1988 11 08 PCA G E N D
PLANNING COMMISSION _ CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,
La Quinta, California
November 8, 1988 - 7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
III. HEARINGS,: - NONE
IV. 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 and not Public
Hearing items.
Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should
use the form provided. Please complete one form for each
item you intend to address and submit the form to the
Planning Secretary prior to the beginning of the
meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate
time.
When addressing the Planning Commission, please state
your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning
Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of
each person shall be limited.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of
October 25, 1988.
Bj/AGENDA11.8
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78--105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
October 25, 1988
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 p.m.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by
Chairman Walling. The Flag Salute was led by
Principal Planner Jerry Herman.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call.
Present: Commissioners Steding, Zelles, Moran,
Commissioner Bund, and Chairman Walling.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump,
Principal Planner Jerry Herman, and Assistant
Planner Glenda Lainis.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing
Items as follows:
A. Tentative Tract #23913 and Change of Zone #88-034;
a request by Waldon Financial Corporation to
subdivide + 33 acres into a 116 single-family
lots and a change of zone from R--1-12000/PD to R-1,
located in the northeast intersection of Miles
Avenue and Adams Street.
Commissioner Bund advised that he would abstain
from the vote due to a possible conflict of
interest as he had worked for the Applicant during
the last year.
1. Principal Planner Jerry Herman presented the
information contained in the Staff Report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
- 1 -
BJ/MIN10.25/DFT
Planning Commiss� Minutes
October 25, 1988
2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing.
John Crosswhite, Principal for C P
Consultants spoke for the Applicant
expressing a desire to pay the fee -in -lieu of
parkland for Condition No. 7; on Condition
No. 10 they would have no problem with a
landscape district being formed therefore,
eliminating Condition No. 10.b.
3. There being no further public comment,
Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
The Commission discussed the request as
presented.
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles to
adopt Resolutions No. 88-022 and 88-023
recommending that City Council concur with
the Environmental Analysis and approve Change
of Zone No. 88-034 from R-1-12000/PD to R-1,
as per Exhibit "A" and Tentative Tract
#23913, subject to conditions. Commissioner
Steding seconded the motion. By roll call
vote, Commissioners Moran, Zelles, Steding,
Walling voted "aye"; Commissioner Bund
abstained. The motion was adopted.
Commissioner Moran moved to recommend to City
Council that Condition No. 7 be satisfied by
fee -in -lieu fees only. Commissioner Zelles
seconded the motion. Unanimously approved
with Commissioner Bund abstaining.
B. Tentative Tract No. 23519; a request by Edward and
Deanna Abrams to subdivide + 30 acres into 107
single-family sales lots at the southeast corner of
Miles Avenue and Adams Street.
1. Assistant Planner Glenda Lainis presented the
information contained in the Staff Report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Bob Smith, Maniero, Smith and Associates,
engineer for the project spoke for the
Applicant. Stated that the Applicant would
prefer to pay the fee -in -lieu fee rather than
dedicate parkland. Also, they prefer to
leave the condition for landscaping as it is
written. They would prefer to have the
option of a homeowners' association or a
district. A clarification was requested for
the width of Street "F" that the width of "F"
Street is to be 60 feet.
2 -
BJ/MIN1.0.25/DFT
Planning Commiss Minutes
October 25, 1988
Dennis Dawson, Fire Marshall for the City,
indicated that the Fire Department had not
reviewed the amended map resulting from
Development Committee revisions, with regards
to emergency access.
When questioned by the Commission, Mr. Dawson
did not indicate any specific problem with
the tentative map as presently configured,
but, clearly indicated that he did not have
an opportunity to review the changes in
detail.
3. There being no further public comment,
Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
4. Commissioner Moran moved to adopt Resolution
No. 88-021, approving Tentative Tract #23519
with Condition No. 6.c. clarified to show
Road "F" to be 60 feet wide. Commissioner
Steding seconded the motion. Unanimously
adopted.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - No one wished to address the
Commission.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and
seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve the
minutes of October 11, 1988. Unanimously approved.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
Chairman Walling brought Business Item "A" and "B"
before the Commission at this time. The Business
Items are as follows:
A. & B. Tentative Tract *21846, Sunrise Company; a
request for a time extension and a minor change to
revise unit count and type for the previously
approved tentative tract map. The tract is
generally in the northwest portion of PGA West.
1. Principal Planner Jerry
information contained
copy of which is on file
Development Department.
Herman presented the
in the Staff Report, a
in the Planning and
3 -
BJ/MIN10.25/DFT
Planning Commiss Minutes
October- 25, 1988
40
2. Following discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Zelles and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to approve the "Fairway"
unit type within Tentative Tract #21846 and
the approval of redistribution of the
"Legends", "Champions", "Fairway" and
"Greens" units within Tentative Tract #21846,
and an increase of 59 units over the
originally approved total of 308 units, and
adopt Resolution No. 88-024 to recommend to
the City Council a one-year time extension
for Tentative Tract #21846, subject to
conditions. Unanimously approved.
Chairman Walling brought Business Item "C" before
the Commission at this time. The Business Item is
as follows:
C. Home Occupation -use interpretation and permit
action by Daniel R. Wallace, Danny's Power Sweeping
at 52-145 Avenida Velasco.
1. Planning Director Murrel Crump presented the
information contained in the Staff Report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Following discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Moran and seconded by
Commissioner Bund to grant the Applicants
request subject to conditions. Upon a roll
call vote, Commissioners Bund and Moran voted
"aye" with Commissioners Steding, Zelles, and
Walling voting "no". The motion was not
approved. Commissioner Steding moved that
the Planning Departments original ruling be
sustained to deny the home occupation
permit. Commissioner Zelles seconded the
motion. Commissioners Zelles, Steding, and
Walling voted "aye"; Commissioners Moran and
Bund voted 01no" The motion was approved.
