Loading...
1989 02 28 PCA G E N D A 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 C:alle Estado, La Quinta, California February 28, 1989 - 7:00'P.M. CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute ROLL CALL HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROJECT: ACTION: Beginning Resolution No. 89-0" TENTATIVE TRACT 23773 RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND STARLIGHT LANE/ADAMS STREET TO SUBDIVIDE 45.64 ACRES INTO 155 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND RELATED COMMON LOT AREAS RESOLUTION NO. 89- 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 84-003, AMENDMENT NO. 2; THE ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA APPLICANT: RUFUS ASSOCIATES LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 50, ONE -QUARTER MILE WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT: ELIMINATE CONDITION #4 REGARDING TIME LIMIT ON SPECIFIC PLAN ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 89- MR/AGENDA.228 -1- 3. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROJECT: ACTION: 4. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: :LOCATION: PROJECT: ACTION: PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC USE PERMIT 373-E, AMENDMENT NO. 1 SALTS, TROUTMAN & KANESHIRO/GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND AVENIDA LA FONDA ADDITION OF A 450-SQUARE-FOOT POWER ROOM AND A 945-SQUARE-FOOT EQUIPMENT ROOM TO AN EXISTING GTE SWITCHING FACILITY RESOLUTION NO. 89- SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS ADJUSTMENT NO. 89-002 GEORGE MOONEY 51-125 AND 51-155 EISENHOWER DRIVE REDUCTION IN 1,200-SQUARE-FOOT LIVABLE AREA RESOLUTTION, NO. 89- 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. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission under Public Comment and scheduled Agenda items should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form to the Planning Director 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1989. MR/AGENDA.228 -2- BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item: Applicant: Location: Action: Design Review Standards City of La Quinta City -Wide Minute Motion OTHER 1. Fencing Requirements in, SR zone. ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 27, 1989, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY" 1. Design Review. 2. Park Plans - North Sector (previously distributed for November 7, 1988, Study Session). 3. Highway 111 Specific Plan 9. Identification of Future Commission Agenda Items. 5. All Other Agenda items. MR/AGENDA.228 -3- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989 APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION/STARLIGHT DUNES PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23773; REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE +45.6 ACRES INTO 154 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND TWO COMMON AREA/ENTRY LOTS LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING AND ADAMS STREET/STARLIGHT LANE (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: L.D.R. (2-4 DU/AC) EXISTING ZONING: R-1-9000 (SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, MINIMUM LOT SIZE 9,000 SQUARE FEET) NET DENSITY: 3.4 UNITS/ACRE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: EA 88-104 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. INDIVIDUALLY LIMITED IMPACTS WERE IDENTIFIED WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC, SOIL DISTURBANCES, DRAINAGE/EROSION RATES, LOSS OF COACHELLA VALLEY FRINGE -TOED LIZARD HABITAT, NOISE, LIGHTING AND GLARE, AND HOUSING. MITIGATION OF THESE IMPACTS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH CONDITIONING THE PROJECT APPROVAL; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: The City Council, by adopting Resolution No. 88-100, designated -the property as Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) on the General Plan Land Use Map, and adopted Pre -Annexation Zoning Ordinance No. 127, zoning the site as R-1-9000 (subject to annexation), on August 2, 1988, and August 16, 1988, respectively. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant proposes a 156-lot single-family development, which will later be developed by the Applicant, with a specified product series. The internal street and drainage MR/STAFFRPT.062 -1- systems will be privately maintained (see Attachment No. 2). The subject site was recently approved for annexation into the City by LAFCO on January 26, 1989 (LAFCO Cases 88-90-4, Sphere of influence Amendment; 88-91-4, Annexation 3). California Government Code Section 66454 - Subdivision Map Act - specifies that a city may approve a tentative map in adjacent unincorporated territory contingent upon a condition that the map area must be annexed to the city within a period of time as specified by the city. On February 7, 1989, the La Quinta City Council adopted a resolution allowing annexation of the property, as approved by LAFCO on January 26, 1989. Pending recordation of this document with LAFCO, the annexation will become effective; conjunctively, any approval for TT 23772 would also be in effect as of the date of recordation of said resolution. ANALYSIS: 1. Fred Waring Drive/Starlight Lane/Adams Street intersection: The design of this intersection is problematic in that the County -approved wall design for the Bermuda Dunes area required Adams Street, north of Fred Waring, to be shifted east, creating a slightly offset intersection. The Applicant has submitted a conceptual design geometric for this intersection (see Attachment No. 3), which has been coordinated between the City, Bermuda Dunes Homeowners Association, and the Applicant. Final design components will be subject to City standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 2. Tract Access: Primary tract entries are shown located on Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street (refer to Attachment No. 2). A common area lot, to be used for landscape and gate facilities, is located adjacent to each entry (Lots 155 and 156). The Fred Waring access will be limited to right -turn movements only, due to the Major Arterial design standards for Fred Waring Drive and the fact that this access point does not line up with the approved access for TT 23269, on the south side of Fred Waring. This access is also limited to right -turn movements only. 3. The conceptual gated entry designs submitted are functional (see Attachment No. 4). Final detailed design of the gates will be subject to approval prior to their installation. 4. Maintenance of Retention and Other Common Areas. The City currently requires on -site storm water retention for all projects which cannot provide other technically acceptable means of storm water conveyance. A condition has been provided to insure the maintenance of these facilities by assessing the individual lot owners, either MR/STAFFRPT.062 -2- by establishing a homeowners' association or a landscape maintenance district. These methods have also been suggested for the required 20-foot landscaped setback along Fred Waring Drive. 5. Approval of Housing Units. A condition has been recommended for this Tentative Tract approval allowing for Planning Commission review of house elevations and floor plans prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Parkland Dedications. Chapter 13.24, Article II, of the La Quinta Municipal Code sets forth requirements for parkland dedications. Based on this Chapter, 1.36 acres of parkland are required to be dedicated or assessed to secure an in -lieu fee. Parkland requirements will have •--o be assessed at a later date due to the uncertain nature of the surrounding unincorporated properties. 7. The Applicant has expressed a desire to designate Adams Street as Starlight Lane, from Fred Waring north. Title 14 of the La Quinta Municipal Code sets forth procedures for changing street names. At this time, due to the fact that the Adams Street segment north of Fred Waring is not wholly in La Quinta, the Applicant would have to petition the City and County at a later date to change the name, once the ultimate design for the street improvements have been finally determined. 8. Applicant has submitted a phasing plan for approval along with the tentative tract. This phasing plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and his recommendations have been incorporated into the approval conditions. FINDINGS: Findings for Tentative Tract Map No. 23773 can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution, recommend to the City Council concurrence with the envircnmental analysis and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 23773, subject to the attached conditions. attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 3. Concept Design Intersection 4. Gated Entry Design 5. Planning Commission No. 23773 for Fred Waring/Adams/Starlight Resolution, with Conditions MR/STAFFRPT.062 -3- i --JLT- �- �,�:�+r:r:i+= - .. -.ice :�.:� .`�-.=•"' 14, Ar nearOF IVERSjbE ���'-" !• WARING F R E D PALM ROYALE{Ir TT 23289 TRACT 18915 • Irrnreenunanlnnee � nunenmm�ni TT 23971 TT 23268 aC' ^ M I L E S geuee�U}M,�u1tu11tit111111{i - ' �•" -- ueTrittrrrntlm�n ^—� nJ PM 22596 ywe O IN©IAN WELLS - f" {/emu q PI.AZA -A OUINTq _+ Cam•-.-y,- ',� _' l— - a a•�s DRI g VTfTWZ—I1tl I i fail 1111 a CLA QUINTAZr CACTUS `. PALMS ;, FLOWER FAMILY TRACT HERITAGE t9903 TT 22982 CHURCH 111nuuene� eeuuulau: if..../uwu11: TT 23913� A V E N L wee eeAelels' . 'l ��fflff'ftif�ff;• F 11te1 : .T m n 7-w..T 23935 co w CITY OF INDIC I F if . ee{{eHHggl{1� i _aew� u i WESTWARD HO DRIVE &Au:. �, \\ :CZ 87-026: .TT 24026 GPA 88-021 Sp 88-012 CZ 88-035 TT23995 �nJ 43 •W-uh Y Q z2 W < n O h F. 1V <Y s`wra f..t • N ho r <_,�x� d d� EnY a JQhNo JS mc0 °e a ON\Qa n VIN Q, C lJ 0mu -4? v m o W Q�Wr 0°z N N ��`° > <o oW •�t °zul o LL- ° <z.O. dz "�`-•I �Q w� Ka �`," ;Y oF z --� yz I s•. Ws _�_� L)>cc z:n_zg, <- f 1- J ly W 2 Q, z $ Wy �^ L.J; < K a LL < J_ > W 1 N019N '6rM; ix cm a , J IWt �' LJI (f71 J Ir a �' a lam; Q w r� _ , nWm� 1 J a K 02 et z �� m o Y x z.: a' °� m W LW1 CT1 L d_Lj Lu. J h v _m,r >-ter U z N �l •? l.L V7, aaQ dz �f��jo ,�Z-yj �< ,��+ Lii H �— moat-o `y a, r�$o<= �aN<x IV plv QI ti (�1) z a/ o J% / p1N5u tiro <raa ° •,� _q^ 3'N3Q153M AIIWYj 319Nl S_hNt151Y3 ILI d• u. 1 O •ti•1 �.� .: ^� ' `1 ^4•. is 1 Q'¢ y I�'Og N1 \,`� l C"1 ++ •in (Sj �\ •Li• - f;: ! 01 -4, modQ"I t t• V `E•Y F ° I •^ ,'tt : �i a ' .' �' ° l- OS , oB `11 IM •M� XV w'et d ,! Y�'6 .,�,/ f'— O' c70Nif']'> I �.r•-og fi JMY7 :l WrWd.t •�' "i. NYLS oy.,00s0•M �9,'. D °1 •�� Y£KFN rs a La7—_.__„' m�_—tf-8�ocC �_ - e'�'-_. �/✓o/1 r�,V70.02 f i����'• ._ 2 w •� p•^,g„w Kir�'J / CFI I coo/ „ uL2t sj .r 31 L� 76 ♦ I 06 - Op SOI f£, ti \ oCIS m rW M o rn m ^ �� _ rW vti� Oc �•� ad od h a 1 a i � N '" �Q .IrJw ,.�ioxs _ aN rmaHS .•Isu, __-_ � - �-, C oP" f 1 J1A F •1' O Q VI �I Ol°�9SL+P •j - •- •btl,� I �y Neil I m u id / Q •y1 Wp ®L / I �`' 06 od 06 III ►, // s�'t. ��i6; 5 0.+1 NW lO I aI� ♦ 1 m _ o J �ra�', I- ,+k,` L° W?• /? \�\e�+I •1ra1 oo/ !� �'♦•/> oo, 06 d6- _ L6' iv/�^�a' it 0o I o0, °• / / / . o ; , Flo` a9 1 s o I I �n -.vt- /• 0 S! O.w n o ;� N I&rco Id Krlp }� -I - /�3�- n?r i�� .2. N J ° D-4� 3 o1�-I A o < e: �• _, m / o a / I Z in m ol0... I o•� ` I o �o - V /// / o o .n� °W i n a �� �:I'�'� O N c .- Ip, 14 00, at „1/ o RI rp CC 8Q' / ivy �,� i f1p �. ^I r 0/ I 1 1 ` d I m 'a jai. 1 �� o N a_ ove I i o 001 V91 I1 I• Qvd -, -* I y i•e ' fI r•e. w I o W: �e ,., •, al si•=o- .�03� I a r�.�+ o, ono``/ ¢'0I .'t`''i p+ee ,� `t ^ gl l per/ 11 eo K O . NO ^ - V < f, �� �-�a�� tS e �p•I 28 _SN �/ o/ o o ?'1,^`/ u w = ,n ♦ "v 'Si s r MnJ lb1°� W 001SK jl oo,� -�� ,a• $q& 1 ° 0'o H of m° �1 �♦ Ii �- /�+ gam_ I� !4� I < fg ````i`• 00/ 7 �I m /$ ( u d• a mil+ ` I Z Z 'M °1 \ la ^ ` �.I I.oi l�I I I IIWW \ °. in P; ,n . .