
funding is available. Payment of cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed
by Applicant and City, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant.
21. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the easterly parkway
and landscaped setback lot/easement along Washington Street and Highway 111 in lieu
of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk.
22. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback
lot/easement for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk.
23. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent
to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities.
24. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards,
prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant
shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer.
25. Applicant 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.
CONAF'RVL.096 5
Conditions of Approval
Vesting Tentative Tract 27031, 1st Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
26. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking
and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the
time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city.
27. A Caltrans encroachment permit must be secured prior to construction of any
improvements along State Highway 111, and all Caltrans requirements shall be
implemented.
28. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on
Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during
construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans,
specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by
the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications
and documents upon completion of construction:
a. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that
says "all (grading) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by
qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with
the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as
approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by
the City Engineer".
b. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate
document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building
pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad
elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify
the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number
and shall be cumulative with each submittal if the data is submitted at different
times.
C. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of
the grading and improvements installed by the Applicant.
29. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans
to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the
District's Water Management :Program.
30. Landscape and irrigation plans for the landscaped lots/easements shall be prepared in
conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, and City Engineer, and
approved by same officials prior to construction.
CONAF'RVL.096
Conditions of Approval
Vesting 'Tentative Tract 27031, 1st Extension of Time
September 14, 1993
31. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as the landscaped
setback lots/easements and retention basins until accepted by the City Engineer for
maintenance by a merchant's association of the subdivision.
32. Applicant shall provide an Executive Summary Maintenance Booklet for the street,
landscape irrigation,perimeter wall, and drainage facilities installed in the subdivision.
The booklet should include drawings of the facilities, recommended maintenance
procedures and frequency, and a costing algorithm with fixed and variable factors to
assist the merchant's association in planning for routine and long term maintenance.
*33. Applicant shall install a sound barrier wall in the landscaped traffic island located on the
west side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Simon Drive. A sound study
shall be conducted to determine the geometrics of a wall that is needed to achieve the
LQMC sound requirements.
34. Applicant shall construct a 6-foot wide, 150-foot long landscaped island shall be
constructed in the center of Simon Drive in the transit station vicinity to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, if and when the transit station is installed.
35. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and construct traffic signals at the
following locations:
a. Highway 111;
1.) Washington Street: 20% fair share responsibility;
2.) Simon Drive: 25 % fair share responsibility;
3.) Lot D: 50% fair share responsibility;
4.) Adams Street: 25 % fair share responsibility.
b. Washington Street;
1.) Avenue 47: 25 % fair share responsibility;
2.) Lot E: 100% cost responsibility, if approved.
36. Applicant shall provide unrestricted blanket cross -access easements on all numbered lots
in the subdivision. Easements not to be for secured areas as approved by City.
+37.
ee er-eial tentative tfaets. The project shall be subject to the requirements of
Resolution 91-59 (commercial vesting tract maps).
CONAPRVL.096 7
PH #4
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
CASE, NO.: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A SCULPTURE PARK WITH ART SCHOOL,
GARDEN, GALLERY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.
APPLICANT: BERNARDO GOUTHIER
ARCHITECT: STAN POLLAKUSKY - ALPHA DESIGNS
LOCATION: 57-325 MADISON STREET
ZONING: R-1-10,000
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC)
SURROUNDING
ZONING & LAND
USES: NORTH: R-1-10,000/GOLF COURSE
SOUTH: A.-1-20/AGRICULTURE
EAST: A.-1-20 (RIVERSIDE COUNTY) VACANT
WEST: R-2/GOLF COURSE
SITE DESCRIPTION:
The proposed sculpture complex location is a 20 acre parcel recently annexed into the City. The
property is rectangular in shape, relatively flat and has an existing single family dwelling, lake,
masonry wall and entry gate in front, interior driveway -road, and wooden rail fencing along the
side and rear property lines.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Environmental Assessment 93-269 has been prepared in conjunction with this application. The
Initial Study indicates that no significant environmental impacts will occur that can not be
mitigated. Therefore, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for
this project.
PCST.142 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to develop an art school and sculpture park containing several
facilities. These facilities consist of the school, a sculpture garden, a gallery building, and the
conversion of an existing single family dwelling into administrative offices and living quarters.
A site plan has been submitted depicting two phases to the overall project. Only architectural
plans for Phase I have been submitted at this time. Phase I consists of the Art School building
which is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase I of this building is the classroom and
caretakers unit, while Phase II will be the shop and storage area. The Art School building is
proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the parcel and will include a caretakers
apartment upstairs. The building is two story with the school occupying 3,722 square feet and
the caretakers unit occupying 1130 square feet. Covered patios take up 1,493 square feet and
the carport -receiving area is 400 square feet with a roll -up door into the workshop. The Art
School building is a two story structure of modern design. A tower element is featured on the
observation deck, located above the caretakers unit. Eurozinc metal is proposed around the
second floor exterior along with steel columns for structural support. Glass blocks will be used
on the: frost elevation to allow light to enter and as an additional design feature. The remaining
portions of the building will have a stucco exterior finish. The roof is flat on this building and
will have a low parapet to hide mechanical equipment.
The Art School building will contain a classroom for up to 20 students with two work areas, one
for welding and the other for stone work. The work areas will have a five ton overhead crane
system to pick up and turn large work in progress. The instructors will be both visiting artists,
and instructors from art schools in California.
A 4,000 square foot gallery building is also proposed on the master plan and is slated for Phase
II of the overall project development. No detailed plans have been submitted for this building.
Architectural plans will be required to be submitted for review prior to construction.
The applicant has stated that in addition to the Art School activities, he would like to host special
events at the gallery; show the sculpture works for both established artists and students in a
garden setting with the pieces available for sale to the public; make the park available to local
charities :,or fund raisers, and for weddings, among other events.
Mr. Gouthier states that he intends to create a world class facility within two years, that will
draw collectors, architects, designers, corporate buyers, and.... interested public from all over
the world." He intends to advertise on a national level and hold special events to draw attention
to the facility and to La Quinta.
PARKING AND CIRCULATION:
Two parking lots have been designated on the site plan offering a total of 55 spaces. The
existing home that will be partially converted into offices will have three spaces and the
PCST.142 2
proposed art gallery will have 52 spaces available. The parking lot will be phased to provide
22 spaces for the Art School in Phase I, and 30 spaces will be provided in Phase II when the
art gallery is constructed. A fifteen foot high entry structure and gate are located on the
Madison Street side of the property which will have to be relocated out of the new right-of-way
area when the street is widened and curbs and gutters installed. A concrete driveway accesses
the property from Madison Street and makes its way back to the dwelling unit. Two Fire
Department access gates are proposed at the north and south ends of the property.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CONSIDERATION:
On August 4, 1993, the Design Review Board examined the architectural plans for the Art
School building. A change in metal material was made from brushed aluminum to Eurozinc
which is a matte gray preweathered zinc -titanium cladding. The Board was concerned about the
Art School phasing and not being able to critique the architectural plans for Phase I separate
from Phase II. However, the Board did approve the architectural plans with the recommendation
that the d:,-awings for Phase I and Phase II be complete and if the Planning Commission so
desired to refer the project back to the Design Review Board for further review. The applicant
has since provided elevational plans of just Phase I -Art School for Planning Commission review.
ANALYSIS:
Staff transmitted this project application to the appropriate agencies for review and comment.
After receiving extensive comments/conditions from the Engineering and Fire Departments, staff
scheduled a Development Review Committee meeting to discuss several issues. The items
discussed included access from Madison Street, internal circulation, phasing, fencing, and right-
of-way concerns. It was determined at this meeting that a revised site plan was required. The
applicant revised the plan as requested.
The three snack bar structures and restroom facilities located in the garden area will be subject
to staff architectural review prior to construction. These structures will contain coin -operated
refreshments and restrooms for visitors.
The applicant will be required to dedicate additional road right-of-way along Madison Street to
comply with the General Plan policies for a 55-foot half width, and as necessary for dedicated
right turn lanes. Currently there is a masonry block wall and gated entry across the Madison
Street frontage that will have to be relocated to the west and out of the required right-of-way
area. In addition, the existing sculpture garden pathway that encroaches into the new right-of-
way area will have to be pulled back to the west. The proposed fire department gates at the
northeast and southeast corners of the property will need to be pulled back out of the right-of-
way. Knox boxes will be required on both gates. A 24-foot turfed fire road will circumnavigate
the inside of the property to provide for fire truck access to all parts of the park site.
PCST.142
Staff is recommending that the proposed parking lot be relocated 10-feet to the west in order to
allow for backup room and to keep the last space away from the block wall when it is relocated
out of the right-of-way.
Staff is also recommending that four to six parking spaces be provided in close proximity to the
Art School building to accommodate golf cart shuttles, delivery vehicles, and employee parking.
The main parking lot should be redesigned to minimize the open paving area used as backup
area. The proposed layout does not make the best use of available parking area.
There are no environmental issues of a significant level that will result from the development
and operation of the proposed sculpture complex.
Staff has reviewed and considered this application and supports a recommendation for approval
of Public Use Permit 93-016.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 93- , approve Public Use Permit 93-016, subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1.
Location map
2.
Plan exhibits
3.
Environmental documentation
4.
Agency letters
5.
Draft Conditions of Approval
PCST.142 4
CASE MAP
CASE No. PUP 93-016 Sculpture Park
ORTH
SCALE:
LOCATION MAP 1 NTS
Attachment 1
Attachment 3
Environmental Assessment No.
Case No.�
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Background
1. Name of Proponent Y '
2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent
F
3. Date Checklist Prepared
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth„ will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
FORM.009/CS -ly
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of _
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal. waves?
]?ORM.009/CS -2-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of biological
resources?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment or migration or
movement of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
5. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
6. Light. and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
8. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
:radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
10. Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
FnRM.009/CS -3-
YES MAYBE NO
11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
-the development of new sources of energy?
FORM.009/CS -4-
YES MAYBE NO
15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
17. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
19. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES MAYBE NO
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
FORM.009/CS -6-
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date— Signature of Preparer
FORM.009/CS -7-
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016
LA QUINTA SCULPTURE PARK
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1. Earth
a. No. There are no anticipated changes to geologic substructures nor are
there any known unstable earth conditions on the project site or the
near vicinity ( City of La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental
Assessment) .
b . Yes. During the course of normal construction, grading activities will ensure
that will level and prepare building pad areas. Thus, the parcel will
undergo disruptions, displacements, compaction, and possibly, over
covering of the soil as a result. These activities are not anticipated to
be significant, as the parcel is relatively flat. Grading plans will be
required to be submitted to the City for approval prior to any grading
activities commencing.
c--f. No. Only very minor changes in topography will result from grading
activities in building pad preparation. The property currently has a
lake and home that will remain. The parcel is relatively level and is
located at the 40 foot level above sea level on the 7.5 minute La Quinta
Quad Map.
There are no identifiable unique geologic or physical features on the
property. There is no anticipated increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site. During grading operations, the
permittee shall comply with existing City ordinances pertaining to
erosion.
The property has an existing man-made lake in the middle of the parcel.
The proposed buildings are not near the banks of the lake and are not
likely to cause any changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or
changes in siltation or erosion which could modify the lake.
g. Maybe. The project site is located in a liquefaction hazard area. This is an area
where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing
dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. The presence of
known shallow water table increases the potential for liquefaction
throughout the region.
2. Air
a-c. No. The proposed sculpture park will not create significant air emissions
from any of the proposed activities or uses. Thus, the ambient air
quality will not deteriorate as a result of the project.
DOCLC .005
3. Water
a. No. There are no proposed changes to any bodies of water, either on site
or off site that will change the course of direction of water movements.
b . Maybe. It is possible that as a result of building the proposed buildings and
installing additional landscaping, there will be a change in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
These changes are not anticipated to be significant as far as an impact
to the property or adjacent properties.
c--i. No. The project site is outside of the 500 year flood plain and is within flood
Zone X. Drainage of flood waters from the Coral Reef Mountains runs
east into Lake Cahuilla and into storm channel facilities. No changes
are proposed to the lake or to any other body of water. There is no
proposed discharge into the lake from the proposed improvements.
Ground water will not be affected by the improvements as proposed.
Water use will increase with the construction of the buildings and
additional landscaping. The Coachella Valley Water District stated that
the project site is protected from stormwater flows by a system of
channels and dikes, and is considered safe from stormwater flows
except in rare instances.
4. Biological Resources
a-e . No . The proposed sculpture school and park will not create a change in the
diversity of species or number of any species of biological resources.
The property has been developed with a lake, landscaping, single
family home, roadway and fencing.
There are no unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals
identified in the vicinity of the project site per the General Plan Master
Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Report. No new
species of plants or animals are proposed to be introduced by the
project that would create a barrier to the normal replenishment or
migration or movement of existing species. Landscaping plans will be
submitted at a later date that will be required to follow the policies and
requirements of the City of La Quinta and the recommendation of the
Agricultural Commissioner (USDA) .
The property was designated as agricultural land by Riverside County,
prior to annexation into the City of La Quinta. The property has not
been under agriculture for some time. Currently, the 20 acre parcel is
being used as a private residence that is proposed to be turned into a
private school, gallery, office building, and sculpture park. The
project will be opened to the public for outdoor weddings, instructional
functions, and events. There are agricultural uses located to the south
and east of the property.
Since the property has been developed, there is no existing fish or
wildlife habitat that is not human -made. The sculpture park and
related uses will not result in the impact of any natural habitat.
DOCLC . 005 2
5. Noise
a. Maybe. The existing noise level in the project area is listed as less than 50
dBA. It is possible that during construction of the buildings within the
project that periodic levels of noise will exceed the existing levels.
Construction -related noise is commonly short periodic episodes
occurring during daylight working hours. On -going noise levels
associated with the operation and maintenance of the school and other
uses within the property could also exceed ambient noise levels when
outdoor events take place where there is a public address system used.
Activities within the buildings are not anticipated to generate noise
levels audible outside of the buildings. The buildings will be located
in various portions of the 20 acre parcel, which when combined with
landscaping should serve to lessen any audible noise to insignificant
levels.
6. Light & Glare
Maybe . It is possible that exterior security lighting will be desired that will
create new light in the area. All fixtures shall be approved by the
Department of Building and Safety for compliance with the Dark Sky
Ordinance. Glare from the metal siding on the Art School building is
possible if a nonreflective coating is not applied. The project will be
conditioned to apply such coating or to use a nonreflective metal.
7. Land Use
No. The project site is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR) on the
La Quinta General Flan. This designation allows a density of 2 to 4
dwelling units per acre. The zoning is R-1-10,000 (Single Family
Dwelling on 10,000 square foot minimum parcel) . The R-1 Zoning allows
private schools if a public use permit is approved by the City. The art
school is not incompatible or inconsistent with these land use
designations, or the existing development in the surrounding area.