Chairman Walling brought Business Item "D" before
the Commission at this time. The Business Item is
as follows:
D. Tentative Tract #22982, Cactus Flower; a request by
La Quinta Associates to consider parkland
fee -in -lieu proposal per Condition #25 and a Final
Map review per Condition #33.
4 -
:3J/MIN10.25/DFT
Planning Commiss� Minutes
October 25, 1988
VII.
VII.
1. Principal Planner Jerry Herman presented the
information contained in the Staff Report, a
copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Planning Director Murrel Crump requested that
the recommendation be modified to be an
amount not specified.
3. Cecilia King, spoke on behalf of the
Applicant, Williams and Company, and
indicated how this recommendation would
affect the project.
4. Commissioner Moran indicated that an
appraisal should be conducted to determine
the value of the land and not rely on the
price paid. Following further discussion, it
was moved by Commissioner Zelles to accept
Final Tract Map #22982 and recommend to the
City Council that the fee -in -lieu be accepted
for parkland with the amount to be determined
per the ordinance. Commissioner Moran
seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted.
OTHER - None
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded
by Commissioner Steding to adjourn to a regular
meeting on November 8, 1988, at 7:00 P.M., in the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La
Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.,
October 25, 1988.
5 -
3J/MIN10.25/DFT
r�
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1988
APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND CO.
OWNER: LANDMARK LAND CO.
PROPOSAL: TT 21123 Extension #2 (ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
TIME REQUEST FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL MAP
CONCERNING A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 6.74+
ACRES WITHIN THE DUNA LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA
LOCATION: GENERALLY WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET; +800
FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1)
GENERAI, PLAN
DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 UNITS/ACRE)
ZONING: R-2-8000 (MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, 8,000
SQUARE FEET PER UNIT REQUIRED)
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH.
#83061305) WAS PREPARED ON THE OVERALL DUNA
LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA #83-001 AND WAS
CERTIFIED ON APRIL 10, 1984. THE EIR
ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED
WITH TT 21123. EXTENSION OF TIME REQUESTS ON
TENTATIVE MAPS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
PROVISIONS.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On November 5, 1985, the City Council approved the original
Tentative Tract No. 21123. Subsequently, the first extension
of time for this map was approved by City Council on December
1, 1987, effecting a new expiration date of November 5, 1988.
The Applicant requests a second time extension of one year in
which to record the final map. If approved, the new expiration
date would be November 5, 1989.
- 1 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.015
0 0
The subdivision, which creates 20 estate -type lots for the
purpose of development of custom single-family housing, is
located in the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan project. The tract
is to be developed on 6.74 net acres with all lots facing north
onto a portion of the La Quinta Storm Water Channel. The
proposed net project density is 2.97 units per acre, which is
substantially less than that which is currently approved for
development on the site. The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan
concept approved up to five (5) units per acre, equivalent to
an ult.-Lmate gross site buildout of 40 units.
Avenida Los Verdes, the main private street access to the
tract, extends through the storm channel and branches out to
the east and west to serve the south portions of the lots
(refer to Tract flap, Attachment #2).
Lot sizes within the tract range from 11,400 square feet to
21,950 square feet in area.
Lot widths are generally between 95 and 100 feet with the
except. -Lon of the odd -shaped lots and those which have 70- to
80-fool: widths. Lot depths are generally 120 feet.
Attachment #3 shows a typical section through the tract at Lot
#7, with existing and proposed grades. The overall tract
elevation is +11 feet above the overall elevation of the Duna
La Qu:Lnta Specific Plan area. Existing conditions of approval
limit building height to 29 feet. Attachment #4 shows the
grade differential between the former Village Pointe project
area and Tentative Tract 21123. A condition of approval for
the original tract required emergency access from the southwest
cul-de-sac area of the tract to the Desert Club Drive
alignment. Attachment #5 shows the alignment as it relates to
this area of the tract and the Village Pointe apartment
project:, which has since expired. No final map activity has
taken place since the original approval.
ANALYS S:
1. The revised conditions of approval for Extension #1
brought the tract into conformance with the La Quinta
General Plan. No amendments to the General Plan have
been approved which would substantially change the
existing conditions.
2. As the Village Pointe Apartment project
any conditions specifically relating to
be modified or deleted.
is now expired,
that project may
2 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.015
11
0
3.
4.
The request for extension was distributed to the
following departments/agencies for comment:
a. Public Works
b. City Fire Marshal
C. Community Safety
d. Coachella Valley Water District
e. City Manager's office
Based upon the comments received, the Planning and
Development Department recommends the following
modifications to the current conditions of approval:
A. Existing Condition #9.a. reads as follows:
"a. Fireflow requirement is 1500 GPM for two-hour
duration at 20 PSI residual pressure
available from super (6" X 4" X 2-1/211)
hydrants, located at intersections if
possible, but in no case more than 250 feet
from any building. Water improvement plans
to be submitted to Fire Marshal for approval."
Revise this condition to read as follows (amended
portion underlined):
"a. Fireflow requirement is 1000 GPM for two
hours duration at 20 PSI residual pressure
available from super (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X
2-1/2) hydrants, located at intersections
if possible, but in no case more than 165
feet from any residential lot. Prior to the
recordation of the final map, water
improvement plans to be submitted to Fire
Marshal for approval.
The purpose is to update this condition to current
standards of the Fire Marshal's office.
13. Existing Condition #20 reads as follows:
1120. Prior to submission of any plans for building
permit issuance to the Planning Department,
the Applicant shall secure written approval
of the plan from the Riverside County
Agricultural Commissioner's office. At a
minimum, the plans shall provide the
contractor's name, address and phone number,
and the place of origin of all planting
materials."