{ /i } I•- - n r> < 0 ",a 1 Op p+ �' I .t-3--/Yr r/ I tltltl N �� C•� l/ P 1 P. $O1 4}1•II I °O/ 1 1 e1� ' Q =• w ♦ a� ` 1 NI\ Zio °O • eo o N of Sz!SzIO Pt !otil.\ /R QII W ON 51IS ��, �`�/ S71 00/ 1 0° 1 rc \ �� s - P I� �.µ�`� °v r s r 0 m ° of °f ` o T \� qi ° t m e°..: °I c " log WI oo, Ooi � 0' •se. � /Z� 56 � �,:�„ M �' 0' P/ e H •'�tl of =.�a a V �'�� � Ni @I m Inl� � .°•ebb N o�I�` •B. 5 x �,'>4 •r`'C `" I b N e /Mi' / I+ 611 "ow W z I SyZ �I o£, / I Ed ai • 0 1 !,,• F Le 51 105 1 St7 \ \ m �- Ot u o N % 9n „;. ,\o t'yp yl •r 1 /� Iz� i 61y 41- - 7A/ �N._,ie I S<. R �� \ f J I o i M ;�! 1 0 ^' S7' N - `. _ •st Sl �E'�t I I �' d r P a. / r �'�. t` i \ SS of > o`/ A / I sII I 6R' • 40, I J I:�AJ W / H r� m /N/ be 4'�,YS -.t Ap."t e�y fp j�F� i / •�t SIt K 4 �A/Ati L e�a9L; S'. \� �yi`� �toi•TA 'r / l l ,y/ �„ t,; °s'�p{O,W.'SSS n" @ l �f..°i'e-x �C Oo• t ^'� 5g2o 4_Soz/ < V �°; ®a✓ W1 ..b1 ItY-eS�' v�101j• C (a •� 1 F ` 061 °� •� R >�I^ ?�' / �C / Ib9 6 �I ° 06 �%d P6 56 tn •• •0 `'IP O G Q (`� 4 O `� /_ �c i Y� OI �0••T� \ i� °W ill Ob 06/ 1 06\ I . og _ 06 �6 07 L-_i_�---__�__£o �,, _ I w� / laasaaNanbveWiNv�vn -' �I o aS noL�i- i I ILI 4r Col Z' Li I A A)LI -Ixl5rlIV6 A' V L -------------- VI W.44IN6 DR/LE 011 45, WAY oil f I.i SwrnG C",qrc. IW,450A,R-1 WALL- -- 0 L07 L AI,450,VRY WALL 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23773, ALLOWING THE CREATION OF A 156-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A 45.64-ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 23773 - STARLIGHT DUNES, INC., OWNER RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the 28th day of February, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Rick Johnson Construction to subdivide 45.64 acres into 156 single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue, more particularly described as: BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 5361, P.M. 11/79, PORTION OF THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 18, T5S, R7E, S.B.M., IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, said real property was authorized for annexation into the City of La Quinta by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission on January 26, 1989; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council approved said real property for annexation to the City of La Quinta on February 7, 1989; and, WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 66454 provides that a City may take action on a tentative subdivision map of unincorporated property adjacent to that City, provided and that approval of said map is conditioned upon annexation of said property to such City; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has 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 conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, MR/RESO89.010 '1' WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 23773, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and _ntent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1-9000 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the La Quinta Municipal Code. 2. That the design of Tentative Tract map No. 23773 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will mitigate this impact. 3. That the proposed subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with adequate sewer, water, drainage, and other utility systems, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23773, as conditioned, will provide for adequate maintenance of all common areas and facilities, including the internal private street system. 5. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 23773, as conditioned, will provide mitigation of potential impacts to recreation facilities, noise, traffic, and circulation. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend confirmation of Environmental Assessment No. 88-104, relative to the environmental concerns for this Tentative Tract; PIR/RESO89.010 -2- 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative Tract Map No. 23773 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Steding, Zelles, Moran, Chairman Walling NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bund ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR MR/RESO89.010 -3- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 23773 FEBRUARY 28, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 23773 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. Design and improvement of Tentative Tract 23773 shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits A and B, the approved phasing plan and the conceptual intersection and entry gate details; except where there are conflicts between these conditions and said Exhibits, the condition(s) shall take precedence. 3. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. (See Condition No. 35) 4. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. ENGINEERING/GRADING/DRAINAGE 5. The Applicant shall have a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough and final grade stages are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to issuance of building permits. G. The developer of this subdivision shall submit a copy of all proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -1- 7. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. 8. The developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 9. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provides as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. All drainage runoff for 100-year storm shall be retained in basin on -site, including runoff from Fred Waring Drive and Starlight Lane. 10. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. 11. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements (Riverside County). 12. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project grading and development. 13. Applicant shall submit an erosion and dust mitigation program for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits for any grading activity. 14. Any earthwork on contiguous properties requires a written authorization from the owner(s) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer prior to any grading permit issuance. 15. Prior to recordation of a final map, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 16. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer: MRiCONAPRVL.043 -2- a. Fred Waring Drive to Major Arterial standard (60-foot half -•width) including intersection with Starlight Lane/Adams Street as necessary. b. Starlight Lane/Adams Street in accordance with the approved conceptual design geometric. C. All other public/private easements as deemed necessary. 17. That the Applicant shall have prepared street improvement plans (for public and private streets) that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs, markings, and raised median island, shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code, and as set forth in these conditions. a. Construction of Fred Waring Drive to half -width plus one travel lane, in accordance with standards for Major Arterials (120-foot right-of-way) plus suitable conforms to existing pavement. Applicant shall design and construct full landscaped median for Fred Waring. Applicant may bond for median improvements subject to approval of the City Engineer. b. Construct Starlight Lane/Adams Street up to 36-foot travelway plus suitable conforms. The developer's engineer shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and County to provide design for gated access with lane widths, vehicular storage, stopping and viewing distances, subject to the approval of the City Engineer and in accordance with the approved intersection and street design for Starlight Lane/Adams Street. C. Prepare street improvement plans and construct improvements for private streets. 18. Applicant shall bond for 25 percent of the cost of a future traffic signal at Fred Waring and Starlight Lane/Adams Street. 19. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Fred Waring and Starlight Lane/Adams Street for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of -way, with the exception of street entries. 20. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the developer in accordance with standards of the City Engineer. 1KR/CONAPRVL.043 -3- TRACT DESIGN 21. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be required along Fred Waring Drive. Design of the setback shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setback shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines. a. The minimum setback may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 24, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 22. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 9,000 square feet. 23. Plans for tract phasing of public improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The phasing Exhibit shall show the northerly 'jPhase III" as "Phase IV". MAINTENANCE 24. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water retention areas via one of the following methods prior to final map approval: a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -4- The common facilities to maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Fred Waring Drive. (3) Interior private street system, including access gates and related common lots 155 and 156. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES 25. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Fire Marshal: a. Schedule A fire protection approved super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/211) shall be located one at each intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from any hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 GPM for two hours duration at 20 PSI. b. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by CVWD prior to any combustible material being placed on any individual lot. c Prior to the recordation of the final map, Applicant/Developer shall furnish the water system improvement plans to the Fire Department for approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system shall meet the required fire flows. d. All access gates shall be power operated and equipped with a radio -controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. System shall be designed to unlatch gates in the event of power failures or be equipped with backup power facilities. Developer to provide four transmitters to the Fire Department. 26. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -5- BUILDING AND USE DEVELOPMENT 27. If a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders prior the the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Builder shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission will review and approve these as a Business Item. The basic architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. & Rs. 28. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Fred Waring Drive shall be �imited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. ^he Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for approval a siting plan showing the location of all unit types proposed by the developer. No dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Washington Street shall be higher than one story, not to exceed 20 feet. 29. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b. Private access gates and guardhouse(s). C. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. d. On -site advertising/construction signs. 30. Tract and building permits shall incorporate the recommendations of the acoustical analysis prepared by Ultrasystems, dated December, 1988, and contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for TT 23773. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 31. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. 32. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer and common areas including gates. Desert or native plant species and drought -resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -6- b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 33. Prior to building permit approval(s), the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. MISCELLANEOUS 34. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation 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 any permit for any use contemplated by this approval. 35. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City°s adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 36. This approval shall not be in effect until and unless Annexation Resolution No. 89-15 has been recorded. No final map may be approved until the annexation is completed. The property shall have been annexed to the City within one year of the original date of approval by the City Council. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -7- rH-2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989 PROJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT #2; THE ORCHARD AT LA QUINTA - ELIMINATE CONDITION #4 REGARDING APPROVAL TIME PERIOD PROJECT LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF AVENUE 50, ONE -QUARTER 14ILE WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET APPLICANT: RUFUS ASSOCIATES ZONING DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (C-T) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SPECIAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION WAS PREPARED AND ADOPTED FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. NO SUBSEQUENT CHANGES ARE PROPOSED; THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THIS AMENDMENT REQUEST BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan approved by the City Council on February 7, 1984, was for this construction of a 60-unit hotel on 28.8 acres. An amendment was requested in 1986 to increase the acreage to 37.5 acres (increase of 8.7 acres) and increase the hotel units to 86 (increase of 26 units). These amendments were considered by the Planning Commission on January 28, 1986. The Commission recommended approval subject to conditions. The City Council concurred with the Commission on February 18, 1986, and adopted Council Resolution No. 86-11, subject to conditions. Condition #4 limited the approval to two years (February 18, 1986, to f-ebruary 18, 1988). The Applicant requested an amendment to Condition #4 to permit the approval for one more year. The Commission considered the request on February 9, 1988. The Commission recommended approval of the one-year extension. The City Council considered the request and granted the amendment on February 16, 1988. MR/STAFFRPT.059 -1- The Applicant is now before the Commission requesting that Condition #4 be eliminated, or a one-year time extension be granted. State law does not address the issue of time limits for Specific Plans, nor do City Ordinances. ANALYSIS: 1. The Specific Plan, as approved, is still consistent with .the General Plan and development policies. 2. No other changes are requested by the Applicant; all existing conditions still pertain. 3. Annual review of the Specific Plan. The Applicant should -provide evidence: a. That the project is still viable; and b. That the Applicant still plans to develop the project. This review should be conducted by the Planning Commission as a Business Item. RECOMMENDATION: By adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 89- recommend modification of Condition No. 4 by replacing it with an annual review process. h1R/STAFFRPT.059 -2- RuFus Ass®CIATEs POST OFFICE BOX 299 LA QUINTA, CALIFOHNIA 92253 (619) 564-6676 January 10, 1989 Mr. Murrel Crump City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Murrel: As you will recall, we received an extension of our Specific Plan 84-003, The Orchard Hotel, on February 16, 1988, which extended our plan for a one year period of time. CABLES LAwsPEC LA QuixzA. CA TaLsx: 6TUM2 OBCHD TEL8coP1EE (619) 564-0154 With this letter we now request an extension of our permit for this project. However, we do understand that it may be possible to eliminate the one-year time stipulation based on our previous conversation with Jerry Herman last week. Jerry indicated that there is a possibility to eliminate a time deadline entirely in such a case as ours, where the use matches the general plan as it has been filed. I would appreciate reviewing all of this with you and will call for an appointment this week. With best wishes, .Sincerely, RUFUS ASSO IA ES Gary A. Lohman Vice President & Director of Development GAL:a i0518FA10H 1 116TRL-J4-8910C RECEIVtO tl 0 1989 CITY Ut- LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPKIfT DEPT. s,F, 84'0603, AMiNC1#NT *2 7HF. LXZCa-IARO AT La AJINTA NORTH SCALE: 1*4Oncc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO.4 FOR THE ORCHARD SPECIFIC PLAN. SPECIFIC PLAN 84-003, AMENDMENT #2; THE ORCHARD WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 20th day of January, 1984, hold a duly. -noticed Public Hearing recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 84-003 to the City Council, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing approving Specific Plan No. 84-003, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Rufus Associates, requested an Amendment to the Specific Plan No. 84-003, which was considered by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing on January 28, 1986; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of said Amendment #1, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Amendment at a Public Hearing conducted on February 18, 1986, at which time the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-11, approving said Amendment #1, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Rufus Associates, requested an Amendment to the time limit imposed on the Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment #1; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council, on the 9th day of February, 1988, a one-year time extension; and, WHEREAS, the City Council considered the time extension request on February 16, 1988, approved the time extension; and, MR/RESO89.006 -1- WHEREAS, the Applicant, Rufus Associates, requested elimination of Condition No. 4, or a time extension as permitted in Condition No. 4; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 14th day of February, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request; and, WHEREAS, said Amendment #2 complied with the requirement of "The Rules to Implement. the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Pesolulzion No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined that the Specific Plan has been previously assessed for environmental impacts and that a Negative Declaration was adopted; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the modification of said Condition No. 4: 1. The Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted La Quinta General Plan. 2. 'There are no physical constraints which could prohibit development of the site as proposed. 3. The project will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 4. The mitigation measures agreed to by this Applicant and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval will mitigate any adverse environmental impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. The the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the environmental assessment relative to the environmental concerns of this Amendment; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of amending Condition No. 4 by providing an annual review process instead of a specific expiration date for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached revised Condition No. 4. DTR%RESO89.006 -2- APPROVED and ADOPTED this 14th day of February, 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Moran, Zelles, Steding, Chairman Walling NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bund ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR MR/RESO89.006 -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- 008 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 84-003, AMENDMENT #2 REVISED CONDITION #4 FEBRUARY 28, 1989 46. The Planning Commission shall conduct annual reviews of this Specific Plan starting February, 1990. During each periodic review by the Planning Commission, the Orchard Developer/Applicant shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Specific Plan. The Applicant/Developer of the Orchard hereby agrees to furnish such evidence of the Orchards compliance as the City in the exercise of its reasonable discretion may require. Evidence of good faith compliance may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, good faith compliance with the requirements of the Specific Plan. Upon conclusion of the annual review, the Commission may extend the approval period for 12 months at a time. MR/CONAPRVL.041 -1- CONDITIONS OF AFPROVAL-Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 "The Orchard at La Quinta" Morris and Grayson, Inc. January 281, 1986 A5 ,4,1'-`P'`'� 1. The development of the resort hotel as approved by Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1 shall comply with the policies and provisions of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Development of the site shall comply with the standards and requirements of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance unless otherwise modified by these conditions of approval. 3. Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment No. 1 shall comply with the applicable provisions of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19634, Revised No. 1, as approved by the Community Development Deparatment. 4. This approval shall be used within one year of the City Council's final approval of Specific Plan No. 84-003, Amendment 62; otherwise, it shall became null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "used" means the beginning of substantial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) as authorized by this Specific Plan, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Applicant may, prior to the expiration, request an extension of time in which to "use" the Specific Plan approval. The extension request must be made in writing 30 days prior to expiration. The matter will be placed on the Planning Commission's regular agenda. The requested extension may be granted upon a determination that valid reason exists for the Applicant not using the approval within the required period of time. CG,G, 2ex'o j'' B8 - �o / - AmsNpm6�vY �t 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and or clearances from the following public agencies: * City Engineer * City Fire Marshal * City Community Development Department, Planning Division * Riverside County Environmental Health Department * Coachella Valley Water 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. 6. Project phasing plans, including phasing of public im- provements, shall be submitted for review and approval by t Community Development Department. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 January 28, 1986 Page 2 Building and Project Design 7. The development of the buildings and site shall comply with the approved Exhibits A, B, C and D as contained in the Community Development Department file for Specific Plan No 84-003, Amendment No 1 and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the specific plan. S. The Applicant shall submit plans for the location and design of any maintenance facilities for the hotel and its grounds to the Community Development Department for review and approval. 