8. Natural Resources
No. There are no identifiable natural resources on the parcel, which is
developed. Some resources will be used in the construction of the art
school and gallery buildings . Construction materials will include steel,
concrete, wood, glass, and other metals. The use of these materials
will make an insignificant impact upon the environment, however their
use adds to a cumulative impact. There is no reasonable mitigation
measure for this issue, except conservative use of the resources with
little spoilage.
9. Risk of Upset
No. There is no anticipated risk of explosion or release of hazardous
substances identified with the project.
DOCLC . 005
10. Population
No. The proposal involves an art school with a limit of 20 students at any
one time. There will be several instructors and a few office employees.
However, the project is not anticipated to alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate in the area. The 20 acre project
site could be subdivided and developed with a density of 2 to 4 dwelling
units per acre. Surrounding properties are also designated for the
same development density. However, the development of this 20 acres
into a sculpture park will not significantly alter the human population
growth in this area.
11. Housing
No. This project will create a new caretaker's unit above the art school.
There is an existing single family home on the parcel of which a portion
will be used as offices. No other housing will be created with this
project. Approximately 20 students and a few instructors will be at the
school for classes. A demand for additional housing is not anticipated
at any significant level.
12. Transportation
The project site is located on Madison Street, north of Avenue 58. Madison
Street and Avenue 58 are both designated primary arterials in the La Quinta
General Plan. Road right of ways range between 100 and 110 feet. A four-
way stop sign is planned for the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue
58. The Average Daily Trip volume (ADT) on Madison Street, between
Airport Boulevard and Avenue 58 is 1,100 vehicles. The ADT for Avenue 58
east of Madison Street is 550, and west of Madison Street is 400. The traffic
noise level projections for the immediate area re 12,000. Peak hour volume for
cars is 1, 078; for middle weight trucks 11; and for heavy trucks 11. There
is only light traffic in the vicinity of the project.
The potential traffic generated by the art school is not anticipated to be
significant. A maximum of 20 students in one classroom is proposed. The
future art gallery will be reviewed for potential impacts at the time the
applicant seeks approval for that building. The property is located on a
primary arterial street than: has been designed to handle substantial traffic
levels. The overall traffic impact of the project is anticipated to be much less
then the traffic that would be generated if the 20 acres were developed to its
maximum potential of 80 homes. Eighty homes, generating 10 daily trips per
home will result in 800 daily trips. The proposed sculpture complex will not
generate anywhere close to 800 daily trips .
13. Public Services
a-f. No. The proposed sculpture complex is not anticipated to have a significant
effect upon government services. Affected public agencies were
provided an opportunity to review and comment on this project. The
fire department will require fire hydrants in certain locations, and
improvements to meet their standards.
DOCLC . 005 4
Coachella Valley Water District is requiring that existing irrigation lines
be relocated and that the property be annexed to Improvement District
No. 55 for sanitation service.
14. Energy
The proposed sculpture complex is not anticipated to use substantial amounts
of fuel or energy in construction or on -going activities. Therefore, no
substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources is foreseen. No
:new sources of energy will be needed as a result of this project.
15. Utilities
No other impact beyond utility hook ups and meter installations are proposed
for this project.
16. Human Health
There are no known threats to human health related to the proposed art school
and gallery that cannot be mitigated through installation of an adequate
ventilation system during construction. Dust will be created with stone
sculptures and metal sculptures and metal sculptures could result in fumes
from welding activities. If acids are used to create patinas, fumes may
develop . If foundry equipment is installed at a future date, proper
ventilation for gas powered equipment will be required as well as compliance
with the fire department requirements for such equipment. There are no
threats to public health from the project to adjacent property owners or
residents.
17. Aesthetics
The sculpture complex will not obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the
public. No aesthetically offensive site will be created. The proposed
buildings will undergo architectural review by the City, which institutes
architectural controls and guidelines.
The property has an existing fence, single family home, lake, trees, and
perimeter fence with controlled gate.
18. Recreation
No. The proposed sculpture complex will proved a unique privately owned and
operated art attraction. The project includes a sculpture gallery garden and
children's area that will be open to the public for an admission fee. There is
no anticipated adverse impact on the local environment concerning recreation
amenities.
DOCLC . 005 5
19. Cultural Resources
The project site is located in an area that is sensitive for archaeological
resources, however, the parcel has been previously developed. Thus any
resources extant on the surface of the ground have probably been destroyed
or disturbed. Extensive grading has taken place on the property.
The project will be conditioned to halt work if any subsurface cultural
deposits are uncovered and a professional archaeologist is to be contacted to
examine the deposits for any necessary mitigation measures.
DOCLC .005
Attachment 4
------
All
I.J !J
7f?:!
MA JONTO AMME FETUS,
J, J::
1 ;I)
F aunt
F
)-C-adp F i )FOOV4MU"L
aI SUN
_V�MRM
" Ojlvp-iw :OGO
P hnw dw,tinw aL Cc
,,,-Ojjwq pp-jucp w!
felt-.; Lo �V�AaW- OP.'
or Thn joh
hvn,
p, py mAy pi
nf �hp hp� lKinq1n) P- "in
14P
nw PEY
io tho
"rim P-V.
Pn�
9C Fav! �>Wq
vKa j 1 "V
vy D, at i,ln
an 1 no qup , UP
ind Pin twwn,pv Aill
-1 that the design
of the
no pv t I f iF S�j wn
certify
nvetpw is to accordance
with thP reOuIrOmOnt-
0100c''N"
by Me Ri -;w-E ide County
F! 0 Depar tMent
1H xj-:
MW 1
d
N'/
Z/ MO
)9433 CUUIIILI,"� '*Ll
�'-
(30) 0534003
1 :Y
0- A/11-1-ji,
Ar e-�)
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
(�\ 72J
STR1 COACHELL.A VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 . COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
NAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MA
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN OWEN McCOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M. DE LAY August 6, 1993 REDWINEAND SHERRI LL..4TTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
Planning; Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
File: 0163.1
Subject: Public Use Permit 93-016, Portion of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 21, Township 6
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley
Water District for sanitation service.
There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public
agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have
been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Planning Conmission -2- August 6, 1993
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RF:dr/e3/93-016
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
COP CHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
i
76-105 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246
FROM: PLANNING.& DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
City Manager
Public Works Dir.
--City Engineer
k_Fire Marshal
Building & Safety
Chamber of Commerce
;�. CVWD
_Imperial Irrigation
Southern California Gas
Desert Sands School Dist.
CV Unified School Dist.
CV Mountain Conservancy
CV Archaeological society
FAX (619) 564-5617
Waste Management
Principal
General Telephone
Planner(s)
_Colony Cable
Associate
�-,Sunline Transit
Planner
Caltrans (District II)
Associate
_Agricultural Commission
Planner
SUS Postal Service
Planning
City of Indian Wells
Director
City of Indio
.� Ass4. Ott y vn,:�rz-
,Z( C • V . Parrs Riverside County:
Sheriff's Department
Planning Department
Environmental Health
LA QUINTA CASE xo(s): p iC.. use- Pe.rrnt- G --;� -01 fo
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: r r LA I LA r e
rl - in n 6L e 12
PROJECT LOCATION: ,>
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial
environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information
submitted by the project proponent.
Your comments are requested with respect to:
1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities,
and/or services;
2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti-
gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project
design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns
which your agency is responsible; and
3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse
effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions,
please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which
may be helpful.
Please send your response by te_f Ar4 U S"� Q . 1 �a and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files..You are in1vited to attend the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: -T�13 P- Time:
Contact Person: F—e U�ncl-C��'trN: F+ssar . P to ►on er
The Sheh i.j j' s DepaAtment',s g4i Ut y -tort &ovide z eAvicu w,c,P.Q. not be .signi jicanty impacted.
Comments made by 166n' Du Title: Captain
Date: 8-18-93 Phone: 863-8990 Agency/Division Riveuide County ShehiAA - Inc
rnom n i n /fe
Attachment 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 93-016
SEPTEMEER 14, 1993
GENERAL:
1. The development shall be used within two (2) years after the effective date of the issuance
of the permit, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effective whatsoever. By
"use" is meant beginning substantial construction of the facilities as approved by this permit
which thereafter are pursued diligently to completion or the actual occupancy of existing
buildings or land under the terms of this permit. Prior to the expiration of the two year
period, the permittee may request a one year extension of time in which to use this permit.
Should no substantial construction or use of this permit be initiated within three (3) years
of the effective date of the issuance of this permit this permit shall become null and void.
2. The use hereby permitted is for the development of a sculpture school and park consisting
of art school building, art gallery building, sculpture garden, office conversion, parking lot
and accessory features located within Assessor's Parcel Number 761-090-008. The
development of the premises shall be in conformance with the plans marked Exhibits "A -
Revised, B-Revised, C-1, C-2, B-1, B-2, and CM No. 1 " on file with the Planning and
Development Department unless otherwise amended by these Conditions of Approval.
3. This project may be developed in two phases as shown on the approved Exhibit "A -
Revised". Any additional phases, or modifications to the approved phasing, may be
permitted provided a plan for each phase of development is submitted to and approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Phasing approval shall not apply to the
requirements of any other agency except to the Planning and Development Department
unless otherwise indicated by the affected agency. Should use of the first phase commence
within two years of the date of approval, there shall be no time limit for initiation of, or
completion of, any subsequent phases. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION
APPROVAL OR OCCUPANCY of each phase, all facilities intended to serve that phase
shall be installed in usable condition.
4. Phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department.
The applicant shall develop phases in the order of the approved phasing plan so that
improvements required of each phase are complete prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy within subsequent phases.
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the
following public agencies:
CONA:PRVL . 104 1
conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
* Fire Marshal
* Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
* Planning and Development Department
* riverside County Environmental Health Department
* Desert Sands Unified School District
* Coachella Valley Water District
* Imperial Irrigation District
* California regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals 'prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the
plans,.
Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the
Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the
use contemplated herewith.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT:
6. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to meet all obligations and
construct the on -and off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area
improvements, and any other improvements required by these conditions before issuance
of building or grading permits.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or
obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements, abandonment of the water
line at the west end of the property, and the relocation of the existing gate control structure
and any other improvements which are located in the proposed right-of-way.
7. If improvements are phased, common area improvements, required landscaping and gates,
and relocation of existing improvements out of the proposed right-of-way shall be
constructed or secured prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the first
stage unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
The City Engineer may consider proposals by the applicant to stage the installation of off -
site and common improvements with development of two or more phases of the
development.
8. 'The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for required
improvements which are deferred for future consideration.
CONAPRVL.104
conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
Deferred improvements for this project include:
A. Median landscaping and irrigation improvements on Madison Street. The applicant
shall be responsible for one half of the cost to design and construct the improvements.
The improvements shall coincide with construction of the Madison Street median
adjacent to this property.
B. Landscape and irrigation improvements behind the future curb and in the setback area
along Madison Street and relocation of existing improvements to or behind the required
landscape setback line. The applicant is responsible for the full cost to design and
construct the improvements. The improvements shall be constructed when Madison
Street is improved or when Phase II of this development is constructed, whichever
occurs first.
DEDICATIONS:
9. The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with
the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans and as required by the
City Engineer. All right-of-ways shall be dedicated or deeded to the City within 180 days
of approval of this Public Use Permit.
Fight -of -way dedications required of this project include:
A. Madison Street - 55-foot half width and as necessary for dedicated right turn lane(s).
Street right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with ]riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
10. The applicant shall dedicate common area setback lots of minimum width as noted, adjacent
to the following street rights -of -way:
A. Madison Street - 20-feet
Minimum widths may be used as average widths for meandering wall designs.
Where sidewalks, bikepaths, and/or equestrian trails are required, the applicant shall
dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots for those purposes.
11. The applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to the following streets from lots abutting
the streets:
CONAPRVL.104
conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
A. Madison Street
Access to these streets shall be restricted to and approved access drives and approved
emergency access locations.
12. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures, public transit turnouts, park lands, drainage basins, common areas,and
mailbox clusters.
13. The applicant 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 any
final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved
by the City Engineer.
]BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN:
14. The requirement of the City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be met concerning all
supplemental accessory facilities.
15. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be
designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be
installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development
Department.
The applicant shall submit plans for path lighting and street lighting along roads, if any, for
review and approval by the Planning and Development Department.
All privately maintained street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical
plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval.
16. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the
structure. All ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from
methods approved by the Planning and Development Department.
17. Exterior noise levels produced by this project, including but not limited to any outdoor
public address system, shall not exceed 45 db(A) between the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 7:00
A.M. and 65 db(A) at all other times as measured at any residential, hospital, school,
library, nursing home or other similar noise sensitive land use. In the event noise exceeds
this standard, the permittee shall take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, which
may include discontinued operation of the facilities.
18. All development approved by this public use permit shall comply with the development
standards of the R-1 Zoning requirements.
CONAPRVL.104 4
conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
19. The permittee shall comply with all of the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water
District as contained in their letter dated August 6, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
GRADING:
20. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit
and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.10, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall
furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee
compliance with the provisions of the permit.
21. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent dust and
blowsand nuisances and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other
wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development
Department and Public Works Department.
22. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
23. A geological and soils engineering investigation shall be performed. The investigation for
the entire site may be submitted with the site grading plan or individual investigations may
be performed only for building sites and be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
24. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. The plan must meet the
approval of the City Engineer prior to approval of any final map(s).
The grading plan shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering
geologist.
Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall state the
pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify
the difference, if any.
DRAINAGE:
25. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to
flow out of the project through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage
relief route. The project shall be graded to receive storm flow from adjoining property at
locations that have historically received flow.
CONAPRVL.104
conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
26. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours during a 100 year storm shall be retained on site.
The tributary drainage area for which the applicant is responsible shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets.
27. In design of retention facilities, the percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless
the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
A, trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by the City Engineer shall be
installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leachfield shall be sized to
percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is in one or more common
retention basins, the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
28. The design of the project shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or
frequencies in any area outside the project.
UTILITIES:
29. All existing and proposed utilities adjacent to or within the proposed development shall be
installed underground. High voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept
underground are exempt from this requirement.
30. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be
installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer.
31. The existing water line within the boundary of the property shall be abandoned in
accordance with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS:
32. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the
program is in effect 60-days prior to issuance of Phase I building perinits for this
development, the development shall be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
if this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall design and construct street improvements as listed below.
33. The interior roads in this development are private drives and will be unavailable to vehicles
of unescorted visitors and students. Access for visitors, students, and other unescorted
vehicles shall be restricted to the parking lot in the northeast corner of the development.
CONAPRVL.104 6
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
No parking facilities except for service vehicles, will be constructed at the school site in the
southwest corner of the development. The applicant shall provide shuttle service between
the school site and the parking lot in the northeast comer.
34. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by a
registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the
City Engineer.
Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life
and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement
sections shall be as follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
35. The following street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan
si:reet type noted in parentheses:
A. On -Site Streets
1. Two-way road sections to be 30-feet wide unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. All traffic carrying facilities shall meet the approval of the City
Engineer.
2. Fire Department emergency access gates at northeast and southeast corners of the
property shall be located at or behind the required landscape setback line.
36. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Main Entry Drive (center of property) - right-in/right-out only. The entry gate shall
be recessed into the property to provide sufficient vehicle stacking space. The design
shall allow for rejected vehicles to U-turn between the guardhouse or card reader and
the gate.
13. Secondary Entry Drive (north end of property) - right-in/right-out only.
C. Fire Department emergency access gates at the north and south ends of the property -
right-in/right-out only, gated with gates placed at or behind the required landscape
setback line.
CONAPRVL.104
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
LANDSCAPING:
37. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the following
streets:
A. Madison Street: the applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the
perimeter landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or
spray irrigation within 5-feet of street curb.
38. The existing trees on the site s'nall be incorporated into the landscape plan wherever
feasible. A tree retention plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department staff as part of the final landscape plan and prior to any site grading.
39. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide
visual screening of above ground utility structures.
FIRE MARSHAL:
40. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, who may approve
alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards:
A. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1000 gpm for a two
hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
B. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 21/2 X 21/2) will
be located not less than 25-feet or more than 165-feet from any portion of the
building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow
shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
C:. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall furnish one
blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval.
Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall
rneet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil
engineer and local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
D. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational
prior to the start of construction.
CONAI?RVI.104 8
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
E. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Light Hazard Occupancy. The
post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front within
50-feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25-feet from the building.
F. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a
plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at
the job site for all inspections.
G. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building
Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association
Standard 71.
H. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code.
I. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AIOBC
in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of
equipment.
J. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers,
guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled
access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box override system capable
of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles.
Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power
operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width
shall be 16-feet with a minimum vertical clearance of 15-feet.
K. Provide two emergency exits along Madison Street.
L. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
M. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed.
N. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
QUALITY ASSURANCE:
41. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality assurance program for privately funded
cons -:ruction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction of
the improvements required of this project, the applicant shall fully comply with the quality
assurance program.
CONAPRVL.104 9
Conditions of Approval
Public: Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
If' the quality assurance program has not been adopted, the applicant shall employ
construction quality assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer.
42. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and
sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved plans,
specifications, and applicable codes.
43. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for the plan checks and permits.
MISCELLANEOUS:
44. Grading, drainage, street lighting, landscaping, and irrigation, park, gate, and perimeter
wall plans are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City
Engineer.
45. No signs are approved pursuant to this public use permit. Prior to the installation of any
on -site advertising or directional signs, a signing plan shall be submitted for approval of the
Planning and Development Department pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 9.212, Sign
Regulations.
46. No outdoor advertising display, sign or billboard (not including on -site advertising or
directional signs) shall be constructed or maintained within the property subject to this
permit. Any existing outdoor advertising display, sign or billboard existing within the
property subject to this permit shall be removed PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING
INSPECTION APPROVAL.
47. The project landscaping and irrigation plans shall incorporate the following features:
A. Art School - Phase II of Phase I area: planters shall be constructed along the southeast
interior walls to accommodate a planting of shrubs.
13. Phase II - Art Gallery: Landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for review
at the time of plot plan submittal for architectural approval.
48. This property is located within the Coachella Valley and all landscape planting shall comply
with the requirements of the State Agriculture Code and the directives of the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioner. All landscaping plans submitted to the Planning and
CONAPRVL.104 10
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 93-016
September 14, 1993
Development Department shall include the following notation: "WARNING: Plant
material listed may or may not have been approved by the Agricultural Commissioner's
office. Landscape contractor, please contact the developer for status of Agricultural
Commissioner's approval or denial. Plant material not conforming with quarantine laws
may be destroyed and civil action taken. All plant material is subject to inspection at the
discretion of the Agricultural Commissioner's office. All plant material must be free from
Red Scale (Aonidiella aurantii)."
49. A. minimum of 54 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 9.160-Off-
Street Parking Ordinance as shown on Exhibit A -Revised. A minimum of two handicapped
parking spaces shall be provided. Five spaces shall be provided at the Art School site.
PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL, the parking and driveway
areas shall be surfaces with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of three inches
over adequate base material or as otherwise approved by the Department of Building and
Safety upon recommendation of a registered civil engineer. Concrete surfacing installed
with a minimum thickness of 31/2 inches with expansion joints may be substituted for
asphaltic concrete paving. Interior driveways with an inverted section shall include a
concrete ribbon gutter.
50. A, maximum of 10 parking spaces may be sized for compact cars (81/2' X 16') and PRIOR
TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL shall be clearly marked "COMPACT
CARS ONLY".
CONAPRVL.104 11
BI #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 24, 1993)
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23913 (QUINTERRA) - PHASE 2;
APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-505 (MODEL HOMES)
APPLICANT: FORECAST HOMES
REPRESENTATIVE: TODD SCHERMERHORN, PROJECT MANAGER
BRUCE STRICKLAND, V. P. OF LAND ACQUISITION
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF MILES AVENUE, EAST OF ADAMS STREET
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW - AUGUST 249 1993:
On August 24, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the Applicant's request to
develop 1,106 to 1, 659 square foot homes within Phase 2 of Tract 23913. Four of the
five commissioners were present to discuss the case. Although the case was not a
public hearing item, the Planning Commission allowed public comment on the project
because -there were about 70+ people in the audience who were present for this
matter. Various individuals from both the Quinterra Tract and surrounding tracts
stated they were opposed to the Forecast application because the units were not
consistent or in "harmony" with the general area. Discussion ensued regarding the
current economic market conditions and the loss of property values in the north La
Quinta area and/or southern California. Opponents felt lower priced units would
exacerbate their problem.
Mr. Strickland spoke regarding his housing project. He stated that his company has
done some minor modifications to their project since the Design Review Board
meeting. They have modified the color samples and slightly enlarged their house
square footage sizes. He stated that they are proposing their larger homes adjacent
to the Phase 1 homes per their agreement with the Design Review Board on August
4, 1993. Mr. Strickland stated that their homes are geared toward first time buyers,
families, single parents, or people who wish to "move -down" because they no longer
need a larger home (e. g. retired individuals) . His housing prices would vary
depending on the wishes and desires of the future buyers. He stated that his firm
is a quality home builder and that the construction quality of the Forecast Homes will
be similar to Phase 1.
STAFFRPT . 015
A few individuals spoke in favor of the project because they felt that first time home
buyers should not be eliminated from the local housing market if the developer
chooses to develop entry level housing. They felt first time home buyers are not bad
neighbors just because their units are smaller. It was stated that home buying is a
high risk venture and there are no guarantees in today's economic situation that a
buyer will receive a profit on his or her purchase. One speaker stated that land
prices have dropped by 50% in this area because of the economic downturn and most
of the raw vacant land is now controlled by lending institutions looking to sell their
holdings.
In summary, the Planning Commission voted to continue the meeting to September 14,
1993. However, at the study session on September 13, 1993, they would like to meet
with the developer and one representative from each of the surrounding tracts to
examine solutions and/or alternatives to this housing size issue.
BACKGROUND:
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. T::zree 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, the 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.
STAFFR:PT . 015
The architectural style is consistent with the mediterranean theme used in Phase 1,
however its unit size is smaller. 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 1 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
Conditions 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 (i.e.
$103, 000 to $130, 000+) . Fifty to eighty percent of their homes are sold to first time
home buyers. 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 model 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 3
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; size 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 4
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 establish: ng 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, 959 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) . 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 to 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. Ccntinue the matter for further study.
2. By Minute Motion deny the request. This action keeps in place the size and
unit type currently approved for the development.
3. Require larger house sizes than proposed.
STAFFRPT . 015 5
4. Change the buffering requirements along the existing units and the
developments perimeter.
5. Approve the project as recommended by the Design Review Board.
6. Any combination of options 3, 4, & 5.
Draft Conditions of Approval are :provided for your consideration.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Housing Tract Survey
3. Phase 1 Housing Survey
4. Petition Summary
5. Newspaper Article
6. Letter of Protest (Sample)
7. Letters from Best, Best & Krieger
8. Exhibit A ( Conditions of Approval)
STAFFRPT . 015 6
--
oi5`co `a¢
NMOONnsW
O O¢NNGCG 2
Z`H»»
IM s !�
0
A'n Caw
Cc,VVV U
O�w
c�
�Ntne.n eDA
C C
a0 01111 0p FP
CI
e
Id aV
80
l L
O�
OOvn m
i C
N pow
AT
It
.. —'I- VW. MONTE
iJJIfYY
V
0.1
y
Vl I Ni V v
IS I z J
Witld i"d10
10 11W iTTTTV3 3530 i . +�
O �
P
13 tlSig353 s Q .� v
20 C)
S
ct
�N no SQod�
O¢YOry
0 DR =o opt aQaaa
is swYOV
GD
�YAaCOy,
Z00
d
tl0 `�., z
7PflA y T a
;v' f ;
r
y d
G,.
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW BOARD
FROM: PLANNING &c 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 surrounding 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)
Rancho Ocotillo - TTM 24517
1,700 to 2,550 sq. ft
(N/A)
Acacia Homes - TTM 23268
1,400 to 2,200 sq. ft.
($147,990 to $189,990)
La Quinta Del Rey - TT 23269
1,006 to 1,732 sq. ft.
Century 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)
La Quinta
del Oro
- 2,700
to 3,400 sq.
ft.
($250,000
to $270,000)
La Quinta
Vistas
- 2,000
to 2,400 so.
ft.
($175,000
to $210,000)
1
4J 4-) 4J
rt
N M M
N
i
to
t- tG 0)
b
O M to
4J
m
w w w
Q
N N N
J
O
O
S
t i t
r—
4J
Q OG U
•r
C--
- )
CL
A
� i
_�� � O( I u1 .e .: -. at Sf J. � ♦ .6 �111�7
a�z ® e
(`\ • r ® rill a
I T• Cc ,I C� w � U j
v'�i o Q p• O. r
w QNOS, DRIVE'
LO S 1 ES s. Of ;• 't o
� D
' •C p � ® 0
CS �J
E`�8• a• �® h IL _ � os
i ors � r G
G\ r,
• d Tn 59 7 �
0 t£
w
a 0,0
I A O°f 0
s �C
OS:
ye
'
e �
O. O
Q Q
I.-
W
p
Y V/7ViV
ry tr
U Q
,4•
O fP c
n �Q
Q
V 7O11Y01
I
I
m nl o O
T OE
m
�f
1CITY OF LA Q UINTA
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1993
SUBJECT: PETITION SUMMARY (FORECAST HOMES) - PLOT PLAN 93-505
PROJECT LOCATION
LETTERS RECEIVED
Quinterra (Phase I)*
18 (18)
Rancho Ocotillo*
27 (52)
Cactus Flower North
South*
44 (134)
0 (15)
Topaz*
11 (45)
Acacia
14 (98)
=. Quin' -a Del Oro*
32 (32)
Starlight Dunes*
**1 (47)
La Quin'i Vistas*
34 (53)
TOTAL
181*** (264)
() = Existing homes within the tract.
* = Tract with remaining undeveloped single family lots.
** = Letter from Homeowners Association.
*** = Total number represents a vote from an individual household or home address.
MEMOGT.049 1
r MOM HABERMAN
is Desert Sun
LA QUINTA -- Homeowners are
mtesting a developer's plans to
)mplete the Quinterra subdivision
ith much smaller houses than
kose already built.
They complain that a change in
le original plans might lower the
klue of their homes and affect the
rerall look of their neighborhood.
"It was represented as a fairly
ce development," Quinterra
Imeowner Jim Hanson said. "Now
e think that they're trying to come
here with homes that may be less
an $100,000."
He paid $200,000 for his home in
ecember, he said.
A vice president with developer
precast Homes of Rancho Cuca-
onga said the company is planning
build homes in the low s100,000s,
med mainly at young families.
"That meets market demand,"
ce president Bruce Strickland
id.
The homeowners plan to present
1itions to the Planning Commis-
)n at 7 p.m. on Aug. 24.
Only 18 homes have been built in
linterra so far. The subdivision
mains 116 lots.
ert Sun Newspaper
ust 17, 1993
WORRIED: Jim Hanson of La Quinta 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 proposing 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-
son arguld.
Quinterra plans
WHAT: La Quinta Planning Com-
mission discusses Forecast
Homes' proposal for Quinterra
subdivision.
WHEN: 7 p.m. Aug. 24.
WHERE City Council 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 Sal
DORSEY PRICE nl/Ttie 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, Planning Direc-
tor Jerry Herman said.
R ?I.
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. Herman:
�.� .. AUG 16 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 property 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 DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING LOTS SHOULD BE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND
PRICE TO THE HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
I urge you and the Planning Commission to DENY Forecast Homes
request to complete phase 2 until they submit plans that are in
beeping with existing properties. Doing so will help protect our
investments and keep La Quinta a more uniformly planned community.
Very truly yours, a concern homeowner. c
Homeowner
Address
4<20006
so
;O)AH (Owner within Phase 1)
BEST, BEST
& KRIEGER
A PARTNEM-P e4Cw01N0 P$ O MSKXIIX WR.OWATIONA
LAWYERS
ARTHUR L. LITTLEWORTH"
DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS-
ELISE K. TRAYNUM
CYNTHIA M GERMANO
GLEN E. STEPHENS*
ANTONIA GRAPHOS
WILLIAM D OAHLING. JR.
MARY E GILSTRAP
WILLIAM R DeWOLFE-
GREGORY K. WILKINSON
MATT H MORRIS
GLENN P SABINE
BAR70N C GAUT•
WYNNE S FURTH
JEFFREY V DUNN
CHRISTINE L RICHARDSON
PAUL T SELZER-
DAVID L. BARON
STEVEN C DeBAUN
JOANE GARCIA-COLSON
DALLAS HOLMES*
GENE TANAKA
ERIC L. GARNER
PHILIP J KOEHLER
CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER-
BASIL T CHAPMAN
DENNIS M COTA
DIANE C WIESE
RICHARD T ANDERSON*
TIMOTHY M. CONNOR
RACHELLE J NICOLLE
REBECCA MARES DURNEY
JOHN D WAHLIN"
VICTOR L WOLF
ROBERT W. HARGREAVES
DOROTHY I. ANDERSON
MICHAEL D HARRIS'•
DANIEL E. OLIVIER
JANICE L WEIS
G. HENRY WELLES
W CURT EALY"
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 D DABAREINER
BARBARA R BARON
MICHAEL T. RIDDELL"
MARC E. EMPEY
KYLE A. SNOW
RICHARD T. EGGER
MEREDITH A JURY-
JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER
MARK A EASTER
PATRICK D. DOLAN
MICHAEL GRANT-
MARTIN A MUELLER
DIANE L. FINLEY
DEAN R. DERLETH
FRANCIS J BAUM"
J MICHAEL SUMMEROUR
MICHELLE OUELLETTE
HELENE P. DREYER
ANNE T. THOMAS'
VICTORIA N. KING
DAVID P. PHIPPEN, SR.