3 -
BJ/STA:FFRPT.015
Revise this condition to read as follows:
1120. Prior to submission of any unit
construction plans for building permit
issuance to the Planning Department, the
Applicant shall prepare and submit a
landscaping; plan to the Planning and
Development Department for review and
approval, for each unit. Prior to submittal
of the landscape plan, the Applicant shall
secure written approval of the plan from the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's
office. The plans shall include the
contractor's name, address and phone number,
and the place of origin of all planting
materials.
This is intended to clarify existing Condition
#20, as it relates to existing Condition #19.
C. Existing Condition #23 reads as follows:
"23. All housing development within Tentative
Tract No. 21123 shall require approval of a
plot plan, pursuant to Section 18.30 of the
Municipal Land Use Ordinance, prior to
issuance of building permit(s)."
Delete Condition #23, as the Planning and
Development Department will review construction
plans for condition compliance at time of permit
application.
D. Existing Condition #24 reads as follows:
1124. The Applicant shall submit a plan for
perimeter fencing (south side wall) for
review and approval by the Planning and
Development Department prior to final map
recordation.."
Revise this condition to read as follows (and
remember to 23):
1123. The Applicant shall submit a plan for
perimeter fencing (south side wall) for
review and approval by the Planning and
Development Department prior to issuance of
any building or grading permits.
This is intended to relate the requirement to the
appropriate timing for review of this plan.
E. Renumber conditions accordingly.
4 -
BJ/STA:FFRPT.015
J
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-025 to recommend to
the City Council approval of a second one-year extension of
time for Tentative Tract 21123, subject to conditions as
revised.
Attachments: 1. Location Map
2. Approved TT 21123, Exhibit "A"
3. Typical Section through TT 21123
4. Cross section through Village Pointe/TT 21123
boundary
5. Delineation of emergency access location
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-025
with Conditions
- 5 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.015
i i I lk� 1 i
I g-
1
V/CIAll T Y AMP
IWo dC4LE
CASE MAP
CASE Nb. 77 Z V2 3 i -'XMN S I OA) 4t2-
A-TTACH m mN 1- *' 1
4
Jima--
ORTH
SCALE:
N-T 5.
ow
rRA:7 NO 4717 7RA,7* V.' vIF
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Ij
7rAcr ArAvv
F.MMG CUR., f
4
TRACT AV HX7
YRAC .7 Ai. 2w3d1.
ef•rx/n/kc
CKOKG C-40-
At
lope
W
al
60
le
z
Oo wo3rr �A-
CASE MAP
CASE No. -rr 2 112 3 ) 6y-rX^-%T#c^O
is
ORTH
SCALE:
N.T.S.
J
00+0 ViSlu
1
,
o
h
/
a
o
A2'v®/Y/ ov1mau
oo{i V.Lv
I
� I
oo I
I �w
h
J
Z
00 AZ d1S --- I
K
3ne .9 x�x
� J
A IT1DM
� I
.ta'0'azyn g .1201V
8
001c OUP
,&,ow f eFr4hV1AOW
Vru.A66 POINTS
PROSE C. r
ROW
rrdde . 2111 s
)araee
cis
.VrrRA16117 CRA�DE
' r.'c no Anx C,eovN® 1
CASE MAP
CASE N®. *--2
ArrAcHmiE e r :' +
E•Yisr/NC
CROMAO
I2
0
-{
SCALE:
NT5.
k C ~
Lor i o
� _,,., III ►. � ..o' �� � � ���
J • Q
F.
W.00 iV ; FYf
l,�s68 iV47
10
iIN
\
/ � � s�' yr I � i�i n �ii �� ,y� ��'��•�� � \�. '�- s£
tit �� � � cc• ° "� ���
CASE MAP
CASE W 7'r2IJ73; 6XrEoVSl0Al *-2 NORTH
A A- e;HeK,E,V'- *A.5- SCALE:
cm 131 REDOR.0£A �rlNAP„ •
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-025
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING A
ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION.
CASE NO. TT 21123 - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1985, hold
a duly -noticed public hearing recommending confirmation of the
environmental analysis and approval of the request of Landmark
Land Co. to subdivide +6.74 acres into a 20-lot single-family
residential subdivision, generally located west of Washington
Street, +800 feet south of Avenue 50 within the Duna La
Quinta Specific Plan area, more particularly described as
follows:
Being a resubdivision of parcels 182
and lots A-D of Parcel Map 19730, PM
122/89-90, also being a portion of the
northwest quarter of Section 6,
Township 6 South, Range 7 East, S.B.M.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta,
California, did, on the 5th day of November, 1985, hold a
duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant's request
and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the
environmental analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21123; and
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside,
Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La
Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director
determined that the Environmental Impact Report previously
prepared for the overall Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area
adequately addressed the impacts associated with Tentative
Tract 21123; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did
make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract
map; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Tentative
Tract Map No. 21123 was approved by the La Quinta City Council
based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and,
- 1 -
BJ/RESOPC.007
1]
C J
WHEREAS, the owner, Landmark Land Company, applied
for and received a first extension of time for Tentative Tract
21123, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps,
thereby extending the original map approval to November 5,
1988; and,
WHEREAS, said owner has applied for a second
extension of time for said tentative tract, in accordance with
Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to
time extensions on tentative maps; and
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find
the following facts to justify approval of said extension of
time:
1. The Tentative Tract No. 21123, as conditionally
approved, is generally consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan,
and the standards of the Municipal Land Division
and Land Use Ordinances.
2. The subject site is physically suitable for the
proposed subdivision.
3. Adherence to the current conditions of approval as
modified will ensure that the project will not be
likely to cause substantial environmental damage
and that impacts on wildlife habitat will be
mitigated to the extent feasible.