9. All mechanical equipment, heating and cooling equipment shall be ground mounted or screened from view by the buildings roof structure. 10. The location and design of out trash enclosures shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Streets, Drainage and Grading 11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer. a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan. b. The Applicant shall construct half width street -im- provements for Avenue 50 in accordance with the re- quirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code. c. The Applicant shall be responsible for the constructior of a landscaped median on Avenue 50, subject to compliance with City policies and procedures in effect at the time of the development. d. In conjunction with the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 19834, Revised No. 1 and prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for Specific Plan No 84-003, Amendment No 1, the Applicant shall submit an access/traffic circulation analysis prepared by a Registered Civil or Traffic Engineer for the hotel and parcel map site. This analysis shall address access from public roads and onsite circulatioi CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 64-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 January 28, 1966 'Page 3 This report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval; and (if necessary) revised site and improvement plans conforming with the approved circulation analysis shall be submitted for review and approval. e. That the Applicant shall have prepared street improvemen plans (for public and private streets) that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings, and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan) shall conform to City Standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC. (3" AC over 4" Class Base min. for residential streets). Street design shal] take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. f. The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that it prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be re- quired to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction; and certify that the constructed conditioi at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to issuance of building permits. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also require prior to final approval of grading construction. g. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The reports recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. Th4 soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. h. A detailed hydrology and hydraulic study of the site shall be required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. All structures shall be protected from 100-year storm flooding. i. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted City Standards prior to construction of any streets. Th soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. J. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-0030 AMENDMENT NO 1 January 28, 1986 Page 4 k. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering i City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and the Applicant agrees to be included in the district. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. 12. In order to facilitate mitigation of cumulative traffic impacts of this and other area projects, the City shall establish a traffic improvement needs monitoring program. This program will undertake biannual traffic count studies tc determine if warrants are met for major roadway improvements and traffic signalization. Upon determination of needs, the City may initiate projects to meet those needs. Funding of this program may be by fee programs that assess new development an/or users on a pro-rata or fair -share basis, formation of assessment districts, acquisition of State or Federal road funds, or other means that fairly allocate costa to those generating the need. The Applicant shall agree to pay the designated pro-rata share that the City may establisi to fund off -site roadway improvements and traffic signalization on an "as warranted" basis. 13. The Applicant shall comply with the Community Development Department's requirements for dust control during construc- tion. 14. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance and the City Engineer. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Fire Marshal: a. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the City of La Quintals adopted codes and ordinances in effect at the time of construction and the re- quirements of the City Fire Marshal. The City Fire Marshal may approve alternative means of compliance where deemed equivalent or superior to these standards. b. Provide a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a two hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later date in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separations, or built-in fire protection measures. c. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" x 2 1/211) will be required located not less than 25 feet nor more than 165 feet from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved travelways. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 January 26, 1986 Page 5 The required fire flow shall be available from any two adjacent hydrants in the system. d. All buildings must be sprinklered. Complete fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13. Plan review and approval by Factory Mutual or Insurance Services Office will be required. Post indicator valves and fire department connections shall be located at building fronts, not less than 25 feet frc the building and within 50 feet of an approved hydrant. e. Install fire alarms (waterflow) and tamper alarms on the water supply system to the sprinkler system(s). f. Install fire alarms, panic hardware, exit signs, portab] fire extinguishers and other fire control devices as required by the City's adopted codes, NFPA, Pamplet No 10, and the Fire Marshal. g. Buildings more than 150' from approved vehicular access must have Class III hose cabinets and standpipes. h. Fire department connections must be provided at approvec locations on the perimeter access road. Certain designated areas will be required to be designated as fire lanes. i. The Applicant shall furnish water system plans to the City Fire Marshal for review and approval. Said plans shall comply with all the Fire Marshal's requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a Registered Civil Engineer and Coachella Valley Water District 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." j . A fire flow of 500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before anj combustible material related to construction is placed i the site. k. Staff emergency personnel shall have carts capable of carring gurneys and litters. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements 4 the Coachella Valley Water District. a. The domestic water system shall be installed in accordance with the District and City requirements at the time of development. b. The Applicant shall provide and dedicate to the Distric, any land needed for the provision of additional facilities, including but not limited to sites for well reservoirs and booster pumping stations. c. The site shall be annexed to CVWD Improvement District No. 55 for sanitation service. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 8$-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 January 28, 1986 Page 6 17. The Applicant shall provide all necessary easements for public utilities. All onsite utilities shall be placed underground. The overhead telephone cable along the south side of Avenue 50 shall be undergrounded. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation District. Miscellaneous 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits or certificates o occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a noise study prepare by a licensed acoustical engineer. The study shall focus o the noise generated by this nonresidential use (including traffic noise) as it could affect residential uses within 1000 feet of the site. Based upon the study as approved by the Community Development Department, mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design as required. 19. Perimeter walls or fences shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Walls shall be setback a minimum of twenty (20) feet fr the Avenue 50 right-of-way. b. Portions of -the wall along Avenue 50 may -use wrought it or similar open fencing to allow views into the project where appropriate. c. View of the parking lots shall be screened from Avenue and adjoining parcels by the use of walls or combinatic walls/berms. d. The walls along the interior property lines may be plac on the property line. e. The design of the walls shall take into consideration a noise abatement considerations as required by Condition No. 16. f. All fencing designs, including location, materials and construction, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. g. A modification of these standards may be permitted dependent upon the overall design and location of the walls and site conditions. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit plans to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, for review and approval which shall indicate the following: a. Landscaping materials, including plant type, species, size, spacing and location. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Proposed SPECIFIC PLAN NO 84-003, AMENDMENT NO 1 January 28, 1986 Page 7 b. Landscape Irrigation system incorporating water conservation measures where feasible. c. Locations of exterior walkways. d. Exterior lighting plan with details of proposed lighting fixtures. e. Design and location of trash enclosures in accordance with the requirements of the City and Palm Desert Disposal Service. 21. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the Applicant shall submit a master signage plan to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, for review and approval. The plan shall indicate the following: a. Location, size and design of project signs. b. Directory signs at major entrances and appropriate points to direct emergency personnel. c. Location, size and design of onsite directional and informational signs. 22. Existing trees on the site shall be retained in general accordance with Exhibit "D". The Applicant is encouraged to maintain the trees in agricultural production, provided that it is economically feasible. 23. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant sha7 submit an archaeological survey on the site to the Community Development Department for review and approval. Mitigation measures recommended in the approved survey shall be completed prior to commencement of grading. 24. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City's adopted infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. This fee may include drainage fees. r H STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989 APPLICANT/CWNER: SALTS, TROUTMAN & KANESHIRO/GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 373-E, AMENDMENT NO. 1; A REQUEST TO AMEND THE EXISTING USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR THE GTE SWITCHING FACILITY; SPECIFICALLY, TO ADD EQUIPMENT ROOMS TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW DIGITAL SWITCH. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF DESERT CLUB DRIVE AND AVENIDA LA FONDA (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL; LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 UPA) EXISTING ZONING: SR AND R-2-4000 (SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, 7,200-SQUARE-FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE; MULTIPLE -FAMILY DWELLINGS, 4,000-SQUARE-FOOT MINIMUM PER DWELLING UNIT.) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT FROM ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CEQA GUIDELINES, SECTION 1530(e). A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION WILL BE FILED IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED FACILITY EXPANSION INVOLVES THE ADDITION OF A 450-SQUARE-FOOT POWER ROOM AND A 945-SQUARE-FOOT EQUIPMENT ROOM TO THE EXISTING GTE SWITCHING FACILITY. SIX OF 18 EXISTING PARKING SPACES WILL BE REMOVED. (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 2) ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO THE EASTERLY INTERIOR AREA AND THE NORTHWESTERLY PORTIONS OF THE SITE HAVE ALSO BEEN PROPOSED, AS REQUESTED BY STAFF DURING PRESUBMITTAL DISCUSSIONS. (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 3) MR/STAFFRPT.061 -1- ANALYSIS: The following discussion centers upon the primary concerns raised as a result of this application filing. The Applicant has agreed to comply with the Staff's recommendations in each case. 1. Nature of Use. Public Use Permit No. 373-E was approved by Riverside County on August 31, 1978. The provisions of Chapter 9.176 of the La Quinta Municipal Code governing Public Use Permits allows public utilities in any zone classification, pursuant to the granting of a Public Use Permit. The primary concerns with these types of facilities is compatibility with surrounding existing and future land uses. Compatibility is usually accomplished in one of two ways: either through architectural and site design, which blends the facility with surrounding buildings; or screening those existing facilities which are unable to utilize such design components, primarily through additional landscaping requirements. The existing use and proposed additions .make it difficult to utilize architectural blending without extensive reconfiguration of structural aspects. It is best to incorporate landscaping which will lessen the visual impact of the facility. Although this facility is not contemplated as being expanded beyond this proposal, the full life of this use is not presently known. In order to accomplish a reduction in the building's visual impact, canopied trees should be provided along the northerly property line following the length of the building frontage, with trees of smaller canopy, or greater spacing, extending the balance of the north property line to the east. Attachment No. 3 shows the easterly interior area as landscaped; it is suggested that interior requirements be reduced to trade off the benefit of more perimeter landscaping with a screening effect. Additional tree stands along the east property line should also be provided, with the interior portion graveled or turfed at -the Applicant's discretion. Trees should also be placed at appropriate size and intervals along the areas between the building and wall, and the north right-of-way line on La Fonda. 2. Desert Club Drive is designated as a 64-foot right-of-way Collector by the La Quinta General Plan and the Village Specific Plan. Existing right-of-way shown is 30-foot half width on the east side of Desert Club. The following issues become apparent: AIR/STAFFRPT.061 -2- A. The site plan can accommodate an additional two -foot dedication to allow for the Collector width. Requirements of the City Engineer include that the travel width (curb -to -curb) be 48 feet, which leaves an eight -foot parkway for sidewalk/landscape. This would be a minimal parkway for pedestrian provisions on either side of Deseret Club Drive. However, it is not anticipated that there would be heavy pedestrian traffic along the east side of Desert Club, as this side will be primarily for parking areas. Pedestrian links are on the west side of Desert Club Drive (see Attachment No. 4); this is where we may need to consider exacting a greater parkway than eight feet along Desert Club, either through a dedication, easement agreement, or more restrictive setback requirement during project reviews fronting on the west side of Desert Club. B. Engineering has indicated that, due to design problems with the existing dry sewer in Desert Club Drive, the system will have to be removed and re -installed. It is expected that the replacement of the sewer (CVWD) in Desert Club Drive will be performed within the next calendar year. This will result in the removal and replacement of most of the street improvements. Therefore, it would be desirable to have a dedication and improvement agreement (bonded) providing for the construction of the required improvements following the sewer work and within a fixed amount of time (six months) following written direction to proceed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission decision on a Public Use Permit is final, and no action by the City Council is required unless the Planning Commission's decision is appealed, or otherwise set for hearing by the City Council, within seven days of filing the Notice of Decision with the Council. The Notice of Decision by the Planning Commission must be filed with the City Council within 15 days of the Planning Commission's decision. Action by the Planning Commission should be adopted by Resolution. 1FINDINGS: Findings for Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1, can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. MR/STAFFRPT.061 -3- RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approving the amendment to Public to the conditions as contained in attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. --ocation Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Village Plan adopt Resolution No. 89- , Use Permit No. 373-E, subject said resolution. - Pedestrian Network MR/STAFFRPT.061 -4- M mmonmuuwmu CASE MAP CASE No. R,;dwe- 05ki *e old%". '' 3 -CALLS---NI ORTH SCALE : NO SCALE ..............� 0' .1.,«c.•.�.A.t��.,I�V ------__�_�._______._ � -. ... • - - ..wrwtoowra/a ssraor wow vi wasaw Mai .a.W..m�. NVvuno i1 UJQ 4 OUQ 6 DA NLN3 M3I 19/lq{l ,� sl�a� � +�! 1114'J � 4 Ml ( � aai.�o ld!l1N30 vlNirw n �a r I.� 41, i I A aT ® Y 1 it lic 8� � [` a VA Km lv"uvl vmw AM vowl N011 w N Vranc-a "ZHOWNIN30 VIMM vi Sl -iV,-- e its ME ilk 3 AA . . ........... 3Aw anio Ik3S30 �"1 _ « • y a w w 4 6 V < c9 H z cc » H H ~ 1 _ Z z z 0. H ..,� .� In a W S W w < It W 0,4 < W W 16 oY � o s, H w � 3 � `� t� z j f .i 96 z w a° Q wy Cv� w O D a O I Mom/O m WJ _ -- ONMYAYN- _ r vapmv „tw, .I. • '`•`•'ln'.....j,.,.�. .u... :r:.s .�F'�t}�:� �':r--a'-fir' • LVTIIA vcl!j V TIER tla1N3Atl _ _ F��' :�i y R�:}it if 'R��l':1 'r i��i T�T��• '-T-�_ 7(CXACdW Val v vzoam3w valhmv� MUM" i • 23willl111N1 tla1N3AY - ;� « . . '�/j�n. rt+d I f '. I�.i.nt•'-{rri'r• :sn+�'.i'��u �6• � .• I I I � � 11 I I I L1�..J • 1I31YY0►p[�513 ( 1 j T i I 17� �Ti-}f - {:+f�l}fi:-."n��� �:i}+ If�t}� �}+-F1&+ri-1r♦ I��}-F+' :}}tf�?.+'ifi I . _1 �• J l 1 1 i_1 � _I � . _i :- 1-�- aOSY13A tla1N3AY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 373-E CASE NO. PUP 373-E, AMENDMENT NO. 1 -- GTE CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the East Area Planning Council of Riverside County did, on the 31st day of August, 1978, hold a noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of GTE Co. to establish a switching facility on .92 acres at the northeast corner of Avenida La Fonda and Desert Club Drive, and at said Hearing approved said request known as Public Use Permit No. 373-E; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, GTE California, has applied for an amendment to said Public Use Permit to allow for expansion of the existing facility; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 28th day of February, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of GTE, California, to add approximately 1,500 additional square feet to the existing structure at the northeast corner of Avenida La Fonda and Desert Club Drive, more particularly described as follows: .92 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, CONSISTING OF LOTS 73, 74, AND 75 OF DESERT CLUB TRACT UNIT #4, MAP BOOK 19, PAGE 75, RIVERSIDE COUNTY. WHEREAS said Public Use Permit has been determined to be exempt from the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301(e) of the CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Public Use Permit: 1. That Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1, as conditionally approved, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. ,VlR/RES089.009 -1- 2. That approval of Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1 will provide an overall benefit to the community at large through expansion of a necessary public utility system. 3. That approval of Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1, will facilitate development consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the proposed Public Use Permit expansion is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act; 3. That it does hereby approve the above -described Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of February, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Zelles, Moran, Steding, Chairman Walling NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Bund ABSTAIN: CHAIRMAN ATTEST: PLANNING DIRECTOR MR/RESO89.009 -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-009 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PUBLIC USE PERMIT 373-E, AMENDMENT NO. 1 FEBRUARY 28, 1989 GENERAL 1. Development of Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1, shall be in conformance with Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, B, C, D, and E, and contained in the Planning and Development Department's file; except that where these conditions take precedence over said Exhibits, the condition(s) shall govern. 2. This approval shall become effective pursuant to La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.164.060, at which point the time limit for approval shall commence. Public Use Permit No. 373-E, Amendment No. 1 shall be valid for one year from the above -referenced effective date. Extensions of time, pursuant to Section 9.176.050, may be requested by the Applicant prior to expiration of this permit approval. IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit or any use allowed by this permit, the Applicant shall convey necessary right-of-way along Desert Club Drive and Avenida La Fonda to provide for 32-foot and 30-foot half -width rights -of --way, respectively, with a standard corner cutback at Desert Club Drive and Avenida La Fonda. 4. The Applicant shall prepare street improvement plans for Desert Club Drive and Avenida La Fonda, in accordance with the following: a. Desert Club: one -half -width improvements, with suitable conforms, to accommodate a 48-foot curb -to -curb design (24-foot half -width). b. Avenida La Fonda: one -half -width improvements, plus suitable conforms, to accommodate a 40-foot curb -to -curb design (20-foot half -width). C. Improvement plans shall be complete with curb, gutter, sidewalk, handicap ramp, dry well(s), and driveway approach, all to City standards and subject to approval by the City Engineer. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -1- 5. The Applicant shall prepare a bonded dedication and improvement agreement, pursuant to Conditions 3 and 4. Form of surety and agreement shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Director. Upon written direction from the City Engineer allowing the Applicant to proceed the required improvements shall be completed by the Applicant no later than six months from said written direction. 6. An encroachment permit for work in right-of-way areas shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES 7. 