EMILY P. HEMPHILL
D MARTIN NETHER"
JEFFERY J. CRANDALL
SUSAN C NAUSS
SONIA RUBIO SHARMA
GEORGE M REYES
SCOTT C SMITH
CHRISTOPHER DODSON
JOHN O. PINKNEY
WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR.
JACK B CLARKE, JR.
BERNIE L WILLIAMSON
GREGORY L HARDKE
BRIAN M LEWIS
ELAINE E. HILL
KENDALL H M&cVEY
BRADLEY E. NEUFELD
KEVIN K. RANDOLPH
CLARK H. ALSOP"
SHARYL WALKER
JAMES B GILPIN
RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957)
DAVID J ERWIN•
PETER M BARMACK
MARSHALL S RUDOLPH
JAMES H KRIEGER (1913-1975)
MICHAEL J ANDELSON"
JEANNETTE A PETERSON
KIM A BYRE NS
EUGE NE BEST (1893.1981)
"A PROPEBSONAL CORPORATION
September 9, 1993
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
P. D. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
SUITE 312
39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE
POST OFFICE BOX 1555
RANCHO MIRAGE. CAUFORNIA 92270
TELEPHONE (619) 568-2611
TELECOM ER (619) 340-6698
OF COUNSEL
JAMES B CORISON
OFFICES IN
RIVERSIDE (909) 686-1450
PALM SPRINGS (619)325-7264
ONTARIO (909) 989-8584
�iC+'flL_�Ci•W.a:. 17: ra:!. _^rJ'� __ _.x -•,,-. � _..
L! til fit
SEP 1 0 1993 1
Re: Plot Plan 93-505: Approval of Forecast Homes'
Proposed Models for the Quinterra Subdivision
Dear Commission Members:
As you may remember, this lawfirm represents a number of the
homeowners in the Quinterra and surrounding subdivisions with
respect to Forecast Homes' request for approval to build smaller
homes. In a letter to this Commission dated August 19, 1993, we
presented the homeowners' concerns that approval of the smaller
homes would significantly reduce the value of existing homes. We
requested that the Forecast proposal not be approved and that the
City of La Quinta take appropriate legislative steps to insure that
other similarly -situated neighborhoods be preserved against efforts
by developers to make quick profits by building homes that do not
maintain the quality of the subdivisions as initially planned and
approved. For your reference, we have attached a copy of the
August 19 letter.
We are writing this letter to address a few concerns that have
arisen since the original letter.
First, it has come to our attention that proponents of the
Forecast proposal may argue that Government Code Section 65589.5
prevents the City from denying the proposal. Section 65589.5 has
been characterized as an "anti-NIMBY" law. The Section prohibits
H40917
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
September 9, 1993
Page 3
enhance the neighborhood; is not consistent with the neighborhood's
harmonious development; and, is not compatible with present and
future logical development of the area. Therefore, the Forecast
proposal does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code.
Once again, we respectfully request that the Planning
Commission seriously consider the long-range deleterious effect of
the Forecast proposal. We are confident that the City will
conclude, as we have, that the Forecast proposal is not in the best
interest of Quinterra and surrounding neighborhoods or of the City
as a whole.
Very truly yours,
c3.
wDv_�
DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS
of BEST, BEST & KRIEGER
DSP:RWH:js
Enc.
cc: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney
City of La Quinta:
Mayor John Pena
Mayor Pro Tem Stanley Sniff
Councilwoman Glenda Bangerter
Councilman Ron Perkins
Councilman Michael McCartney
Client
60917
BEST, BEST
& KRIEGER
A PARTM RBNV NOymINO PROFE101ONK O0RPORATK3N,
LAWYERS
AR THUR L LITTLEWORTH•
DOUGLAS S. PHIWPS•
EUSE K TRAYNUM
CYNTHIA M. GERMANO
SUITE 912
GLEN E STEPHEN3•
ANTONIA GRAPHOS
WILLIAM O DAHLING, JR.
MARY E. GILSTRAP
WILLIAM R. DOWOLFE•
GREGORY K WILKINSON
MATT H MORRIS
GLENN P. SABINE
39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE
BARTON C GAUT•
WYNNE S FURTH
JEFFREY V DUNN
CHRISTINE L. RICHARDSON
POST OFFICE BOX 1555
PAUL T SELZER•
DALLAS HOLMES•
DAVID L. BARON
GENE TANAKA
STEVEN C DOBAUN
ERIC L GARNER
JOANE GARCIA-COLSON
PHILIP J. KOEHLER
RANCHO MIRAGE. CAUFORNIA 92270
CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTEP.•
BASIL T CHAPMAN
DENNIS M COTA
DIANE C. WIESE
TELEPHONE (619) SW-2611
RICHARD T. ANDERSON•
JOHN O WAHLIN•
TIMOTHY M CONNOR
VICTOR L. WOLF
RACHELLE J. NICOLLE
ROBERT W. HARGREAVES
REBECCA MARES OURNEY
DOROTHY L ANDERSON
TELECOPIER (6197 340-6698
MICHAEL D HARRIS•
DANIEL E. OLIVIER
JANICE L WEIS
G. HENRY WELLES
W CURT EALY•
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 D DASAREINER
BARBARA R. BARON
MICHAEL T RIDDELL•
MARC E EMPEY
KYLE A SNOW
RICHARD T. EGGER
ME REDITH A JURY'
JOHN R ROTTSCHAEFER
MARK A EASTER
PATRICK D. DOLAN
OF COUNSEL
MICHAEL GRANT'
MARTIN A MUELLER
DIANE L F INLEY
DEAN R. DERLETH
JAMES B. CORISON
FRANCIS J BAUM•
J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR
MICHELLE OUELLETTE
HELENE P. DREYER
ANNE 7 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
CHRIST OPHER DODSON
JOHN O. PINKNEY
WIL LIAM W FLOYD, JR.
JACK 8 CLARKE, JR.
BERNIE L WILLIAMSON
GREGORY L HARDKE
BRIAN M LEWIS
ELAINE E. HILL
OFFICES IN
KENDALL H MacVEY
CLARK H ALSOP•
BRADLEY E NEUFELO
SHARYL WALKER
KEVIN K RANDOLPH
JAMES 8 GILPIN
RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957)
RIVERSIDE (909) 686-I450
DAVID J ERWIN•
PETER M BARMACK
MARSHAL S RUDOLPH
JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913-1975)
PALM SPRINGS (619)325-7264
MICHAEL J. ANDELS0I11•
JEANNETTE A. PETERSON
KIM A BYRE NS
EUGENE BEST (1893-1981)
ONTARIO (909) 989-8584
• A PROF EMIONAL CORPORATK)N
August 19, 1993
s -
Planning Commission AUG 19 1993
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico t`
P. O. Box 1504 r
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 subdivision (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-
96
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 §
9.183.020(A).) Plot plan approval requires that the plot plan
"conform to the logical development of the land and to be
96
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 § 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, Forecast's 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
96
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
06
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 93-505 (FORECAST)
September 14, 1993
1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the street side yard of corner lots,
shall be landscaped to property line, edge of curb, sidewalk, or edge of street
pavement, whichever is furthest from the residence.
2. The landscaping for each lot shall include trees (minimum two 24" box size
trees on interior lots and five 24" box size trees on corner lots), minimum five
gallon shrubs, and groundcover and/or hardscape of sufficient size, spacing
and variety to create an attractive and unifying appearance. Landscaping
shall be in substantial compliance with the standards set forth in the Manual
on Architectural Standards and the Manual on Landscaping Standards as
adopted by the Planning Commission.
3. A permanent water -efficient irrigation system shall be provided for all areas
required to be landscaped. The provisions of Ordinance #220 shall be met.
The final landscape plan should be reviewed by the City, the Coachella Valley
Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commission.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition by the property owner.
5. The standards of the R-1 Zoning shall be met (e.g. setbacks, etc.) .
6. If the model homes are converted to sales offices (e.g. converted garages,
etc.) as part of the marketing program for the tract, the Applicant shall file
with staff a floor plan or letter of intent detailing the work to be done. A cash
bond or another type of security should be posted to ensure that the home (s )
is reconverted prior to its sale and/or occupancy.
A Plot Plan of the tract showing setbacks shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department for approval. The units shall be plotted so that
the largest units are adjacent to the existing homes. House plans 4, 5, and
6 shall be used on Lots 6, 7, 74 thru 80, 102 thru 104, 114, and 115. Lots 99
and 101 shall have a Plan E house and Lots 100 and 116 shall have a Plan 5
house. Three car garages should be encouraged on Lots 99, 100, and 101.
A Plan 5 or 6 house (with 3 car garage) shall be built on Lot 2.
8. If a temporary Real Estate tract office is located within the subdivision the
maximum installation period should not exceed the sale of the units and/or two
years. A plot plan application is required.
9. The concrete roof tile in Phase 2 shall be similar in color to Phase I. The
Ap alicant's gray roof tile shall only be used on lots north of the lots identified
in Condition V .
CONAPRVL.005
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 to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning &
Development.
CONAPRVL.005 2
BI #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
CASE NO.: STREET NAME CHANGE 93-003
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA GOLF PROPERTIES
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO SET A PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER A STREET NAME CHANGE FROM
SCHWABACKER ROAD TO QUARRY LANE.
LOCATION: TRACT 27728 (THE QUARRY)
BACKGROUND:
As required by Municipal Code Section 14.080.050 staff has prepared a Resolution of Intention
to consider a street name change as requested by the applicant. The applicant is requesting that
Schwabacker Road which is the entry into "The Quarry" be changed to Quarry Road. Attached
is a map which shows the location of this road. This street in the past has also been known as
Keller Pit Road. However, the official name is Schwabacker Road.
The Resolution of Intention sets October 26, 1993, for a public hearing for the Planning
Commission to consider the street name change. The action on October 26th, will be a
recommendation to the City Council who will make the final determination.
RECOMMENDATION:
By adoption of Resolution 93- , move to adopt Resolution of Intention setting October 26,
1993, for a public hearing to consider the street name change.
Attachments:
1. Street location map.
2. Letter from applicant dated May 26, 1993 requesting the change of the street name.
3. Resolution of Intention
PCST.144 1
a�H
LS
NOSdr3d�3�
/
� �
4� ••
••
st stt
Q
As»
? FAMMO
r 7
ti
b
.►s
ZI
ti
Y.
It
V
c�i b
of
w
a
O
CASE MAP
CAW Na
GPA 93-043 CZ 93-075 CUP 93-005
PM 27727 TT 27728 SV 93-025
LOCATION MAP
LAKE
-••2I
r,
NORTH
SCALE:
NTS Uj
CORPORATE OFFICES
2635 TOWNSGATE ROAD
SUITE 104
WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361
PHONE (805) 371-8700 FAX (605) 371-6706
May 25, 1993
FU
r(fn MAY 2 7
�w.ap..cw-ann�.
P1AlVNl�a^ sF�FTF,,kNT
Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning & Development Director
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Re: The Quarry at La Quinta
Dear Mr. Herman:
As you are aware, La Quinta Golf Properties, Inc. is in the
process of constructing the above referenced golf course and
single family homes. It is our desire to change the name of the
access road to this development from Schwabaker (as per the
enclosed detail map) to Quarry Lane, our first choice, or Quarry
Drive. Your assistance or direction with this request will be
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
William M. Morrow
WMM:ps
Enc.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, INDICATING THEIR
INTENT TO CONSIDER A CHANGE IN THE STREET NAME
SCHWABACKER ROAD TO QUARRY LANE AND TO SET
OCTOBER 26, 1993, AS A DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
CASE NO. STREET NAME CHANGE 93-003 - LA QUINTA GOLF PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 14th day of September, 1993, in accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code did state, at the request of La Quinta Golf Properties, their intent to consider
a change in the street name Schwabacker Road to Quarry Lane located in Tract 27728; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California at the
same meeting did set October 26, 1993, as a Public Hearing date on the above matter, in
accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta as follows:
1. That the Planning Commission has followed the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal
Code, Chapter 14.08 pertaining to Street Name Changes.
2. That the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Resolution of Intention to consider
changing the street name Schwabacker Road to Quarry Lane.
3. That October 26, 1993, is hereby set as a Public Hearing for Street Name Change 93-
003.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held this 14th day of September, 1993, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RESOPC.118
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
TERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.118
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 1993
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR COACHELLA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT PROJECTS.
As requinA- by Section 65401 of the State Government Code, the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD) has submitted the attached projects to the City of La Quinta. This is to
determine that the proposed public improvement projects by the CVWD are in compliance with
the La Quinta General Plan. The projects consist primarily of domestic water projects.
Additionally there are storm water, sanitation, and irrigation projects proposed. The
Engineering Department has reviewed this list and has noted that Domestic Water Project #1 and
#15 have been completed.
The projects proposed will provide increased and better water and sewer service to the citizens
of La Quinta and surrounding areas as is the goal of the La Quinta General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 93- , move to find that the proposed CVWD projects are in compliance
with the La Quinta General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Letter from CVWD dated June 23, 1993.
PCST.143 1
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX io58 o COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2851
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN Mc000K ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M DELAY June 23, 1993 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH
J U L 02 1993 r�
I'
City of La Quinta
Planning Commission
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of Section 65401 of the Government Code, this
district hereby advises your agency that it proposes the following projects in
your jurisdiction:
Irrigation
1. La Quinta Pumpback System, Drawing No. 1.
Domestic Water
1. Tampico Transmission Main, Drawing No. 2.
2. La Quinta Main Replacements, Phases 4A, 4B and 4C, Drawing Nos. 3 and 4.
3. La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 5, Drawing 5.
4. La Quinta Golf Estates Main Replacements, Phase 2, Drawing No. 6.
5. Martinez, Villa, Navarro and Montezuma Main Replacements, Drawing No. 7.
6. San Vincente Street Main Replacement, Drawing No. 8.
7. Well 6703 (Brock) and Pumping Plant, Drawing No. 9.
8. PGA West Zone Reservoir Site, no map.
9. Reservoir Site Purchases, no map.
10. La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 6, Drawing No. 10.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
City of La Quinta -2- June 23, 1993
11. La Quinta/Nairobi Zone Intertie, Drawing No. 11.
12. Cahuilla Zone Reservoir Transmission Main, Drawing No. 12.
13. Cahuilla Zone Reservoir, Drawing No. 12.
14. Upper La Quinta Zone Reservoir, Drawing No. 13.
15. La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 5D, Drawing No. 14.
16. Middle La Quinta Zone Reservoir, Drawing No. 15.
17. Lower La Quinta Zone Reservoir, Drawing No. 16.
Stormwater
1. Westward Ho Country Club, 1300' East of Jefferson Street to Dune Palms
Road, Drawing No. 17.