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 Planning Commission
in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of the above -described Second Extension
of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to
the attached conditions (which replaces those
contained in Council Resolution #87-61).
2 -
BJ/RESOPC.007
0
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting
of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of
November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JOHN WALLING, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST::
MURREL CRUMP, PLANNING DIRECTOR
3 -
BJ/RESOPC.007
0
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME
NOVEMBER 8, 1988 (REVISED)
* Indicates condition changed.
GENERAL
- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21123
1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall comply with the
requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map
Act, the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, and
approved Exhibit A, unless otherwise modified by the
following conditions.
2. '.rentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall be developed in
accordance with the standards for Specific Plan 83-001
(Duna La Quintta), Amendment #3, as conditionally
approved. Where there are identified conflicts, the
provisions within these conditions shall take precedence.
3. '.rract phasing plans, including phasing of public
:improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development
Department.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
construction of any building or use contemplated by this
approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or
clearances from the following public agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City Engineer
o Planning and Development Department, Planning
Division
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Riverside County Environmental Health Department
o Desert Sands Unified School District
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.
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
5. :Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant
shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by
-the City Engineer.
6. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in
accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform
:Building Code and subject to the approval of the City
:Engineer.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
- 1 -
BJ/CONAPRVL.008
7. The Applicant shall develop all roads applicable to
Tentative Tract No. 21123 in conformance with City
standards and with the design standards specified in
Specific Plan No. 83-001 (Duna La Quinta), as amended and
conditionally approved, and subject to approval of the
City Engineer.
8. The following modification shall be made in the
Circulation Plan:
a. A standard offset cul-de-sac (with 90-foot diameter
per the Fire Marshal) shall be provided at the end
of Lots A and B, or alternatives may be provided
subject to review and approval by the City Fire
Marshal and City Engineer.
b. A plan indicating proposed parking and method of
traffic control along the private road system shall
be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning and Development Department. Final street
typical section shall be as per requirements of the
City Engineer (32-foot minimum curb -to -curb width
for parking on one side only).
c. Cul-de-sacs shall be no longer than 550 feet long
unless provided with an emergency "all-weather"
alternative access or other appropriate fire
protection as approved by the City Fire Marshal.
d. The common area between the south tract boundary
and the private streets (Lots A and B) shall be
designated as Lot "D".
e. Emergency access gate(s) shall be provided at Lot A
(and other locations if required by the Fire
Marshal). The design, location and installation of
these gates are subject to review and approval of
the City Fire Marshal and the Planning and
Development Department, through the plot plan
review procedure.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
9. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
City Fire Marshal. Prior to issuance of any building
permit within Tentative Tract No. 21123, the following
conditions shall be met/certified to, except that the
:Eire Marshal may approve alternate means of compliance
where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these
standards:
* a. Fireflow requirement is 1000 GPM for two-hour
duration at 20 PSI residual pressure available from
super (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/211) hydrants, located
at intersections if possible, but in no case more
- 2 -
BJ/CONAPRVL.008
C
than 165 feet from any residential lot. Prior to
the recordation of the final map, water improvement
plans to be submitted to Fire Marshal for approval.
b. Emergency access extensions shall be improved to
all-weather.
C. Cul-de-sacs shall be 90 feet in diameter.
10. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
Coachella Valley Water District as follows:
a. The water and sewage disposal system for the
project shall be installed in accordance with the
requirements of the City and CVWD.
b. When there are identified conflicts, the City will
withhold the issuance of any building permit until
arrangements have been made with the District for
the relocation of these facilities.
C. Tentative Tract No. 21123 shall be annexed to
Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley
Water District for Sanitation Service.
11. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
:Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of any
building permits within the tract.
12. All utility improvements shall be installed underground.
MANAGEMENT
13. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant
shall submit to the Planning and Development Department
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.
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
3 -
BJ/CONAPRVL.008
techniques shall be subject to plan approval by the
Planning and Development Department.
*20. Prior to submission of any unit construction plans for
building permit issuance to the Planning Department, the
,Applicant shall prepare and submit a landscaping plan to
the Planning and Development Department for review and
approval, for each unit. Prior to submittal of the
,landscape plan, the Applicant shall secure written
approval of the plan from the Riverside County
;Agricultural Commissioner's office. The plans shall
:include the contractor's name, address and phone number,
and the place of origin of all planting materials.
21. No portion of any structure within Tentative Tract Map
]go. 21123 shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured
:From the levee grade, except that two-story units not
exceeding 29 feet in height may be approved by the City
:if architectural and site design features adequately
provide for architectural diversity (i.e., varying roof
lines), reduction in the appearance of bulk, appropriate
:setbacks, and similar features.
22. 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.
MISCELLANEOUS
*23. 1'he Applicant shall submit a plan for perimeter fencing
!south side wall) for review and approval by the Planning
and Development Department prior to issuance of any
building or grading permits.
24. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions and
requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee
Program in effect at the time of issuance of building
permits.
- 5 -
BJ/CONA,PRVL.008
DATE:
PROJECT:
OWNERS:
® r
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 8, 1988
PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR BELLOW' BUILDINGS,
78-035 TO 78-039 CALLE ESTADO
CHARLES AND MARIE BELLOWS
TENANTS: 78-035 CALLE ESTADO; NELSON-EGGERT/BETTER
HOMES AND GARDENS REAL ESTATE;
REPRESENTATIVE-HOWARD NELSON. (RE: SIGN
APPLICATION NO. 88-070)
78-039 CALLE ESTADO; VINO CAFE; JEFFREY R.
QUINT, BUSINESS OWNER. (RE: SIGN
APPLICATION NO. 88-074)
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Pricr to recent signing revisions/requests, the subject
building group existed with a painted wood real estate office
sign. on the west building, and a cafe sign painted directly to
the front wall of the east building.