3rior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant first shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the appropriate public agencies. Evidence of said permits or clearances shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 8. The existing halon fire suppression system shall be expanded to the addition areas in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, Uniform Fire Code, and the City Fire Marshal. 9. Portable fire extinguishers shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 10. Final building plans shall be subject to the approval of the City Fire Marshal. MISCELLANEOUS 11. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted for review by the Planning and Development Department, generally incorporating the following items: a. Provide large canopy tree stands along the north, east, and northwesterly wall areas. Spacing requirements, depending on tree type/size, must be consistent in order to achieve an adequate spread of the tree canopies (i.e., 40 feet on -center). b. The proposed interior landscaped area at the east shall incorporate more screening qualities into the plant list -- the lower scale plant material can be eliminated in favor of taller plant materials of a screening variety. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -2- C. Locate similar tree stands to screen building along the south of the property (northerly right-of-way line of La Fonda, outside perimeter wall). d. The barren area along La Fonda at the eastside of the entry driveway shall be included in the improvements for the revised landscape plan. 12. The revised landscaping plans and the irrigation plans (Exhibits A-2 and D) shall be approved by the CVWD and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to final review/approval by the Planning and Development Department. MR/CONAPRVL.043 -3- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989 APPLICANT/OWNER: GEORGE R. MOONEY PROJECT: SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARD ADJUSTMENT NO. 89-002, REDUCTION IN THE 1,200-SQUARE-FOOT LIVABLE AREA SIZE LOCATION: 51-125 AND 51-155 EISENHOWER DRIVE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DU/AC) EXISTING ZONING: SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL (SR) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS: THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED ADJUSTMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 (CEQA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is seeking an adjustment to the unit size requirement cif 1,200 square feet in the SR zone. The Applicant proposes to construct a common -wall development on two separate 5,000-square-foot lots. Each unit will have 750 square feet. ANALYSIS: Surrounding land uses consist of a duplex to the south and a triplex to the north of the site. The Applicant's property is the only vacant property on the west side of Eisenhower Drive within this block. ;?. The SR zone requires a minimum gross livable area of 1,200 square feet, excluding garage, as measured from the exterior walls of the dwelling. The Applicant proposes 750 square feet per unit, thus the request for an adjustment. :3. The minimum gross livable area requirement is an adjustable item, subject to Planning Commission approval 14. Common wall developments are permitted in the SR zone, under Section 9.42.050 D.2.d. MR/STAFFRPT.063 -1- 5. The Applicant's proposal complies with all of the other building development standards, such as: minimum 10-foot clear width and depth dimensions for the bedrooms, one and one-half baths for two -bedroom dwellings, a two -car garage with interior dimensions of not less than 20 feet square (20 X 20), and access between the house and garage. 6. The Applicant proposes to construct a common pool and changing room/covered patio area. The common use of these facilities will be noted as a deed restriction. 7. The pool equipment cannot be located in the required 10-foot rear or the 5-foot side yard setback area. The Applicant will have to adjust the proposal to conform with this standard. 8. Three 15-gallon trees are required within the front yard for each lot. The Applicant will have to provide another tree for each lot. 9. The rear and side yard areas are required to be fenced; the Applicant's plans complies with this requirement. 19. The Building Code requires a two-hour wall separation between each unit and separate septic systems. 11. The proposal complies with the SR setback requirement with the exception of the noted pool equipment. 12. The Applicant has not submitted color or material information; however, the SR zone requires tile roof and compatible colors as they relate to the existing units. This review will take place during precise plan application review conducted by Staff. 13. The action of the Planning Commission on adjustments are final unless appealed to the City Council. FINDINGS: 1. The adjustment is exempt from CEQA. 2. The proposed use and design conforms to all applicable requirements of the City General Plan. 3. The proposed development as conditioned complies with the requirements of the SR zone with the exception of the requested adjustment. 4. The architectural aspects of the development is compatible with, and not detrimental to, the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. NIR/STAFFRPT.063 -2- 5. Approval of the development is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 6. The design takes into account the existing physical characteristics of the site, including topography, drainage, and trees. 7. Approval of this development does not exceed the maximum limit of five unsold houses under construction by a single applicant at any one time. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, grant Adjustment No. 89-002 to the minimum gross livable area as requested, subject to the following conditions: i. Prepare a deed restriction or Use Agreement pertaining to the joint use of the pool and changing room/covered patio area for Planning and Development Department review and approval. The Agreement or deed restriction shall be recorded prior to a final occupancy of the units. 2. Submit to the Planning and Development Department a revised site plan adjusting the pool equipment location to conform with the minimum setback requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. DIR/STAFFRPT.063 -3- CALLE TAMPICO N W Z Q AVE MONTEZUMA C MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-1_05 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California February 14, 1989 I. II. 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Walling. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Bund. vnT.T. rAT.T. A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Bund, Zelles, Steding, Moran, and Chairman Walling. B. Staff Present: Principal Planners Jerry Herman and Ted Bower. HEARINGS Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: A. Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment No. 3, and concurrence with the Environmental Assessment; a request by the City of La Quinta to realign right-of-way on Washington Street, approximately between Avenue 48 and Highway 111. 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. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bob Fiori, a resident of the Highland Palms area, addressed the Commission. Mr. Fiori expressed concern over potential noise and requested, on behalf of the residents of this area, that inclusion of a sound wall be considered. A resident of 46-555 Washington asked the Commission that the total Highland Palms area continue to be noticed for future MR/MIN02-14.DFT -1- public hearings on matters relating to Washington Street and nearby development. There being no further public comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing. 3. Following discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Resolution No. 89-002, accepting Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment No. 3, and concurrence with the Environmental Assessment, with the addition of Finding No. 6 that construction of the sound wall be considered at the same time as construction of the frontage road. Upon roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. B. Specific Plan No. 87-011, Change of Zone 87-028, and concurrence with the Environmental Assessment; a request by Maurice Kurtz/Archisystems International for the development of +350,000 square feet of retail space, 90,000 square feet of office space, three restaurants, (+19,000 square feet), two hotels, and a cineplex; located east of Washington Street, south and east of Simon Drive, south of Highway 111, west of Adams Street, and one-half mile north of 48th Avenue. 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. Chairman Walling abstained from discussion of the project. Vice Chairman Moran opened the Public Hearing. Maurice Kurtz, the Applicant's representative, addressed the Commission, explaining the project. There being no further comment, Vice Chairman Moran closed the Public Hearing. 3. Following Commission discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-003, approving Specific Plan 87-011, with the correction to Condition No. 3 adding the paragraph encouraging the Developer to pay a share for the noise wall, an addition to Condition No. 9, and added Condition No. 10; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-004, approving Change of Zone No. 87-028. Upon roll call vote, the motions were unanimously adopted, with Chairman Walling abstaining. MR/MIN02-14.DFT -2- C. Tentative Tract 21642; a request by Landmark Land Company for division of +293.5 acres into 20 residential condominium lots, six golf course development lots, and one maintenance facility lot; located within the PGA West Specific Plan area, generally bounded by Avenue 58 to the south and the easterly right-of-way line of the All -American Canal. 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. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Steve Robbins of ESCO addressed the Commission on behalf of the Applicant. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Public Hearing. 3. Following Commission discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-005, approving Tentative Tract 21642 with the deletion of Condition No. 13. Upon roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. C. Tentative Tract 23971 and concurrence with Environmental Assessment; a request by Deane Homes/Thomas Thornburgh to subdivide a 70-acre parcel into 228 single-family lots, located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 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. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Thomas Thornburgh addressed the Commission, further explaining the request. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Public Hearing. 3. Following Commission discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-006, approving Tentative Tract 23971 and concurring with the Environmental Assessment, subject to conditions as modified. Upon roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted. DIR/MIN02-14.DFT -3- I'V. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to approve the mi:.,iutes of January 10, 1989, as modified. Unanimously adopted. VI. BUSINESS Chairman Walling introduced the Business Items as follows: A. TT 22432; A request by Sunrise Company for a new unit type, "The Galleries", within PGA West. 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. Following Commission discussion, a minute motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve the new unit type for Tract 22432. Unanimous. B. Plot Plan 85-217, Amendment No. 2; A request by MCG Associates to re -allocate general uses and revise architecture for two remaining unbuilt buildings in Plaza Tampico. 