Sanitation
1. Washington Street Force Main No. 2, Drawing No. 1S.
2. Jefferson Street Lift Station, Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Drawing
No. 19.
3. Lift Station 55-06 (PGA West) and Lift Station 55-10 (Avenue 52) Odor
Scrubber, Drawing No. 20.
4. WRP4, Phase 2 Force Main, Drawing No. 21.
The projects are included in the budget and the capital improvement program.
The capital improvement program reflects our proposed activities over the next
three to five years.
Enclosed are maps indicating the locations of the proposed projects. After the
completion of your review, please forward this information to your public works
department so our work can be planned and coordinated with your proposed
projects.
If you have any questions please call Dale Bohnenberger, director of
engineering, extension 262.
BP:sv/e4/cityla
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chie7Eneer
Enclosures/as
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1
I ( ! I
I 1 1 Q 1 I I
1 ! 1 I
f1 I ;� I r� •-•• 1
1 � �• 1 1 -. i 1 �:}� 1 �•� 1
1 • 1 � -..�.. .!*?vim` ��„+•�-..ni �;•�-�� '• � �i�`..� 0 w
-�-__ems ..-a-.�-.� 1 �®^ � ..a{i't• ', .:•�.i_~ �i< 1 t
1 � � 1 I ��'• :"��� ( rr I ''•'�}. iris{•'• i'.t!!`ar •i • �.,, w
I DIM
14
FIN
IF
nP
Nil
ez-
°�•{`� �.m.i.'.:+�rlftwlV®..e....s-�_.}--�_--.�. R.-.+: .ice'. :� �� 1
t E 1 it1
J. NtLU' MNSrM
.{--......-....-----_«.-t-----------+----- 1 1
ii i 1 1
tie
s �� .: • t r• •_ I 1
1 • 1 1 1
•
I I t 1
1 1 1
1 I {
t ! 1
1 ! 1
j � 1
1
-------•----1-------..--
sum
.J
411.:.',, r40w-ar.A
1 1
1
• 1 i
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 i
1 1
1
1 ,
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
a 1
1
11 1
• .r{ , 1 �, 1
19
i ! i
•rr�prw j t. J
• J• 1 .. :• r i • 4�
1 � .�� t • . ri i• �i �
u e, Mi
t old
1
{ 1
1 = { I V
------------
Q I 1 d I !
oa rw i I
is
.*Mir r,rT
Ij
tut
Ij
00
♦ r
imam
u 1 I I , •ter � ��� •4� �w- ,�"� ;•\�.� �
._'-T------•�-- � i bl r, -. 1 - -[� egg„ � , ,� .� 6 7 ,� �•� f .)
w .r 1 �i ( .rru4 I ' • eiiemro w
rm
.. v .�,• jig — o -... — .. s .�.,. a ..._ ._ W.W.
ri i+• ( f'r _ ^• I
•„ � 1 1
N:'
SWR � D Olf bD
ARE.. ... -
/� r a r ..
....
1 :..-•,�l�F� .. - ice. -� Ott. iit)t1 Yf.
V
•-
c
8
i
/1
/ � 1
� s!
1 1!
1 1
1 ,
1 ,
1 i
1 1
1
1
I
i t .
1 1
1 1
1 i
1 ,
1 ^.
1 i`4- I '
1 °
i i Z I i
1
--4------ ------_a1�..._ 1
1 , I
i
• 4t
io
II
•� -•:fit
W 1
t
,
WV
� I
O
cc
M I
-
kt�l�llNrilq
An
C% o
1
I
� �
U
B
1
t
1 _
A
1 ;
1 1
1 i
.1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
m
N
O
e
—.
r
I ' .
� jr
+,------ - _-+---•-
I 1 1
1 ,
, 1
1 ,
1 ,
I
1
I ;
1 ,
1 ,
1
1 ;
1 ,
1
I
C
i I .I r4 !�� % y ♦%
TIP
al 1 I
on
cc
A AP
• . to
T-----�:'— •��. o '''Z•�--� _ .,,jam_ �; ,� ; �,. :► � CCC�e: .
- - � -t--- --_ •-_^�•— -- --- an. tfitww tool.'
1
+s
am
•��•� �� / e t� r„J I � I
,�. - .f______-----T---------- -+ a------
.� I
ArAPivw
AN
1 I I I
f • I 1 1
i 1
•apwa ' 1 1� , 1 1 1
� 1 a�-
i 1 ' n
!� 1
1 ill n n' i i
fill 7,1
jjdwp
1 1 t
i
qw
1 I t tUJ I
till
t
d.' 1 '►' '" 1 e iO I i
or
i1whe�: �•s.
Pd
III I;. ,�.• :;' , sit I I I • } - ^ I ; �� nib i :.� 6
mom
go
Ar
91
U 1 I f 'iie 'ice it � �!att w �►-
o _
I
F' �6111R•-'''i.
•�; R s
M
-,._ � ��--- �♦ ease �
jjesosjssoon
j
1 ,
1 ,
1
i a
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 �
1 ,
1 1
1 ,
I i
1 ,
1
1 1 I 1 0
1 � I
• I i 1 .,1
I I 1 I M
1 1 1 1 t
i
—
I 1 1 � I r� "-• t
:�� t; t .ram'. f r=`y;'� � •�,.3 � 1
jI t fie` I '.� Y ' :.. tip'. '!a"'=d -e. e®e..�•.. .. ,ewe,$.
I � 1 i (� °)-far ( !•,. '''•�,.. _Erg-_� : •_ 1 �
3I 1 ! L3511C
I 1 4 0 1 •I , »� •' 1 1
van
Vb
:y
-" _w-----+-- r...:-.. 1 _ __ , s .� �wl ■Tye ': i
ua•s,�t. � s .,. + .,. .. .ems M�..eae.`�Cl�. Re :. w a .�
O
t :.j
, t h• �� t+w 1 1 I
t ILl
—T—
t 1 ,• ® I
1 1 1 1 1
e 1
1` -� t .., 1„ r I
_ I
I 1 I
1 1
I � I
1 1 I 1
1
7 t I
1
1• 1
LA** i QUINTA '
••_e .._ .es_ saroo o.s®L -----------
LAt
1 r a.r . � t � •�h ' ', 1
1 �
1 1 1
i
1
LA
' QUINTA 1 1 1
1 1
!LA QUI
• • • .. . 1 s.-: . K-.� � ° • •• ,/ram
1 Zvi i •'�
1 a
1 i 1
1 1 • °
I 1
' 1 ' .. �1 y 1 '• v .
••"�'_•�-••-_.._.,-.._,ems__ ____.....a.e ®mas®® L 1 '�~_
1 1 e♦__ss___
1 •� 1 1
a "r r 1
a
Mb .w.
n
frl
I
comma
t •d'J.o• a
91
.. 1 9 a we &
m "Iwo
Ell :ke-- --tit
o
1.40 om
RPM I.
I -rf *qC1, Mll 7- VE
Maw. 1 Wr I
1 II ••''
� � 1 •. 1 f� j S' 1 1
1 ISM 1 1 1 1 1
1 i••'. 1
Saw
1
w 1 ari 1 � 1 1 1
' !� 1 � 1 � ..�• _ ..tom 1 �
1 •.
e— •-y.»wwww»w»www. 1 1 1 1
w•swwowo------w»®Y.�I.aswrw»owsww.ajw
1 t 1
1 1
1 i
t 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 t
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 t t
sw 1 1
rl
MOP
w
lot
a �__.....' g $
\` e •p r .ram+ , — --
hill �
/te �.. �a 1 "■ s. logo 1 '� III I rr
1 � � 1 I �—--------—♦----- '--�-- m imp 1��
ts
Ets!ill, 1 1
1 1
19® ► onllw----® 1 j I i
MOSM
44
41
Ln
AL
me
1 � !
"---•,.-�•-- a-- i _ ._-.-..-....�. - _ _____-..--t----L°a+-----+-- -• -- --
bey 1 F ; �• '°""'■;
3 •1 • : �i 1♦1 � t 1 1 /���a:: }�
s.— 1 � �� •r y � •.h.
16gas
1 Farr
gem
, 1
Ml
1 s �� �eerr■ �..ee- a g....e.. q �;�--.. �; — ..—► IIQ
loan 1 1 • g
dil
F NJ
!Ch 1 1
sI
'
I �1
i
I I
I
I I
� i
I
I
1
I
V
15
� I
I
f
�
I
r�
1DNDt5V
i AM
I
1 �
' J
IFS
< VO
1
roavarw
0. T1w
of ww
'-t-w
i
i 1
i
I � j
�W
F
CAD
111`
f'S 1
C
a
fw
•ice., _, TP���E _.}�—_—e___.�—i�___�,
�t��T�•�' � • �:�1 i soap..
M Ovr
� Jr,
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
�
H
t
I
NOSX
1
1
41
w�
1lI
1
h
1
1
1
N
I
1
1
I
ao
1
t
t
I
f
It
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
t
I
1
1
I
'
,
�o
I I a.. 1 1
I
�� 1
i NOS%.7d CI i ' ,IS NOM1If
VAj {�
I I i 1 1 I W ON v
Lb
L ! t I 1 t ! •r
I , 1
1 I 1 t
t II I 1 t
'fur.—.» I
1 I II I 1 •I
.-.___i __•_____'•' ��.__________t_ e ___-•-+----------♦_--- wl• 1
$ 1S I 30ltNOW e111rJ_.
41
� � I
As
1 @ 1 //ma�yy 1 i. 1• �=•�'� � 1 1
1 ii "aP.Ta�r .'• I
, j � ' "' '••,�'�" _ :•? .• � `lam
Lj
� •
I I • . ;... �';:, :. Rom: ,;
I , : • : • fir;• •i•. J�► ,; 1
1 1 ' Ifi W.. 1 11
- is I � Nose3id3r . ` �, `"..; :�q,a,.___ '�f � �s. ;��'', t+m • t
1 I/II
PROJECT SITE
n u ■� --
1
N
ch
i
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
August 24, 1993 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows.
Commissioner Ellson led the flag salute.
H. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved and seconded a motion to excuse
Commissioner Adolph. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 25953, Extension #2; a request of Mr. & Mrs. Harold Hirsch for
approval of a one year extension of time.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened the public
hearing. Mr. Hirsch addressed the Commission regarding his desire to
build his project when the economy improves. They were progressing
with the final map and it should be completed soon.
3. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing. Commissioners Abels/Marrs moved to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 93-031 recommending approval of this second
PC8-24 1
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
extension of time for Tentative Tract 25953 to the City Council, subject
to conditions.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ellson,
Marrs, Abels & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Adolph.
ABSTAINING: None.
B. Tentative Tract 27840; a request of TD Desert Development (Chuck Strother) for
approval of a tentative tract map to create 126 single family residential lots and
miscellaneous lots on 55+ acres.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the applicant had requested a
continuance of the project to September 14, 1993. The public hearing was
opened by Chairwoman Barrows. There being no discussion, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Ellson/Abels to continue Tentative
Tract 27840 to September 14, 1993. Unanimously approved.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
Commissioners Ellson/Abels moved to reorganize the agenda by placing Business Item #3 as
Item #1. Unanimously approved.
A. Tentative Tract 23913 (Quinterra) a request of Forecast Homes for approval of
architectural plans for single family residences.
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 staff to clarify where the River Rock would
be used. Staff explained the location and stated there had been a minor
modification to the plans which added 50 square feet to four of the plans.
3. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the size of the eaves was. Staff stated
it depended on the plan but to make the house appear larger an 18-inch
eave is proposed. Chairwoman Barrows stated there needed to be more
shading and an 18-inch overhang was needed.
PC8-24 2
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
4. Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President of Land Acquisition for Forecast
Homes, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated 60-80 % of their
buyers were first time buyers and their company offered a total of five
plans ranging in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,660 square feet.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if a patio cover in the rear was offered. Mr.
Strickland stated not at present, but it could be. Chairwoman Barrows
asked if their homes in Phoenix offered the patio cover. Mr. Strickland
stated they did not.
6. Commissioner Ellson stated the La Quina Del Rey project (Century
Homes) offered a small home and only sold three and asked if the
applicant had considered this in their marketing. Mr. Strickland stated he
was aware and further stated that the larger units were not selling either.
Discussion followed regarding the homes built in La Quinta Del Rey.
7. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & Krieger, spoke on behalf of the Quinterra
homeowners. He stated the project would adversely affect the existing
homes and submitted a petition with 181 individual signatures. He
reminded the Commission that the City Code allows the Planning
Commission to change or deny the application. The existing homes were
at least 1,000 square feet more than those planned by the developer and
the existing neighborhood did not consist of first time buyers but
established homeowners who had put their entire investment into their
homes. He went on to quote what the original homeowners had been
promised by the Quinterra developers when they bought their homes.
8. Mr. Dale Thornburgh, La Quinta Del Rey property owner, stated he had
searched for a location and tract that would suit his family needs and
bought a home in the La Quinta Del Rey tract. Mr. Thornburgh stated he
was in the real estate business and he felt there was a market for the
larger homes if they were built.
9. Ms. Joan Berndt, Quinterra homeowner, stated the smaller, low price
homes would affect her loan. The larger homes have better construction
and architectural design, with higher quality appliances. The lower prices
will bring a transient type population into the neighborhood because they
will not have the finances to maintain the homes. She felt the present
homeowners could expect a 10-20 % decrease in value in their homes.
PC8-24 3
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
10. Mr. Russell Robertson, Quinterra homeowner for three months, stated the
planning should stay consistent with Phase 1. The Design Review Board
when, reviewing the project, did not take into account the needs of the
existing homeowners. The applicant was not sensitive to the exiting
homeowners. Mr. Robertson stated he felt the difference between the loss
in property values due to economic problems versus "cookie cutter" type
homes being built reducing their value further was unfair. Chairwoman
Barrows asked if Mr. Robertson had any suggestions to offer to the
developer to solve the problem, such as a size of home that would be
acceptable. Mr. Robertson stated if he had to compromise the minimum
would be 1,800 square feet. He stated the smallest existing plan was
2,100 square feet.
11. Mr. Daniel Bresnahan, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated so far the
arguments had been over price, size, and quality of the homes. He was
concerned about the promise that had been broken to the existing
homeowners. He wanted the value and neighborhood to be maintained
and asked the Commission not to reduce the standards of the
neighborhood. He and his neighbors would rather see the land stay vacant
as it is, rather than having anything of less value built.
12. Mr. Kim Lee Job, Quinterra homeowner, stated he was a banker and had
seen what happens to a development when lower value homes are built in
conjunction with higher valued homes. He stated his opposition to the
project.