A request came to the Planning and Development Department in
August of this year, for a change in the real estate office
signing. The proposal was to replace the existing
non -illuminated wood sign with a plexiglass face, internally
illuminated sign cabinet. The request fell into the category
of a. "Standard Sign Program" administered by Staff because it
involved two or less signs. But, in taking action it was
recognized that the criteria of the "Planned Sign Program"
considered by Commission, also applied because the request was
one tenant of a multiple tenant building group. The Sign
ordinance provides that in approving a Planned Sign Program the
Commission must find that:
"a. The proposed sign or signs satisfy the intent of
this Chapter.
b. The proposed sign or signs are in harmony with and
visually related to:
1.) Other signs included in the Planned Sign
Program. This shall be accomplished by
incorporating several common design elements
such as materials, letter style, colors,
illumination, sign type or sign shape.
2.) The buildings they identify. This may be
accomplished by utilizing materials, colors,
V
- 1 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.017
or design motif included in the building
being identified.
3.) Surrounding development. Approval of a
Planned Sign Program shall not adversely
affect surrounding land uses or obscure,
adjacent, conforming signs."
Before approving the individual request, Staff sought assurance
-that signs for this building group would be in harmony and
visually relate to each other, because the request submitted
was a departure from the signs that had previously existed on
the buildings. The Applicant in this case supplied a letter
from the property owner (see Attachment No. 1), which advised
that "any future new sign installed at the Cafe at 78-039 Calle
Estado must be similar type to achieve a continuity of design
between the buildings". Approval of the real estate office
sign was based on the sign program requirements described by
the owner, and conditioned upon that occurring.
Subsequently, in October of this year, the new tenant for the
Cafe submitted to the Planning and Development Department a
sign application requesting a non -illuminated wooden sign. The
Applicant was advised that he would need to revise the request
to conform to the property owner's stipulation at the time of
the real estate office sign approval, as that action
established the future sign program for the building group. He
was further advised to discuss the matter with the property
owner.
In response to what had transpired the new Cafe tenant returned
to the Department with an addendum to the property owners
original stipulation letter, wherein the property owner
"authorized" the tenant "...to install the sign of their
choice...". (See Attachment No. 2)
The Department does not believe itself to be in a position to
proceed with the Cafe tenants' request (other than a denial),
based on the sign program originally represented for the
building group. In the alternative to having a small business
owner go through the appeal application procedure, Staff has
referred this item to the Commission for final resolution.
(Sign exhibit provided in Attachment No. 3.)
RECOMMENDATION/COMMISSION ACTION:
Staff would suggest in this matter that the property owner be
instructed that the sign program for the building group has to
be one way or the other (similar illuminated plastic signs or
non -illuminated wooden signs), and that each tenant, "having
the sign of their choice" is inconsistent with the stated
criteria of the Sign Ordinance. If the property owner chooses
wooden signs to accommodate the Cafe tenant it should be with
the understanding that the present real estate office will be
- 2 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.017
•
required to convert to similar, compatible materials and
lighting.
Specifically, it should be directed that no further tenant
signs be approved until the property owner has an approved sign
program for the building group.
Attachments: 1. Owner letter, dated August 15, 1988
2. Owner letter, dated October 24, 1988
3. Vino Cafe, sign illustration
-- 3 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.017
August 15, 1988
y� 4
City of La Quinta
78--10`i Calle Estado
La Qu=_nta, CA 92253
RE: Sign Application
78-035 Calle Estado
Nelson -Eggert Real Estate
ATTACHMENT #
r," G a b i i
I hereby approve of the internally illuminated
sign with a plexig-ass face proposed on our property
at the above address, and agree that any future
new sign installed at the Cafe at 78-039 Calle Estado
must be of a similar type to achieve a continuity of
design between the buildings.
Signed
Property Owner
ol
Date "� C �•�+
;r �
ATTACHMENTi
5�ty0�f Ca l E njach'�
La Quints, Ca, 92253
RE: Sign Application
78-o39 Calle Estado
VINO CAFE
Please be advised, this is a letter of addendum to the letter
signed by my wife Marie and myself dated August 15, 1988 (copy
attached).
The new tenant of above property address, VINO CAFE, is hereby
authorized to install the sign of their choice, ie: materials, lighting
and colors, thus providing the new tenant a seperate identity from the
tenants next door known as Nelson-Eggart Real Estate.
Thank you for expediting this sign application as soon as possible as
the said new tenant will be paying rent on property Nov. lst.
Sincerely,
Charles Bellows, owner
ATTACOloof
it
0
9
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1988
PROJECT: MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING EXTERIOR FOR
CHEZ MONIQUE RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE.
PROJECT
LOCATION: 78-121 AVENIDA LA FONDA
APPLICANT: CHEZ MONIQUE
BACKGROUND:
The Applicant's request is to add some architectural detailing
to the existing building as illustrated on the attached
elevation.
The Commercial Plot Plan Ordinance requires exterior remodeling
to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
REQUEST:
As illustrated on the attached elevation, the proposed
architectural detailing includes planter boxes, window bars,
eve lighting, new signage, and painting the building a Rose
Breath or Peach Pink color. (Color swatches will be available
at the Commission meeting.)
ANALYSIS:
The matter is referred to the Commission with the following
question. Does the project conform with the Village Specific
Plan in terms of design?
The planter boxes do not provide an architectural treatment in
keeping with the existing building design. The window bars
make the windows appear as half wagon wheels. The proposed
changes do not provide a complete architectural design of the
building. The proposed color is not in keeping with the colors
of the Village and would make this building "stand out".
The sign information was not submitted in detail and,
therefore, it was not analyzed, although as illustrated, the
design would appear to be acceptable. A specific sign
application will be reviewed for consistency with the
regulations.