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. Following Commission discussion, a minute motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Plot Plan 85-217, Amendment No. 2. Unanimous. C. Specific Plan 85-006, Oak Tree West; a request by Landmark Land Company for continuance of a request for a time extension. Unanimously approved by minute motion. VII. OTHER - None MR/MIN02-14.DFT -4- VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on February 28, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quanta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:35 p.m., February 14, 1989. MR/MIN02-14.DFT -5- i V . FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM TH:E HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JANUARY 24, 1988 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS On January 3rd, the City Council completed the second reading of the Village Zoning Text. Included in the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance was the Design Review Chapter (9.183). The ordinance amendment takes effect February 3rd, 1989. The solicitation of technical members of the Design Review Board has begun and will receive further exposure in the February City Newsletter. The adopted version of the Design Review Text omits the language of the Design Review Standards included in earlier drafts. In place of this section is a statement: "Design Review Standards shall be developed and adopted and/or amended by a Resolution of Council upon a recommendation of the Planning Commission." This mechanism was selected to permit a closer scrutiny of the standards before adoption as well as a greater adaptability over time. PLANNING COMMISSION CHARGE As a result of the statement in the ordinance amendment, the Planning Commission is charged with the development of a recommendation to the City Council on the language of Design Review Standards. To begin this process, in study session on January 23rd, the topic will be introduced for discussion. In preparation for this discussion, two items are provided. The first is a redrafted version of the Design Review Standards which were omitted from the adopted text. The second is a recent article in Zoning News (APA) entitled "Drafting Urban Design Guidelines". The Planning Commission should address the refinement of Design Review Standards between now and February 28th, so that the standards can be approved by Council in March and be ready to hand to the newly appointed Design Review Board in early April. BJ/MEMOTB.057 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS 1:n keeping with the requirement in Chapter 9.183 Design Review, section 9.183.060 Design Review_ Standards, the ollowing standards shall be adopted and/or amended by a Resolution of Council upon a recommendation of the Planning Commission. I. The review of the design of a proposed project plan shall be conducted in comparison to an adopted set of standards and criteria. Standards and criteria may be contained in one or a combination of the following: 1. A Specific Plan for the area. 2. A manual of design standards for the area. 3. A manual of landscape standards for the area. 4. A zone or subzone requirement for the area. 5. The Building or Fire Codes or any other Municipal Code. 6. Engineering standards. 7. The standards of another district or jurisdiction applying to the area. 8. Basic design standards applying to all development in the City, as described in the following section. II. All development, construction, and use of land in the City shall exhibit superior quality design, complying with the following basic standards. The standards are phrased as questions which may serve as a checklist for the use of the Staff, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission, and which are to be considered by applicants for City approvals in the development of their plans. A. Site Suitability: 1.. Is the site suitable for the proposed use and structures in terms of its size, shape, configuration of structures, location, access, or any other design consideration? 2. Has adequate consideration been given to the slope characteristics of the site (if any)? 3. Are there soils on the site which are not suitable for the proposed development due to instability, seismic risk, or other factors, which must be given special design consideration? Has the design resolved the soil problems, if any? - 2 - BJ/MEMOTB.05'7 4. Has the grading plan been adequately developed so that on -site drainage is accommodated, and off -site negative impacts are minimized? 5. Have any significant topographic features, landmarks, or existing major plant materials been preserved or incorporated into the design? B. S'Lte Design, 1. Does the site design show due consideration of the site location with respect to its surroundings: a. Views toward the site and vistas behind the site which development may obscure; b. Vistas and views from the site; C. Neighboring uses or open spaces? 2. Does the site design lessen or adequately internalize on -site negative aspects of the development? 3. Does the site design compensate for off -site impacts? . 4. Does the access pattern in the site design show adequate consideration of the following: a. Intersection spacing; b. 'Well designed traffic flows using a hierarchy of routes, each meeting the engineering standards applicable; C. Well conceived parking arrangements; d. Safe and well placed pedestrian arrangements; e. Provisions for emergency access; f. Provisions for refuse pick-up, general loading and servicing; g. Provisions for bikeways and bike routes; h. Public transit? 5. Does each portion of the access system perform its function without interfering with the other portions and without creating a negative inf luence? - 3 - BJ/MEMOTB.0577 6. Does the site design show adequate consideration of the placement of st:ructures in terms of: a. Structural orientation; b. Structural configuration; C. Setbacks; d. Walls and gates; e. Security concerns; f. Internalizing negative aspects of the use; g. Emergency/disaster response concerns such as earthquake, fire, flood, public panic, emei gency access, etc.? C. St-ructu.ra1 :Design: 1. Do the structures appear to belong in the desert, in terms of: a. Architectural style/period; b. Colors; C. Materials? 2. Are the structures compatible in all major respects with: a. The character of adjacent and surrounding developments; b. The character of development in the City as a whole? 3. Does the architectural style constitute an example of excessive variety in the context of the City's existing developments? 4. Does the architectural style constitute an example of monotonous repetition of existing developments within the City? 5. Does the architectural design adhere to thematic requirements of a particular area and/or general community criteria for acceptability of design? 6. Does the architectural design show adequate consideration and consistency of the following matters: - 4 - BJ / M'P'MOTB . 0 5 7' 7. 8. 9. a. Scale; b. Proportions, height, shapes, bulk, and masses; C. Exposed and shaded forms; d. Open areas; e. Roof form; f. Openings in the building such as doors, windows, entry ways; g. Features, details, ornamentation; h. Parts of structures, such as walls, screens, towers; i. Accessory structures; j. Integration of signage. Does the overall design exhibit a consistency of; a. Composition; b. Treatment; C. 14armony of materials; d. Harmony of colors; e. Consistent treatment of those sides of a structure which are visible at the same time? Does the design show an honesty of presentation, with consistency between the uses of the structure and its forms. Does the design demonstrate design integrity? Or does the design rely on significant use of any of the following: a. Artifice, false fronts or facades; b. Veneers or simulated materials; C. Imitation (nonstructurally related) features or contrivances such as addon, stickon, or popout; d. Other unnecessary, non -genuine or unauthentic embellishment? BJ/MEMOTB.05? - 5 - D. Connstruction Design: 1. Has adequate attention been given to the longevity of the design? 2. Have maintenance considerations been taken into account? 3. Have construction methods been chosen which are suitable for this type of structure? 4. Are the choices of the following items suitable for their application? a. External facade treatment; b. Quality and durability of materials; C. Colors and the form of coloration (e.g., integrally colored materials versus paint and matte colors versus glaring and shiny surfaces)? E. Getting: 1.. Are the following external features appropriate in terms of their concept, selection, location, orientation, scale, materials, functions, and impacts: a. Landscaping and its water efficiency; b. Irrigation to properly maintain the long term health and appearance of landscaping; C. :Paved surfaces; d. Use of water features; e. External furnishings such as lights, benches, signs, hydrants; f. Shade (with regard to desert climate conditions, especially for a portion of the parking and for pedestrians; g. Lighting and shielding adjacent areas from glare; h. Signage program and external use of graphics; i. External equipment, utilities, and their screening; BJ/MEMOTB.057 j. Fences, walls, and other screening or buffering measures; k. Optimum use of opportunities for views or vistas inward or outward? F. Overall: 1. Is the design of the development one which the residents of our City - both today and future generations - can be proud of? 2. Does the design of the development provide an environment conducive to the health, safety, and welfare of its occupants and visitors? - 7 - BJ/M:EMOTB . 0 5 "7 CHAPTER 9.183 DESIGN REVIEW SECTIONS: 9.183.010 GENERALLY 9.183.020 1JTRPOSE 9.183.030 1:�EFERENCE FILE OF DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS 9.183.040 I)ESIGN REVIEW BOARD 9.183.050 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES 9.183.060 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS 9.183.070 FILING FOR DESIGN REVIEW 9.183.080 9.183.090 Yri"ES COMPLIANCE 9.183.010 GENERALLY. The requirements and procedures ,presented in this Chapter shall apply to all applications for plot plans, as described in Chapters 9.180 and 9.182, for which design standards have been adopted. Design standards may be adopted by specific plan, by special zoning, by specific use or type of construction, by location, or by type of application. 9.183.020 PURPOSE. Design Review is the pre -approval technical review of proposed development plans. Plans are compared to adopted standards and criteria. Standards relate to design concerns which have visual and functional impacts on the property and its users and visitors, on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood, on public use areas, and on the City as a whole. The purposes of Design Review are as follows: A. 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 MR/ORDDRFT.016 '1' 9.183.030 the city and its harmonious development, through encouraging private and public interests to assist in the implementation process; 13. To assure that the public benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and other public structures and spaces shall be supported by the exercise of reasonable controls over private property development with regard for the character and design of buildings, open spaces, street landscaping, etc. Cl. To encourage development of private property in harmony with the desired character of the community and in conformance with the guidelines herein provided with due regard to the public and private interests involved; D. To recognize the interdependence of community values and good design and to provide a method by which the City may implement this interdependence to its benefit. REFERENCE FILE OF DESIGN REVIEW REZUIREMENTS_AND A. The Planning Director shall compile and keep up-to-date a reference file of design review requirements and standards. 