13. Ms. Allyson Devenney, La Quinta Vistas homeowner, stated her
opposition to seeing Century Homes or Forecast Homes develop in any
part of her existing tract or any of the neighboring tracts.
14. Mr. Kirk Dimmitt, Rancho Ocotillo property owner, stated his opposition
to the development. He understood the economic downturn in property
values, but asked that the Commission not impose an artificial downturn
on their area.
15. Ms. Jennie Erwin-Plantz, Topaz homeowner, stated her concern that her
development had a similar downsizing plan starting and she was in
opposition to it happening in her tract. These were not first time buyer
in these developments but retirees and homeowners who put life savings
into their homes and they can't afford to lose their property value.
PC8-24 4
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
16. Ms. Bev Beam, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner, stated she had been a realtor
for 21 years and can realistically address the value depreciation based on
her experience in the area. She stated that when the smaller homes were
built by the Highlands area, the homes were devalued by as much as
$100,000. She quoted several instances where property values had
decreased to the point people were selling their homes at a loss to
maintain their credit ratings. These people were losing everything they
had in their homes. The appraisals can't meet the value. Commissioner
Marrs asked if Ms. Beam felt this was due to the economy and not
because of the smaller homes. Ms. Beam stated she knew the economy
was having an affect on the market, but also felt the smaller homes would
add to the problem.
17. Ms. Marty Butler, Rancho Ocotillo homeowner, stated the northern
section of the City was developed for the upscale homes. She did not feel
the City was in support of the citizens of this area. The out-of-town
builders do not care about the existing homeowners, they just buy the land
cheap and take advantage of the City. Property values had already
decreased but will decrease even more if the smaller homes are allowed
to be built. The City has affordable housing and does not need this. She
stated her concern that they had no representation at the City.
18. Mr. Louis Glick, La Quinta Vistas homeowners, stated he had researched
the area and settled in La Quinta and was very happy until now. He had
heard that Century Homes was about to develop in his tract with a lesser
quality home and he felt there was no place for the lesser value next to the
higher quality homes. He further stated he had received a letter from
Forecast Homes offering him a dinner and $40.00 for participating in a
Focus Group survey discussion regarding issues most important to
choosing a home. Chairwoman Barrows asked if Mr. Glick had the letter
and would he submit it to the Commission. Mr. Glick did so.
19. Mr. Bruce Maize, builder, stated his support of the project. He felt the
question before the Commission was whether the Commission wanted
affordable housing. He felt the quality could be maintained as the same
contractors build the higher quality homes. He asked where the first time
buyer would fit in.
20. Ms. Diane Schmidt, Building Industry Association Desert Council
president, stated her support of the project in that it helped meet the
market demand by meeting needs. She also stated that Forecast Homes
had an excellent record and built quality homes and they worked hard to
mitigate negative perceived ideas. She further felt that size had nothing
to do with pride in a neighborhood.
PC8-24 5
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
21. Ms. Sally Young, a land broker in Palm Desert, stated her sympathy for
the homeowners, but the whole State was experiencing property
devaluation. The economy dictates what is built and most of the unbuilt
lots are now owned by the banks because the builders could not complete
their tracts. The land is presently one half the original purchase price.
There are no guarantees that prices will not go down. Developers and
landowners have the right to build what will sell in todays market. A
variety of price range does not have to decrease the value of existing
homes.
22. Mr. Tim Bartlett, real estate broker, stated his support of the project.
23. Mr. Joe Dunson, Topaz homeowner, stated he was a lender and the
trouble was not affordable housing, but putting them in the same
neighborhood as larger homes. The economy was already hurting the
homeowners, don't add to the trouble. Make affordable homes available
but not next door.
24. Ms. Mary Black, Topaz homeowner, she bought the largest unit available
at $240,000 and there is a vacant lot next door. They moved to the desert
to have a better lifestyle for their family and her husband commutes to La
Mirada to work in order to live here. They experienced the market
devaluation in Long Beach due to first time buyers and don't want the
same here.
25. Mr. Strickland, applicant, rebutted by saying that first time buyers are not
bad citizens. He went on to explain the letters that were sent out were to
encourage people to attend their survey meetings (focus groups) which
were used for market analysis. He further stated that they use the same
contractors for both the expensive and low cost houses to maintain the
quality in their homes. All buyers have the option to raise the quality of
their homes by purchasing added options. He felt the same quality houses
would be compatible with the neighborhood even though there was less
square footage.
26. Commissioner Ellson stated her empathy for the homeowners and gave a
history of how north La Quinta developed and came into La Quinta. She
stated her objection to mixed housing and felt a variety of people was
good for any community.
27. Commissioner Abels stated he remembered the original master plan for
the area. He felt the solution was a special ordinance similar to what was
enacted for the Cove to control the type of construction that would be
allowed. He stated his concern for the builders as well.
PC8-24 6
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
28. Commissioner Marrs stated he was sympathetic to the problem but did not
agree with the thinking of the opponents as he believed things had been
exaggerated. He believed varied sizes can be compatible. He felt the
homeowners were misguided as to devaluing property values. He felt the
homeowners were blaming the devaluation of their homes on homes that
hadn't even been constructed yet.
29. Commissioner Abels asked staff to look into the SR Zoning Ordinance and
see if it could help in this instance.
30. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff what the original applicant and approval
was for this tract. Staff stated the original application was a statement just
to convey that the new developer proposed the existing units.
Chairwoman Barrows addressed the audience and stated the Commission
was looking to the homeowners for a solution. All of the Commissioners
had been to the area and looked for themselves. There is a need for
diversity in housing while representing the existing homeowners interest.
31. Commissioner Ellson questioned the variety of housing at PGA West and
its success was due to their CC & R's that enable the environment to be
controlled. Staff stated this was a planned condominium community that
allows for these type of controls. Property owners own the home only
and the association pays for the maintenance of the lots. Commissioner
Ellson asked if this was possible for this area. Staff stated the Quinterra
project had CC & R's and architectural review and at present they were
in the control of the bank until the residents take over with some
exceptions. Commissioner Ellson asked if these CC & R's could control
maintenance and parking of cars, etc. Staff stated the CC & R's gave
them the ability to bring civil litigation against offenders and force the
property owner to comply. The City does not have any control.
32. Commissioner Ellson questioned the applicant as to whether they were
building any larger units anywhere else. Mr. Strickland stated they had
built a larger home in Perris and South San Bernardino County.
Commissioner Ellson asked if they would be appropriate for the desert.
Mr. Strickland pointed out that the range of sizes for these homes was
from 1,180 to 1,860 square feet. Mr. Strickland stated he felt he was
trying to make the transition as easy as possible. He would be willing to
use the 1,800 square foot plan where he was planning on using the Plans
5and 6.
33. Mr. Doug Phillips, Best, Best & ]Krieger, representing the Quinterra
property owners, stated the units were incompatible and did not fit. He
reiterated the Commission could deny the request as the City's Plot Plan
and Design Review Code stated they had the right if the units were not
PC8-24
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
compatible. He went on to quote a court case where a larger house in San
Francisco was out of place with smaller units and even though the City
Code allowed it the City could deny it based on its incompatibility. The
Court of Appeals stated if the Planning Commission finds it not in
harmony it can deny the request. Mr. Phillips stated the project could
relocate to another area of the City.
34. Mr. Jim Rice, Rancho Ocotillo, asked the applicant what the size of the
lots were. Mr. Strickland stated they were the original minimum lot sizes
of 7,200 square feet and larger.
35. Ms. Marty Butler, Quinterra homeowner, asked the Commission to form
a group of homeowners to meet with them and help plan the area for what
could be built in this area. Commissioner Marrs reminded the people of
the number of meetings that were held asking residents to help the City
plan for the area in the General Plan process. Ms. Butler stated she had
no objection to the zoning and what was planned for the area, but don't
put something in, where a value exists and decrease that value. She stated
her concern that she felt her rights were being taken away from her as she
had no ability to chose, the decision was being forced upon her.
36. Commissioner Ellson stated her agreement with the idea of working with
the residents to solve the problem. She felt there needed to be
constructive discussion so everyone could live with the decision.
37. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Abels moved to continue
Tentative Tract 23913-Quinterra, Phase II to September 14, 1993, with
the stipulation that each development tract in this area would send two
representatives along with the developer, and meet with the Planning
Commission at their regularly scheduled study session on September 13,
1993, at 7:00 P.M. to work toward a compatible solution. Commissioner
Ellson seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. It was suggested
that the representatives and developer come to the study session with
solutions.
Chairwoman Barrows dismissed the Commission for a ten minute break.
B. Specific Plan 84-004 "Rancho La Quinta"; a request of TD Desert Development
(Chuck Strother) for approval of preliminary landscaping plans for Washington
Street frontage.
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.
PC8-24 8
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
2. Commissioner Ellson asked staff to clarify where the meandering sidewalk
went.
3. Commissioner Abels asked if the sidewalk matched up with Parc La
Quinta. Staff stated it would.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the applicant wished to address the
Commission. Mr. Chuck Strother gave a presentation to the Commission
regarding the proposal.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked if the plant "Apentia" as requested by the
Design Review Board would be replaced. Mr. Strother stated he would
be revising the plant pallet when he met with Coachella Valley Water
District regarding the landscaping.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Ellson/Abels to adopt Minute Motion 93-039 approving
Specific Plan 84-004 "Rancho La Quinta" preliminary landscaping plans
for Washington Street frontage subject to conditions. Unanimously
approved.
C. Specific Plan 84-004 "Rancho La Quinta"; a request of TD Desert Development
(Chuck Strother) for approval of residential units.
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. Staff also informed the Commission that the sizes quoted in
the staff report were slightly different than those they were reviewing at
this meeting.
2. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like to see 1/4" scale drawings in
order to know what she was approving.
3. Chairwoman Barrows asked staff to explain the corrected square footage.
Commissioner Ellson stated she would like to see the changes that the
Design Review Board requested on the Estancia Plan. Mr. Chuck
Strother, applicant, went over the plans with the Commission and
explained the changes. Discussion followed regarding the changes.
4. Chairwoman Barrows asked what the overhang would be. Mr. Strother
stated they were three feet and two feet for the detached garages.
PC8-24 9
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson
and seconded by Chairwoman Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 93-040
approving Specific Plan 84-004 "Rancho La Quinta" architectural
elevations for residential units, subject to conditions. Unanimously
approved.
D. Sign Application 93-215: a request of Roger Snellenberger for a sign adjustment
to allow a permanent monument sign on Washington Street, north of Eisenhower
Drive.
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 Abels asked staff to clarification the location of the sign
and power box at the corner. Mr. Jeff Petrus, representing the applicant,
showed the location and gave a brief explanation of why the sign was
needed.
3. Commissioner Ellson questioned the location as being the same location
as the Building Industry Association signs and in addition if this sign was
allowed, the for sale sign (billboard) would be removed. Staff stated the
temporary sales sign would expire on its own.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 93-041 approving
Sign Application 93-215 to allow a permanent monument sign, subject to
conditions. Unanimously approved with the addition of Condition #6
which requires that if the sign is built on Washington Street, no additional
permanent signs will be allowed on Eisenhower Drive.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioners Ellson/Marrs moved and seconded a motion to approve the
Minutes of July 27, 1993 as submitted. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Mr. Jeff Petrus stated his concern that the problem with the Quinterra tract
needed a solution and the builder could afford to build the larger size homes.
PCs-24 10
Planning Commission Minutes
August 24, 1993
B. Staff informed the members to review the brochure on Transcon 2000 regarding
the conference on Future Transportation Technology and let staff know if they
wished to attend.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Marrs/Abels to adjourn this regular
meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission on
September 14, 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 10:38 P.M., August 24, 1993.
PC8-24 11
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 25, 1993
Mayor Pena called the joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Design
Review Board together at 7:03 P.M., and led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL: Councilwoman. Bangerter, Councilmen McCartney, Perkins, Sniff, and
Mayor Pena.
Planning Commissioners Adolph, Marrs, Mosher, Ellson, and
Chairwoman Barrows.
Design Review Board Members Anderson, Campbell, Curtis, Rice,
Wright, and Chairman Harbison.
Mayor Pena thanked everyone and asked each member to introduce themselves and give a short
background of their history.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
1. PLANNING ISSUES. Planning Director Jerry Herman explained the process as it is
now.
a. Councilman Sniff asked if staff periodically reviewed with the Boards what their
roll is, legally. Staff replied that with each new member copies of the rules and
procedures that each 'board has adopted as well as have the City Attorney speak
to the Commission/Boards regarding the Brown Act, etc.
b. Boardmember Curtis questioned the Board's recommendation for Simon Plaza in
regards to its desire to move the project on and yet the Board's desire to review
the project before the final product was sent to Council. Staff stated the Planning
Commission did approve the project after making modifications and sent it on to
the City Council. It would be returning to the Planning Commission and Design
Review Board for review through the normal process. Chairman Harbison stated
the Design Review Board receives the projects in a very early stage and
sometimes it makes it difficult to understand the final project. The Board does
not want to be a hindrance but would like to review the project before final
working drawings are started. Mayor Pena stated this was the purpose of the
Board.
C. Boardmember Campbell stated his concern that the Board have the authority to
continue an item if they were uncertain or uneasy with a project being sent on.
Mayor Pena stated the City did not want to see any project get stuck in the
bureaucratic process, but should the Board have any concerns then those items
should be reviewed further.
d. Boardmember Anderson stressed his concern that the staff work as a first line to
determine than all the information has been accumulated before the project gets
to the Design Review Board. He suggested that a checklist be made to assist
staff.
e. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like to see the projects proposed in
conjunction with the adjoining projects. In particular, sign programs are the
biggest problem. Mayor Pena stated that it might be beneficial to have a mock-
up submitted with each application. He went to discuss possible suggestions such
as video presentations in the new City Hall.
f. Boardmember Wright asked if all plans would come before the Design Review
Board. Staff explained that not all applications are required to have Design
Review Board review. He went on to explain which type of projects would be
reviewed by the Board. Questioned were raised as to how a two-story residence
was allowed to be constructed on Washington Street.
g. Commissioner Ellson asked if the members could discuss height restrictions for
structures within La Quinta. Mayor Pena asked staff to explain the current
regulations. Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the SR
Zone limits buildings to one story, 17' in height. The remainder of the City is
an R-1 Zone which is 27', which will relate to the R-2, R-3, all residential zones.
Therefore, two story units must comply with the height regulations for tract maps
along Washington Street and Highway 111, all units within 150 feet must be one
story and vary in height from 17' to 26'. Discussion followed regarding where
the finish floor height was measured from and tract heights throughout the City.
h. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern that the houses be more energy
conservative. Boardmember Anderson explained to the members the process a
house goes through regarding Title 24 and stressed these were the bare minimum
requirements. Members discussed developer costs regarding meeting Title 24
requirements and the possibility of the City enforcing stronger measures for
energy conservation. It was suggested that the Design Review Board and staff
investigate ways this could be done. It was also suggested that the Design
Review Board have a representative from the Gas Company and Imperial
Irrigation District address the Board concerning ideas that could be implemented.