COMMISSION ACTION:
- 1 -
BJ/STAFFRPT.016
is
0
The Commission has as its basic options for action to indicate
to the Applicant that: 1.) the proposed changes are acceptable
being consistent with the policy guidelines of The Village at
La Quinta Specific Plan; or, 2.) direct that the remodel should
be redesigned to take the existing building architecture into
consideration (i.e., provide a total design not unrelated
add-ons).
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that this item be continued for restudy by
the Applicant, with any specific instructions the Commission
may have as to extension colors and window treatment.
Attachments: 1. Elevation drawings
BJ/STAFFRPT.016
- 2 -
•
p"A
® STUDY SESSI1
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1988
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF PARK OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS IN
THE NORTH SECTOR OF LA QUINTA
A. BACKGROUND
A request was made to Staff to update the Planning Commission
on the status of plans relating to the development activity and
its :Implications for park development in the north sector. The
following is a summary of conditions and plans to date.
B. THE GENERAL PLAN AND PRESENT STRATEGY
North of the Whitewater Wash, between Jefferson and Washington,
La Quinta''s General Plan calls for one "community" park
(greater than ten acres in size with an average size of thirty
acres'), and two "neighborhood" parks (five to ten acres).
A community park north of Whitewater Wash and the Highway 111
Commercial Corridor would seem to be essential from a distance
and access perspective. However, given the population
potential for the north sector, only two neighborhood parks
would seem to be insufficient. The land in this area is
divided into 160 acre "super blocks" by the General Plan road
system. Each super block could yield over 2,000 persons at low
densities (we can also expect some medium density residential
in this sector). At our General Plan standard of three acres
of parks per thousand population, each super block should have
a neighborhood park of approximately six acres. At that rate,
the north sector could expect up to seven neighborhood parks.
But, the General Plan also calls for a community park in this
sector. If the community park were approximately 20 acres, the
remaining acreage (22 acres) could create approximately four
neighborhood parks in the five -acre range.
- 1 -
BJ!MEMOTB.027
Another park opportunity to consider is the use of
"mini -parks". The General Plan only provides "mini -parks" in
the Cove neighborhood - primarily because of the difficulty of
obtaining larger parcels in an area already platted for small
residential lots. These mini -parks are less than one acre in
size, usually only half an acre.
As described and used in the General Plan, the term "mini -park"
is perhaps misused. A park space of significantly less than
one acre should more appropriately be termed a "tot -lot" or
"vest pocket park".
The concept for "mini -park" being applied to the north sector
is actually a sub -standard sized neighborhood park, between one
and five acres in size, often placed adjacent to a storm water
detent.Lon area to enhance the perceived size.
True m9'_ni-parks (one to five acres) offer an opportunity for
small walk -to play or passive areas placed closer than standard
neighborhood or community parks, usually internal to a
neighborhood where crossing a busy major street would be
unnecessary. There seems to be no reason why this type of
mini -park could not be used in the north sector as "in-between"
parks, to be placed where a full-sized neighborhood park could
not be arranged.
The :strategy being pursued by Planning and Development
Department Staff in the administration of the park land
dedication program has the following major features:
1. To locate three neighborhood parks where they will
serve one or more super blocks; and
1.. To place mini -parks in super blocks where a
neighborhood park is not being placed; and
�s. To recommend one community park where it will be
centrally accessible to the whole north sector as
well as serving as a neighborhood park for the
immediately adjacent developments.
Other elements of the location strategy are as follows:
Neighborhood parks should be placed where neighborhood
residents can walk or ride bikes to them without having
to cross a major street. Occasionally, drainage
detention areas can be placed adjacent to park sites to
dive a larger feel to the area. With proper street
design, neighborhood parks could be in the center of a
super block. Mini -parks should definitely be internal to
neighborhoods. The community park, on the other hand
should be easily accessible by car. It should abut a
major street. Community parks, having more active
facilities, should have as little neighborhood frontage
as possible, to minimize disruption from noise, lights,
parking, games, etc.
2 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
co
w
r
i
n
L)
i
r�
�I
I
.133EUS NOSm3333f -
arra n■a CDi �
a t a t r t t a r
/' •srttrR J
j One
::: �. O ® a `� :•O .:
rrs TC-I
out. ■■araar• Pu •aar(2•� 0� t• :aa■r■ •a:ara ar:ao. atr: ara:arsrr�•a■ a1ol
raousesi:
gt •a■ a �Lcc
•_,Z,,�
�W0
�•
;• .
-
■ra tW 0
a J:■• j0V
W•::
a
A X� ZO
ara �araYanota W
■•ar--� aarrr a
a s a r r a s a • '•' •°•:•:• tJ G
■rna��Lraaaa ...
s a t r a■ a o t •�• a0
■ r t a r P r a t t a � �r
a r a a a a r r a a a .47 �•:•:•••
■ r P t a O r a a t a < �`
1Jnul' I•• •'L—
:{�:• V O a.
mown o ONI19iX3
Xl1Yd tl311rN1 '�
®NIISIX3 . a •.•.•.•.•.•
j-
.
A:•
.°.
C
ram"
c
❑7
ID
..•N ::::::." s ....•. • �" • t — IMHIS NOIDNIHSVIM
t
:•:::::::: 1 a ■ use
was
r • • P
'i'a'p:::: a• 1 1 •• CO
Jaarar t/1
v co
�ss�;�ht;iYYa —T 7 `Ri
``
�. :':•::: : : 1 • I 1 EI O W W ie W CL a-
:•: a•:: o ::•:': : + I
a < a ~' a a 0
•
0
The strategy for each super block has been as follows:
(Refer to the following map for locations of super blocks.)
Super 3lock No. 1:
.rhe northwest quarter is already developed as a closed
community with a golf course. The southwest quarter
along Washington will probably also develop as
multi -family with its own recreational amenities. The
southeast corner is developed as a trailer park and
church. The remainder has been approved as two tentative
tracts for single family lots with public streets. We
have identified a park site north of the church and
trailer park, abutting Adams. This site has been
reserved as our first neighborhood park site. Its
placement will permit it to also serve super block #2.
If single family development is proposed for the
southwest corner of this area, a mini -park should be
:included in the plan.
Super 3lock No. 2.
The northeast quarter is a walled community, (La Quinta
Palms). The remainder of the super block will probably
be subdivided into single family lots with public
:streets. The western half of super block #2 can access
the park already reserved on the western edge of super
block #1. The south eastern quarter of super block #2
:should provide a mini -park as well as access a
neighborhood park being considered in super block #3.
Super Block No. 3
.he north west quarter has already been subdivided into a
single family tract with public streets. A
pre -submission has been reviewed for the adjoining 80
acres to the east. A three acre reservation for parks
has been identified. In addition, a two acre area to the
west lying adjacent to the three acre piece has also been
identified for reservation. That super block will have a
five acre neighborhood park internal to the super block,
accessible from all adjoining subdivisions and also from
across Dune Palms to the west.
Super Block No. 4
Super block #4 is the subject of a General Plan Amendment
now being processed. The proposal asks for commercial on
the Washington/Miles corner, then multi -family
development to the east. The eastern half would be low
density single-family with public streets. No
neighborhood park reservations have been identified for
this super block. The reason is that the community park
opportunities are all adjacent to this area.
Nevertheless, a mini -park site should be set aside in the
northeast portion of the super block.
3 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
Super Block No. 5
This super block is one where several community park
opportunities occur. If adopted as a community park
location, no neighborhood park would be needed. If not,
a neighborhood park on the western side should be
reserved.
Super 3lock No. 6.a.
This area is only half of a super block. Proposals for
this area have included multi -family and more recently,
single-family. If a community park is located in block
#5, a neighborhood park would not be necessary. If not,
a mini --park could be placed in the area.
Super 3lock No. 6.b.
..Chis is also half of a super block. The southwest
portion is developed as a trailer park. Ranchettes lie
to the north of the trailer park. The eastern portion is
developed as a single family lot golf course community.
In between, along Westward Ho, several empty parcels
exist which could be considered as possible neighborhood
park sites. If not used as a "neighborhood park", a
rnini-park could be placed in this area.
Super Block No. 7
This super block is within Indio's jurisdiction.
C. I.�AND ACQUISITION PROCESS
The requirement in the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance/Subdivision Regulations for park land dedication by
subdivisions contains a formula of three acres per thousand
population. Our official (1986 Special Census) person per
household rate is 2.922. This yields approximately 382 square
feet per single family lot. The City retains the option of
requirJ'_ng either land dedication or cash -in -lieu depending on
size and location compared to an overall park development
program.
D. EXPERIENCE GAINED
In the short period that the park land dedication
been administered, several practical conclusions
drawn. This experience should become the basis
refined park development program.
program has
have been
for a more
4 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
:1. In the north sector, subdivisions tend to come
along in 40 acre, or smaller, properties. A 40
acre subdivision would yield a park dedication of
about 1.5 acres. Our park standards say that a
neighborhood park should be between five and ten
acres. Few individual subdivisions will be able to
provide that. For a neighborhood park (minimum
five acres) to be carved out of a single
subdivision, the land being subdivided would have
to yield 570 lots and exceed 130 acres. It is only
by foresight and some good luck that the assembly
of neighborhood park land is even possible, usually
at the junction of two or three subdivisions.
2. Developers prefer to contribute cash and forego the
actual land dedication. They can recoup the cash
outlay from the leveraged land appreciation.
However, if we are not careful, the City could end
up in the future with a fund full of cash and no
remaining land left for park development.
3. Land is being absorbed by residential development
at an increasing rate, especially in the north
sector. This is the same area where access to
existing parks is more difficult.
4. Private enclaves and multi -family development
absorb land rapidly, and have not been obligated to
contribute toward park land dedication. Such
developments provide private internal recreation
amenities. Yet the residents of private
developments and multi -family developments are City
residents and contribute some of the demand for
certain kinds of recreational facilities which tend
to not be provided within private developments,
such as softball/baseball, picnicking, soccer.
5. Dollars collected as cash -in -lieu today are based
on today's land prices per acre. Tomorrow's park
purchases with those dollars will be at tomorrow's
higher prices per acre. Therefore, for every year
which goes by between collection and purchase, an
increment of shrinkage takes place in acreage
purchasable with yesterday's dollars.
6. The creation of small neighborhood parks through
the park land dedication program can be made to
work. However the creation of a community park (20
or more acres) through the same process is
problematic. Additional actions are required, such
as purchase in advance.
5 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
0 •
71. Money advanced now to buy a future community park
site at todays prices will be paid back by future
park land dedications (cash -in -lieu) at tomorrow's
higher prices per acre.
8. Not counting shrinkage, in order to collect enough
acreage (or cash) to yield a community park of
twenty acres, at least 2281 lots or 540 acres of
single family lots must have been subdivided.
9. Mini -parks and neighborhood parks (with passive
open space and some play equipment) may only
require a maintenance staff. A community park will
also require, in addition, program development and
implementation, plus a higher level of intensive
maintenance. The City must reach a policy decision
early as to whether the City wants to make that
next step into recreation programs, or should it
arrange with the Recreation and Parks District for
intensive maintenance and programming.
E. NOTES ON POSSIBLE COMMUNITY PARK SITES NORTH OF
WHITEWATER WASH
The General Plan calls for a Community Park ("greater than
ten acres, averaging thirty acres in size") north of Whitewater
Wash. The symbol for the park is generally located between
Miles and Westward Ho, west of Adams Street.