Commissioner Wright questioned the Board's authority to enforce restrictions
when the City Code allowed it. Members discussed a checklist that developers
would have to comply with in order to insure that an applicant doesn't need to
resubmit a project over and over again to design a project the City wants.
PCJTM5-25 2
Discussion followed regarding how much control the City should have over
design.
j. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern that the City had no design plan for
the Highway 111 corridor. He felt there would be less stress on the City and the
developer if they knew what the City wanted. Discussion followed regarding the
Highway 111 vision, the Washington Street image, and the Village look.
k. Councilman Perkins asked staff if there were any standards the City gave to
developers to build by and how long would it take a project to get through the
approval process. Staff stated there were only standards for the SR Zone and it
would take approximately 2-3 months to get a project through the approval
process. Mayor Pena. suggested the Design Review Board work on establishing
these standards.
1. Members discussed how the Council/Commissions/Boards obtain knowledge of
how the Council/Commission/Boards vote and feel concerning the different
projects.
2. TRANSPORTATION AND CONGESTION REDUCTION ISSUES:
a. Mayor Pena brought up the issue of the congestion at Highway 111 and
Washington Street and explained to the members the problems the City has been
experiencing in trying to obtain cooperation from Caltrans regarding the corner.
b. Commissioner Ellson asked how the corner was affected by the Simon Plaza
project. If the project did not materialize would the City have any problems with
the right-of-way? Mayor Pena stated the City was currently in design for the
bridge widening and the problem did not lie with Simon Plaza as much as with
Caltrans and the reconfiguration of the corner.
C. Commissioner Marrs expressed his concern about the number of and distance
between signals and t'he persuasive arguments presented by the developers for a
signal or median break.
d. Commissioner Ellson questioned whether there was a Highway 111 Specific Plan
and if not, do they want to develop one. Mayor Pro-Tem Sniff stated he felt the
Highway 111 corridor should be looked at as to what the City wants to be there.
Mayor Pena stated he felt this was the time to do so before further development
took place.
e. Councilman Perkins expressed his concern that the circulation plan be considered
before the traffic occurs. He further stated the increase traffic he was
experiencing on Jefferson Street and with the high school being built the impact
PCJTM5-25
would be greater. Mayor Pena stated his frustration with the City of Indio for
the design of the intersection of Jefferson Street and Highway 111.
3. SIGN ORDINANCE
a. Commissioner Adolph expressed his concern that all the commercial buildings
have a sign on every side of the building. In addition, the neon signs on the
windows on the inside of the building. He felt the City should look at what is
allowed. Discussion followed regarding objectionable signs. Staff clarified the
Code allowed 10% of the window could be used for signage.
b. Mayor Pro-Tem Sniff stated he felt that signs were vital to businesses and they
needed to be easily recognizable, attractive, and from varying directions. If
people cannot find a business they become a traffic problem. Therefore, it is
important to make the business easily to find.
C. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern that neon signs be eliminated that do
not advertise the business, but advertise a product of the business. Discussion
followed regarding neon signs.
d. Members discussed the various signs that exist and the type of signs that are
desirable and undesirable.
e. Commissioner Adolph suggested that the City set a criteria for the amount of
signage and limit the developers to just that.
f. Commissioner Ellson expressed her concern that the colors utilized in the center
be coordinated to the color of the building. That if the sign colors cannot be
governed then the building color should be.
g. Mayor Pro -Tern Sniff stated he felt the issues was sensitive and it would be
difficult to have uniformity of opinion regarding colors, size, etc. and all
members should work together to be tasteful.
4. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, COLORS, AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS:
a. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern for the allowance of four story
commercial buildings. Discussion followed and Mayor Pena stated it should be
addressed in the Highway I I I Specific Plan.
b. Boardmember Anderson asked for an explanation of the Village Specific Plan.
Staff stated the Planning and Development Department had started a review of the
Village Specific Plan, circulation, design standards, zoning, and expansion when
the Council adopted the new General Plan. At present staff hoped to have this
PCJTM5-25 4
completed by September.
S. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
a. Mayor Pro-Tem stated he felt the diversity of the different members was a
strength and everyone should look at what they can agree on and not be
concerned with they cannot agree on. Everyone should be creative in their
thinking and envision what is best for La Quinta and not lock themselves into one
idea. He would like to see the City look more into energy conservation
standards, develop a basic image for Highway 111, and allow diversity in the
developments that are tasteful. A developers handbook should be prepared to
help them understand what La Quinta is looking for and what the process is all
about. In addition, he felt the minutes should incorporate more of the arguments
and feelings of the Commissioners and Boardmembers.
b. Councilwoman Bangerter stated her appreciation for each of the members for the
work they do and she looks forward to hearing their comments and criteria.
C. Members stated they would like to have another meeting in late October or early
November.
d. Councilman Perkins stated his appreciation for the Commissioners and
Boardmembers doing the work they do to make the Council's work easier.
e. Councilman McCartney stated his appreciation for the work of the Commissioners
and Boardmembers and encouraged the members to continue with the work they
are doing.
f. Commissioner Marrs encouraged the Council members to attend the Commissions
and Design Review Board meetings.
Mayor Pena thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting.
PCJTM5-25 5
78-495 CALLE TAMPICC) -- LA QLIINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777-700()
FAX (619) 777-7101
August 27, 1993
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Planning Commission:
As part of the Dedication Ceremony for the new Civic Center,
a time capsule will be filled and buried. The capsule will be
placed behind the monument sign at the corner of Washington
Street and Calle Tampico. It is scheduled to be re -opened in
fifty years.
In order to make the contents of the time capsule
representative of the entire community, your input is
requested. Please feel free to share this letter with your
Board Members, Commissioners or anyone you deem appropriate.
The ideas are limitless. Below are some items that could be
included:
•Membership Roster
•Photographs
•Popular publications and/or catalogs
•Timely cartoon, bumper sticker, or button.
*Clothing/Uniform (imagine it on a mannequin in 50 years)
•Artifacts
•Books by local authors
•Maps
•Yearbooks
*Genealogies of local families
*Brochures of current products (cars, electronic
equipment, etc.)
*Stamps
*Calendar of Events
We want your imagination and creativity to help us make the
time capsule exciting and informative.
MAILING /ODRE35 - P-0 Hl')X 150 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
The deadline for including items is September 17th. All items
must be preserved properly, so please don't miss the deadline.
The time capsule is 24" x 36".
Final selection of the items to be included in the time
capsule will be at the discretion of the City Council.
If you have any questions, please call Pamela LiCalsi at 777-
7100. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
A``
I
John J. Pena
Mayor
JJP:kb
cc: City Council
City Manager
O O
O
co
1
1
'o
c
oc
H � C
O0 O —
Bw t� � C •� •° C y � C � O> C y _� C C
cc 40
CC„ C > C
_�cyoCcc,Z-�°�/c�
a==�y"a•�� c•eZv��T
ca c c c _ E v3
_ Q _ .z c
C.
c - a "U"'-.c o� E
ban
O'^x p _ �.: rJ
mo
Z .1] cc O C 7�p cC_ C H r
v, 00 -� Z � u rA c ° c
°��t° 0 o ^. ° c�cncow�.Uc
�e O ci fJ CJ '� a .0 .. O O ,C ° aOr
cc cc Cc
ycr o° 'ca c°oa'�o°'o >`c��—
�ooa3°nmaa3�c°V-° o°cywIBM,.E�s
•v •�° 'c ao ° v m moo `� a' ' c 9c
r
O ao
CO ... to
':A as � PG •..
a
a �
T
Z C _ g G fis
c C • T X A W
E `4 S,�'
'^ N w0 ,
E�� �$>> mQ`ccEg�ii�
SE3 SSora:?�3�a8dM
o
f
? a
..�n Z Cali Oet'Ts�
o
p
aG� L.
OUS3#v
Q
m-ggoa; ti�oc�i�W6v cc ��8 �ZSi
�io'9m'3G� aoQmW w 3 E—um�n 8 pm8 mmaC�a.g� 52Ec°",, �amEooEo a�i�am° ��
o«sae yy .. c ;„ �Cdoma mEt c m E��eE°mbs ocmmEE3c zz
Al
Q
>""„oo,�
b
E8w g� Zvi : vaam c8,em m> m ��zpc°o BEm�c`• omE� �r,
m col—, e m p� �a.. c � �� c $m E c" o mr6.v mTa om. an d
m o �- c mw m V' 0 0; E m E O
`o o 0 3 aop E�3 2S E m o� ELF o C d:
m m��8ot8tiam �`o�E a"S�8 BooFmsm°cp��m x°c9 mo�� xwG°c co6��mm'D t
�" m E m'C � 8
doc^6 ;ohm m o a E oe pmmxcmo�4° 8� m:c e` m L „m'ag8
4Yx mm5 c Eie^o �°3g�acca'�QrmB > m�o �� �w 9?mEgg8g
m«8aimcmK.°eo�� oam m aaii550cdgmZ �€ o�€ammE oa v voe'm3�a ,
g S
$ ]� $ a m z m a'mc3 as m P6 3 ell 8 vA m Eis �.' o ffi8 'b
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST -
TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE?
There are four basic questions that you as a public officij
need to ask yourself in determining whether or not you have a
conflict of interest:
1. Are you making, participating in, or using your "official
position" to influence a governmental decision?
2. Is it reasonably foreseeable that the decision will affect
your economic interest (i.n other words, is it likely that the
decision will cause you to earn or lose money)?
3. Will the effect of the decision on your economic interest be
material?
4. Will the effect of the decision on your economic interest be
different than the effect on the public in general?
If the answer to all of the above questions is yes; then yc
are considered to be in conflict and must disqualify yourself
from participating in or making the decision. The questionnaire
below was designed to help you to determine the answers to these
questions and to decide when it is appropriate to disqualify
yourself from the decision making process.
1. MAKING, PARTICIPATING IN, OR USING YOUR OFFICIAL POSITION TO
INFLUENCE A GOVERNMENTAL DECISION:
a) Are you vcting or participating in a
decision regarding: ordinances, regulations
or resolutions; contract awards, purchases
and leases; hiring, firing or other personnel
actions; zoning, permits, variances or other
land use issues; or any other decision coming
before you in your role as a public official? Yes No
b) Are you responding to comments, taking
part in discussions or making recommendations
regarding any of the above types of
decisions? Yes F No
c) Are you in any way using your "official
position" to influence the outcome of a
governmental decision? Yes No
Remember that whether you vote for or against an issue or
for or against your economic interest, you are still making a
governmental decision. If the answer to any of the above
questions is YES; the ques ti ons that follow need to be answered
next.
-10-
2. THE DECISION WILL FORESEEABLY AFFECT YOUR ECONOMIC INTERES'
An effect on your economic interest is foreseeable when
there is a "substantial likelihood" that it will make or lose
money; even during the preliminary stages of the decision-makii
process, you must consider whether the end result of a decisio:
is likely to have one of the below effects on you or your fami]
a) Will the decision make or lose money for
YOU, your spouse or your dependent children? Yes � Nc
b) Does the decision affect any business
that you, your spouse or dependent children
have at least a $1,000 investment in? Yes NC
c) Will it affect any real property that
you, your spouse or dependent children have
at least a $1, 000 interest in, or any
property within 2500 feet of your property? Yes Nc
(Note that mortgages, options to buy and
leasehold interests are all considered to be
interests in real property, although month -
to -month leases are not)
d) Will it affect any person or business
that has paid you over $250, or that has paid
your spouse over $500 (this includes salary,
rent, interest, some loans, payments for sale
of a '!louse, car or investment, or other types
of income), in the last 12 months? Yes El No
(Note that "income" does = include
government salaries, inheritances, interest
from publicly traded stock, bank accounts or
insurance policies, alimony or child support,
loans of $10,000 or less on terms generally
available to the public, loans from family
members, or most pensions)
e) Will it affect any business or person
that cave or donated over $250 in cash or El
goods to you in the last 12 months? Yes No
f) Will it affect any business (not
including a nor, -profit organization) in which
you are a director, partner, manager or
employee? Yes No
If you answered "yes" to any of the questions in section two,
please continue on with the questions in section thxee below.
-I1--
3 o THE ECONOMIC EFFECT ON YOU OR YOUR FAMILY WILL BE MATERIAL
Real Estate:
a) Do you, your spouse or dependant children
have any interest in real property located
within 300 feet of the property which is the
subject of the governmental decision and that
will lose or gain Any money as a result of
the decision? Yes El
b) Do you, your spouse or dependant children
have any interest in real property that is
within a 300 to 2500 foot radius of the
subject property and that will lose or gain
at least $10, 000 in fair market value, or
whose rental value will increase or decrease
by $1,000 per year, as a result of the
governmental decision? Yes
c) Will the decision affect the zoning,
annexation, sale, lease, use of, or taxes or
fees imposed on real property in which you,
your spouse or dependant children own an
interest of over $1,000? Yes
d) Does the decision involve the designation
of a survey or project area, adoption of a
preliminary plan, certification of an
environmental document, adoption of a
redevelopment plan, or the addition of
territory to a redevelopment area in which
you own any interest in real property within
the boundaries or proposed boundaries of the
affected area? Yes
N1
Ni
N(
N(
Income/Assets:
e) Will you, your spouse or dependant
children earn or lose more than $250 in
personal income or assets (not including real
property) as a result of the decision? Yes Nc
Business Interests:
f) will the governmental decision have any
financial effect on any business in which
you, your spouse or dependent children own an
interest or receive income from? Yes Nc
(Note that you may be disqualified even if
the decision will not affect the value of
your investment or the amount of income you
receive; if it affects the business, there is
considered to be a conflict)
—12—
g) Is any business entity in which you have
an investment worth over $1,000, or from
which you have earned more than $250 in the
last 12 months, directly involved in the
decision (i.e. is the business the subject of
the decision or did it initiate the
proceeding by filing an application or
claim)? Yes Nc
Leasehold Interests•
h) Will the decision increase or decrease
the amount of rent which you, your spouse or
dependent children pay by $250 or 5% during
any 12-month period, or will it significantly
affect the use or enjoyment of the property
or its legally allowable use? (As previously
noted, this does not include a month -to -month
rental agreement) Yes X0
If you answered yes to ANY of the above questions in secti
three, you should consider yourself to have a conflict of
interest if ques ti on four below -is also answered in the
affi rma ti ve.
4. THE EFFECT ON YOUR ECONOMIC INTEREST IS DI STI NGUI Sr'ABLE FRO;
THE EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL:
a) Will the decision cost or earn you, your
spouse or dependant children money in a way El
that is different from the general public? Yes No
In other words, you do not have a conflict of interest if
the effect of the decision on your economic interest is no
different from its effect on most other persons. For example, e
decision to impose a city sales tax will effect you, but not in
any different manner than it will the general public. By way of
contrast, a decision concerning a zoning variance for your
business or home es have a different effect on your economic
interest than on other members of the general public and
therefore would be considered a conflict for you.
—13—
August 4., 1993
I.
II.
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
CALL TO ORDER
5:30 P.M.
A. Chairman Curtis brought the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. and Department
Secretary Betty Sawyer led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers Paul Anderson, David Harbison, Randall Wright, James
Campbell, Planning Commission Representative Ellson, and Chairman Curtis.
Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson moved to excuse Boardmember Rice.
Unanimously approved.
B. Staff present:
Trousdell and
Sawyer.
III. BUSINESS SESSION
Planning Director Jerry Herman, Associate Planners Greg
Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty
A. Public Use Permit 93-016; a request of Bernardo Gouthier for approval of
architectural plans fo:r the La Quinta Sculpture Park, located at 57-325 Madison
Street, north of 58th Avenue.
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. Boardmember Campbell asked if the Board was approving the entire
project or just Phase I. Staff clarified the entire project was for their
review and approval.
3. Mr. Bernardo Gouthier spoke briefly on his project. Commissioner
Wright asked what the exterior texture would be and if the railings would
be constructed during the first phase. Mr. Gouthier stated they had
DRB8-4 1
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
eliminated the aluminum and the railings would not be built in the first
phase. Mr. Stan Pollakusky, architect for the project, explained what the
first phase would consist of.
4. Boardmember Harbison clarified that the portion that was originally
brushed aluminum was now to be stucco. Boardmembers questioned why
the change. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt staff and the Boardmembers were
concerned that the aluminum was causing some concern. Mr. Pollakusky
stated the stucco allowed them to soundproof the building as well as give
them some versatility in color.
5. Boardmember Anderson asked if stucco was to be used would the diagonal
braces and standing ribs go away. Mr. Pollakusky stated they would
remain as they are part of the structure. Boardmember Anderson stated
he would like to see the metal used. He felt the stucco would detract and
weaken the concept of the building. Mr. Gouthier stated they would
prefer to use the metal. It was suggested that micro zinc be used.
6. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern how the applicant could
construct the building with some of the two story elements being built
after the first story. He asked if the building would be built in phases.
Mr. Gouthier stated he hoped to build Phase two in approximately nine
months. Boardmember Anderson was concerned that the first phase was
only going to be box with no detail and lack any design character. Mr.
Gouthier stated they hoped to be open in October in order to have the
school in operation. Discussion followed regarding the transition of
building the first phase to the second phase.
7. Chairman Curls asked if there were any objections to the staff conditions.
Mr. Gouthier pointed out that he was having a problem receiving his mail.
He lives in La Quinta but his mail is delivered by the Thermal post office.
Staff clarified that they have been trying to solve this problem and it is in
the process.
8. Commissioner Ellson asked if the applicant could incorporate the columns
into the first phase. Mr. Pollakusky stated that he could articulate the
building to make it interesting until the second phase is constructed.
9. Boardmember Anderson stated this was a problem for the Board as they
were not looking at what they were asked to approve. The Board needed
to see the proposed building to be built.
DRB8-4 2
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
10. Boardmember Campbell asked if the applicant would have any problem
with a condition that required the entire building to be built within nine
months after completion of Phase I. Mr. Gouthier stated this could be a
hardship on him and he would prefer that the condition read completion
before December, 1994. Mr. Gouthier stated he did not want to over
extend himself.
11. Boardmember Campbell stated that there was a portion of the building that
was not seen on the drawings. Mr. Pollakusky stated he could submit
drawings showing the different elevations.
12. Chairman Curtis stated he would prefer to see drawings of the Phase I
building. Mr. Pollakusky stated he would have no problem submitting a
design for the Board review.
13. Boardmember Anderson asked what landscaping was proposed for the
building. Mr. Gouthier stated the landscaping was already there.
Boardmember Harbison stated the adjoining property owners should be
screened from view. He suggested that trees be planted along the
perimeter. Mr. Gouthier stated he had already started planting Eucalyptus
trees. Chairman Curtis stated the applicant would need to submit a
landscaping plan before he could receive a building permit therefore, it
would be to his advantage to submit the plans as soon as possible in order
to meet his October deadline.
14. Boardmember Wright stated he saw no reason why the first phase building
could not stand alone. Mr. Gouthier stated he felt there was some
confusion as to what was to be built in Phase I. He went on to explain
that the caretakers facility would be constructed in Phase I. Members
discussed what would be built in Phase I.
15. Based on the lack of information and drawings, Boardmember Anderson
moved to recommend the Planning Commission refer this project back to
the Design Review Board in order to review the Phase I building only.
Boardmember Wright seconded the motion and discussion followed
regarding the portion to be constructed in Phase I. Staff clarified the
hearing process before the Planning Commission and Design Review
Board for the Board. It was determined the matter could go to the
Planning Commission as a business item only for a referral back to the
Design. Review Board, but a public hearing for the Planning Commission
to act on the project could not be held until September 14, 1993.
DRBB-4 3
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
16. Boardmember Campbell stated he had strong objections to react to plans
without seeing all four sides.
17. After further discussion on the review process, Boardmembers
Anderson/Wright withdrew the motion and moved to approve Public Use
Permit 93-016 with a recommendation that separate drawings be
completed for Phase I and Phase II and if the Planning Commission so
desire to refer the project back to the Design Review Board, subject to the
Conditions of Approval with the addition of a non -reflective alternative
metal be submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Plot Plan 93-502 and Change of Zone 91-066; a request of Jascorp for approval
to develop a 124 unit one and two story apartment complex on the west side of
Washington Street south of the La Quinta Storm Channel/Washington Street
bridge and 700 feet north of Calle Tampico, along with a change of zone from
R-1, R-2, and C-P to R-2.
1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in
the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development ]Department.
2. Boardmember Anderson asked if the material board was acceptable to
staff. Staff stated they were.
3. Mr. Joe DeCoster, applicant, gave a lengthy detailed description of the
project. Chairman Curtis asked if the applicant had any objection to the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. DeCoster stated no except they would be
applying to for a variance to the parking requirement.
4. Boardmember Wright asked for clarification on the variance. Mr.
DeCoster stated they would be asking for approval to allow a third
parking space to be the tandem parking of behind the garage door.
Discussion followed regarding the parking space.
5. Commissioner Ellson asked what the market would be, apartments or
condominiums. The applicant stated they would be selling condominiums
but they have not filed a subdivision map with staff.
6. Boardmember Wright asked if they would be low income. Mr. DeCoster
stated they would be affordable units (i.e., low and moderate income
units).
DRB8-4 4
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
7. Commissioner Ellson asked what would happen to the project if Ralph's
shopping center did not go in. Mr. DeCoster stated it would stand alone.
Commissioner Ellson asked what fences would be built between the units
and would the perimeter fence be a block wall. She stated she preferred
an open landscaped area that would give a more open feeling for the green
belt areas. Mr. DeCoster stated the market they were targeting was the
low income group which normally have children and the fencing would
give them privacy. Discussion followed regarding alternate locations for
block wall fencing, wrought iron fencing, and wood fencing.
8. Boardmember Wright asked if there would be a problem if Ralph's was
not built with a second access for the project and especially a fire truck
entry. Staff clarified that the land is owned by the same individual and
therefore an easement for the access will be provided. Boardmember
Wright asked if the second entrance would be a crash gate. Staff stated
it would be.
9. Boardmember Wright asked whether the garage door would be wood or
a metal (roll-ua vs. swing). He was concerned there would not be enough
clearance to open the door if a car was parked behind the garage. Mr.
DeCoster stated he preferred the metal roll -up because they were attractive
but the expense was a problem. He further stated there was enough
distance to park the car and open the door and not have the car in the
street. Discussion followed regarding the garage door type and material.
10. Boardmember Wright asked the applicant to show the Board where the
two story units would be placed. He felt the units adjacent to the
recreation building should be single story so not to create a canyon effect.
Discussion followed regarding the location of the two story units.
11. Chairman Curtis asked for clarification that the perimeter wall would be
a block wall and would he have any objection to making it comparable to
the wall on the east side of Washington Street. Mr. DeCoster stated it
would be a block wall but he felt the 20-feet of landscaping would be
more attractive than duplicating the east wall (i.e., the cap). Following
discussion, the Board determined the 20-feet of landscaping was preferable
to the tile treatment. Further clarification was made that the block wall
would be stuccoed on Washington Street and painted block walls would
be used for the perimeter areas.
12. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked how much stacking there would be
at the entrance. She felt two or three car stacking was needed and there
DRB8-4 5
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
did not appear to be enough room. Following discussion regarding
different alternatives, Chairman Curtis suggested that the entrance be
widened and stripped to allow two lanes in and one lane out (e.g.., 36-feet
wide).
13. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the wood fencing between
the units and strongly suggested that block walls be used and possibly
relocated to the rear portion of each unit. He felt that anything less than
this would detract from the overall look of the project. Mr. DeCoster
stated this would be a budget determination by the owners and those that
have been constructed in other projects have been attractive.
14. Mr. DeCoster asked for clarification of Condition #6 in that the 20-feet
of landscaping is included in the 30-foot setback. Staff stated it was
included.
15. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Boardmembers
Anderson/Harbison to recommend approval as submitted subject to staff
conditions, and as amended as follows:
a. The applicant would submit to the Planning Commission elevations
for the half two story half one story unit for their approval.
b. Condition #4: The block wall on Washington Street shall be
stucco and compatible with the east wall (without the green tile.
C. Condition #10: The perimeter wall with the exception of
Washington Street shall be painted block wall to match the stucco
color on Washington Street.
d. The driveway should be 36-feet wide on Washington Street with
two lanes in and one lane out.
VOTE: AYES: Boardmembers Anderson, Harbison, Wright,
Campbell, Chairman Curtis. NOES: Planning
Commissioner Ellson. ABSENT: Boardmember Rice.
ABSTAINING: None.
C. Plot Plan 93-505; a request of Forecast Homes for approval of architectural plans
for single family residences, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of
Adams Street.
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.
DRB8-4 6
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
2. There being no questions of staff, Mr. Bruce Strickland, Vice President
Forecast Homes gave a presentation of the project.
3. Commissioner Ellson asked what the price range would be. Mr.
Strickland stated they had not been finalized but planned on a range of
$102,900 to $128,000. Planning Commissioner Ellson asked what the
name of the project would be. Mr. Strickland stated it would be called
"New Beginnings" as most of their buyers were first time buyers.
4. Boardmember Wright expressed his concern that the existing property
owners would have their property values affected. He felt the new homes
should be graduated in and make a slow transition to the smaller homes.
Mr. Strickland stated he was required by law to offer 10 % of the smallest
plan (Plan #2) as this was their entry level product. Discussion followed
as to which lots should have the larger homes.
5. Boardmember Anderson asked if the existing property owners would be
notified of the changes. Staff stated they would be notified of the August
'24th Planning Commission meeting but it is not a requirement.
6. Boardmember Anderson stated the river rock veneer was not appropriate
for La Quinta. Mr. Strickland stated he would use the veneer on the
northern portion of the project. Boardmember Anderson asked if there
was a stone veneer that is "culture" with a warmer shade than the cold
slate grey shown on the sample board. The applicant stated he would look
for something more earthy in the warmer colors for the homes adjacent
to Phase I.
7. Boardmember Wright questioned the 18" overhang and dual glazing on the
windows. Boardmember Anderson also stressed the importance of the
building overhangs. Mr. Strickland stated there was dual glazing and he
would have a small overhang.
8. Boardmember Campbell stated the river rock veneer was not a desert
product. He would prefer a different material such as slumpstone, tile,
etc. Mr. Strickland stated he would talk to his marketing people but he
would not use the tile as their company does not use this type of material
on their homes.
9. Chairman Curtis asked how many of the smaller units would be built and
what was the square footage of the units. Mr. Strickland stated he was
required to have 10% of the units in his smaller home design if it was
DRB8-4 7
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
offered, as required by law. Plan #2 was 1100 square feet and Plan #3
was 1237 square feet.
10. Commissioner Ellson stated she would like the units to be a minimum of
1,200 square Meet. Mr. Strickland discussed the different type of units
they build and the reason for the 1,106 square foot house size. Chairman
Curtis asked if the applicant would object to the Board placing a minimum
number of these units in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Strickland
stated he would prefer to have the flexibility to sell what the market is
asking for. Discussion followed as to what other developments were
offering regarding unit sizes. It was stated that La Quinta Del Rey offers
a similar type home size to their request.
11. Commissioner Ellson questioned the use of the half round windows on the
right side and rear elevation regarding the amount of heat they allow in.
The applicant stated they 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 recommend approval of Plot Plan 93-505 subject to the
conditions with the following conditions being added:
a. The deletion of Condition #8.
b. Lot 2 would be either a Plan 5 or 6; lot 96 would be a Plan 6; Lot
100 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. 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. He presented revised units with sizes slightly different from
the submitted plans.
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 1rhe 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 the revised plans for
Specific 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.
DRB8-4 9
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 stated 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 to be 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 CALENDAR
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 2, 1993.
Commissioner Ellson asked that the Planning Commission Representative be corrected
to read Commissioner Adolph. Boardmember Campbell asked that the word "weld" on
DRB8-4 10
Design Review Board Minutes
August 4, 1993
page 10, last paragraph be deleted. There being no further corrections, Boardmembers
Campbell/Harbison moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of June 23, 1993.
Boardmember Campbell asked that Page 2, third line the word "only" be added to read
"...like it was nil � designed to hid... ". Boardmembers Harbison/Anderson moved and
seconded a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Curtis asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 7, 1993.
There being no additions or corrections, Boardmembers Campbell/Anderson moved and
seconded a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
V. OTHER -
A. Chairman Curtis asked if staff had received information from all the
Boardmembers regarding the rewriting of Board Guidelines. Staff stated almost
everyone had submitted material. Boardmember Harbison stated he was working
on landscaping guidelines but had not submitted them as of yet. Following
discussion, members asked staff to agendize the guidelines so if there was time
they could continue to work on the guidelines.
B. Boardmember Campbell expressed his disappointment with the Planning
Commission disregarding the entire Board's recommendation to see a guardhouse
of better quality. In addition, he expressed his concern for so much advertising
banners for the Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor. Staff stated they had received
Council approval for the signs for a "Grand Opening". Otherwise they were
allowed 10 % of the window.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved and seconded by Boardmembers Campbell/Harbison to adjourn to a regular
meeting of the Design Review Board on September 1, 1993, at 5:30 P.M. This meeting of the
La Quinta Design Review Board was adjourned at 9:38 P.M., August 4, 1993.
DRB8-4 11