The service area for such a community park would be all
residential land north of Whitewater Wash. This area is
General. Plan designated for High and Medium Density with some
Low Density in the northeast portion. The service area also
includes some territory in Indio, in Indian Wells, and in the
unincorporated County.
While the minimum land area is ten acres, a workable community
park should approach or exceed twenty acres, especially if the
park is; expected to provide areas for both active sports and
passive: uses, with reasonable separation.
Four alternative sites have been identified as being worth
serious consideration. Only two appear to be truly feasible,
with. one slightly favored. (See Map)
6 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
(MYOM'A) °bE'--- -_- _ _-- - _'oJ i I .JU- 1 990000 t t t I PALM1, 9 MI
�'• �A'rpwt�• , myo
to
I, E
'i Q'
I• Ili • • �•• •. .•• •. •.
" """ �t �,� 4 �• •BERMUDA DUNES
t' ..............c �.;�'L:♦ v�,• ��NCOUNTRY CLUB
--.Water
it
• —
c •. '' I'!,44 DARBY ..: ROAD...: -- - ••
`t -- -- -- - - ----- --- -- —_-
JI --- Water • '�.��
LL
• I J
%... ....
T ra 'e-
f.
Pa•r I
MILES _ _ -T VENUE _ JiJL_ '• I - M
iC n I
2 '
i
Indian�W.11. ,
d 5 F
Happy
90 1
VNEL
' � Jib t'n', •..... � •• LLA I��tic .. ��'•• 'C9
'. V
ALLEv .
•
•III
G� I BM 72q t f 1
SV BM 61 r
fif K
WE
IIII
� by
POSSI LE COMMUNITY POK SITES We'
-� Well
W
Lu
�I Lu
3C :.
Site #4:
o Location: South of Westward Ho, east of Adams
Street.
o Size.: A 15 to 20 acre portion of a larger
property could be purchased.
o Characteristics: Whitewater Wash to the south, residential
property to the east (General Plan: High
Density). Access is good off future
border streets of Adams and Westward Ho.
Elevation 60-80 feet, almost flat, then
sloping toward the Wash. Three
ownerships up to about 15 acres; four, if
more land is needed.
o Considerations: General Plan designation: High density.
Price would no doubt be commensurate.
Need to improve Whitewater Wash bank for
approximately 1000 feet. Would make cost
of park prohibitive. Potentially four
ownerships. Fourth owner now in
litigation against the City over a zoning
issue. City's appeal pending. Hostile,
expensive condemnation likely. If
down -scaling of residential density in
General Plan designation takes place,
City could be accused of having ulterior
motives to lower price of park land.
Site #:3
o Location: West of Adams Street, both sides of
westward extension of Westward Ho.
o Size: Size could be anywhere from ten to twenty
or more acres.
o Characteristics: Access good off future Adams. Terrain
from 70 to 100 feet, sloping toward
Wash. Northwest/southeast ridge line on
western half. Two ownerships with the
property line following the section line.
o Considerations: All property north of section line is in
one ownership. Specific Plan under
General Plan Amendment review. Off -site
improvements on all four sides of project
means high development costs. Developer
claims they will require every acre
available to amortize off -sites: they
can't spare any acreage. Being adjacent
to Wash for a thousand or so feet means
7 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
0 •
high park improvement costs. General
Plan designation is High Density. Higher
price to be expected. May be down -scaled
as a result of density study. Same
"ulterior motive" risk. Condemnation
would likely be hostile, expensive and
time consuming.
Site #2
o Location: South of Miles Avenue approximately 660
feet east of Adams with approximately 660
feet of frontage and about 1300 feet
depth north/south.
o Size;.
Approximately 19.5 acres.
c Characteristics: Single family subdivision proposed to
west. Another proposed single family
subdivision area adjacent to the east.
Surrounding General Plan designation is
Medium Density. Access and visibility
good off Miles. Terrain approximately at
80 foot elevation with a large low spot
(sump?) on the southern one-third.
Northwest/southeast ridge lines and
valleys of dunes. Two owners of 10 acres
each (square pieces aligned north and
south).
o Considerations: Access and visibility good. Terrain and
drainage may be a problem. Two owners to
deal with. Being surrounded on three
sides by single family subdivisions (6/10
mile boundary) means many practical
restrictions on use of park site for
active recreation due to noise and light
glare impacts on neighbors. Medium
Density price. Not on Wash. Extreme
elevation differences from ridges to
valley of dunes make site preparation
costs fairly high.
Site #1
o Location: Northeast corner of Adams and Westward
Ho.
o Size: 18.7 acres.
8 -
BJ/MEMOTB.027
o Considerations: If area #5 were surrounded by residential
uses, it could be used primarily for
passive recreation (and drainage
detention) while area #1 could be more
actively used.
F. FUTURE STRATEGIES
The following list of actions constitutes a future strategy
which the City may wish to consider for the north sector of La
Quinta.
1. Continue with the present adaptive strategy for
neighborhood and mini -park sites. As tentative
tracts are proposed, work in parkland reservations
to carryout the placement strategy described.
2. Investigate alternative community park sites.
3. Link the park development program with the
Redevelopment Agency Area Number Two plan.
9. Prioritize and select the better one or two sites
available.
5. Take two or three-year options to purchase on one
or more sites.
6. Build a purchase fund for community parks from
parkland dedication funds as well as supplemental
City appropriations.
7. Make a policy determination as to what level of
park and recreation services the City desires to
provide versus what services will be contracted
and/or delegated to the Coachella Valley Recreation
and Parks District.
8. Purchase a community park site and hold it until
the real use need approaches and until more
cash -in -lieu payments have been collected for
underwriting development costs.
- 10 -
BJ / MEMC)TB . 0 2 7