13. The reference file shall be kept available for public inspection, and a copy of the file shall be provided to each member of the City Council, Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. C. The reference file shall contain, at a minimum, the following material: 1. A list of all matters which require design review, such as specific plans, special zones, specific uses or types of construction, locations, types of applications, or other regulations; 2. A list of all material which specifies the design content of the design review process, such as adopted design standards, manuals, criteria, codes, and other regulations; MR/ORDDRFT.016 -2- 3. A map illustrating the locations of any specific plans, special zones, or other areas requiring design review which have a locational aspect. 9.183.040 I:)ESIGN REVIEW BOARD A. Design Review Board Established. Pursuant to this Chapter, there is created a Design Review Board. B. The Design Review Board shall serve in the capacity of an advisory body to the Planning Commission, following the Design Review Procedures described in Section 9.183.050. C. Members of the Design Review Board shall be appointed, replaced, removed, or reappointed by the City Council. 1). Membership of the Design Review Board shall consist of seven members having the following qualifications: 1. A minimum of two, up to a maximum of four, members shall be architects; 2. A minimum of two, up to a maximum of four, members shall be either landscape architects, engineers, or professionals in commercial art or graphic design; and 3. One member shall be a member of the Planning Commission, assigned to serve on (but not Chair) the Design Review Board for a one-year period (rotating among the Planning Commission Members). The assigned Planning Commissioner may designate an alternate Commissioner to attend a particular meeting in the Commissioner's absence. E. Appointments for non-Planning-Corrumission members shall be for two-year periods, except that the initial appointments shall be staggered for one- and two-year periods. F. A quorum for the Design Review Board shall consist of the Planning Commissioner (or alternate) plus three other members present. Actions may be taken by a majority of those present, provided a quorum exists. MR/ CRDDRFT . 0 ]. 6 -3- (z. The Design Review Board shall hold regular meetings as needed at least one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting date. Special meetings may be called as necessary. H. In order to facilitate compliance with the processing requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act, the deliberations of the Design Review Board shall have the following time .limit for preparing its recommendation on any particular application: six days preceding the date upon which the application is advertised and agendized for the Planning Commission. For any applications upon which a recommendation has not been adopted, the Design Review Board may request from the Planning Commission a continuance and a referral. The Planning Commission may decline to continue and refer any item back to the Design Review Board. I. The Design Review Board shall establish rules of procedure, which may be amended from time to time. J. The Planning Director, or his designee, shall serve as staff support and recording secretary for the Design Review Board. 9.183.050 I:ESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Single-family detached residential structures: The design aspects of individual plot plan applications shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, modified, or denied by the Planning Director, subject to the options for Staff referral or Applicant appeal to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may refer design questions to the Design Review Board for an advisory finding and recommendation. B. Multi --family residential structures from duplexes up to 24 units: 1. The design aspects of plot plan applications shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, modified, or denied by the Design Review Board, subject to adoption of the decision by the Planning Commission on their next Consent Agenda. The Applicant may appeal the decision of MR/ORDDRFT.016 -4- the Design Review Board to the Planning Commission by means of the following procedure. 2. Before the Consent Agenda is adopted, the Applicant shall make known to the Planning Director his intention to appeal. The matter shall then be removed from the Consent Agenda and scheduled for the next agenda as a Business Item. At the next meeting, the appeal shall be presented by the Applicant, discussed by the Planning Commission, and the appeal will then be upheld, modified, or denied. C. Multi -family residential structures of 25 or more units and all non-residential projects: The design aspects of plot plan applications shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The Board shall develop and adopt findings and a recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve, approve with conditions, modify, or deny the design of the project. The Planning Commission shall consider the recommendation of the Design Review Board at the regularly -scheduled meeting for which the plot plan has been agendized, and shall adopt, adopt with modifications, or decline to adopt the recorcmnendation of the Design Review Board. D. Other Plans: The design aspects of other plans such as specific plans, specific plan amendments, tentative tracts, typical housing products, and other similar "pre -plot -plan" applications may be referred for review to the Design Review Board. Findings and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission, along with all other technical review results. E. The Planning Commission may refer back -to the Design Review Board any modifications of the design proposed by the Applicant or the Planning Commission for an amended recommendation. F. Design Details: After Planning Commission approval of a plan, the Commission may delegate to the Design Review Board the review and approval of minor design modifications or refinements of a project, subject to adoption of the decision by the MR/ORDDRFT.416 -5- Planning Commission on their next Consent Agenda, and also subject to appeal by the Applicant to the Planning Commission (following the procedure in B.2., above). G. Appeal of Planing Commission Decisions: Any action of the Planning Commission with regard to design review may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Section 9.182.080 APPEALS. 9.183.060 DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS Design Review Standards shall be developed and adopted and/or amended by a Resolution of Council upon a recommendation of the Planning Commission. 9.183.070 FILING FOR DESIGN REVIEW 1�. Each Design Review requirement will specify the standards and criteria to be used. Foams and checklists of required information will be specified by the Planning and Development Department. Submissions for Design Review shall be filed on the appropriate forms and contain the required information and supportive material as specified for each Design Review requirement. 9.183.080 FEES. Each application submitted which involves I:)esign Review or Appeal shall be accompanied by the fee for such review or appeal as specified in a :schedule of fees adopted by City Council to recoup the costs of such reviews or appeals. 9.183.090 COMPLIANCE. 11. Each plan reviewed and approved by the Design Review process (including Planning Director, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission) shall be constructed, installed, landscaped, and maintained as approved. F3. Deviation from approved plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director for a determination as to whether the deviation is substantial. If not substantial, the deviation, if approved, will be noted and initialed on file plans. MR/ORDDRFT.0.16 -6- C. If the deviation is determined to be substantial, the plans shall be returned to the original design review procedure to re -•review the deviation and its effect on the remainder of the design approval. Because of design interdependence, other design amendments may be required to compensate for the deviation. I£ the substantial deviation is approved, file plans will be amended by the Applicant to reflect the changes approved and/or required. MR/ORDDRFT.016 -7- MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 1989 SUBJECT: FENCING REQUESTS IN THE COVE (SR ZONE) BACKGROUND: The issue of fencing was raised by the La Quinta Cove Association President, Ann Young. The issue was discussed by the Commission on December 13, 1988. The current fencing requirements are as follows: 1. Rear and side yards shall be completely enclosed and screened by view -obscuring fencing, walls, vegetation -planted screens, or a combination thereof. 2. Fences, walls, and vegetation screen shall generally conform with the design standards and typical layouts contained in the Manual for Architectural Standards. 3. Vegetation screens must consist of planting materials of a suitable type, size, and spacing so as to provide a view -obscuring barrier within a reasonable time of planting, as set forth in the landscape plan approval, and shall be watered by automatic irrigation system. The planting plan shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 4. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair, and vegetation screens shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition. The Manual for Architectural Standards for single-family houses (page 6) indicates that fences and walls can be a maximum of six feet in height adjacent to all property lines, except in the corner cutback area on corner lots where the maximum height MR/MEMOPC.020 '1' is 42 inches above the crown of the street. The illustration on page 6 (attached) identifies the minimum fencing required. ANALYSIS: 1. Some property owners on corner lots have fenced their front side -yard or that side parallel with the east/west street, excluding the corner cutoff and the portion of their front yard parallel with the north/south streets. This then has, in essence, completely screened their single-family home. 2. The current Ordinance does not provide for types of construction materials to be used in constructing a fence, except for chain link fences which must have a live vegetative screen material planted in conjunction with the fence. 3. The Special Residential design standards can be amended to require masonry product (and/or ornamental iron/tubular steel) fencing on front yards and street side -yards. Wood and/or vegetation screen could still be provided on side and rear yards. RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to draft the necessary Ordinance amendments as outlined in Number 3 of the Analysis, and schedule the matter for Public Hearing. MR/MEMOPC.020 -2- The La Quinta Cove Association P.O. Box 1384 La Quinta, CA 92253 !' IV 8 1988 .a Nov. 22, 1988 Mr. Murrel Crump La Quinta City Hall Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re: Fences in La Quinta Cove Dear Mr. Crump: As per our conversation on November 15th, I ask pow you, on behalf of the La Quinta Cove Association Board of Directors, to kindly look into the matter of laying the ;round work towards the establishment of ordinances controlling the type and placement of fences around private homes in the La Quinta Cove area. At present any material can be used and built around a home -- front - back - side -- any wood, tree trunks, orange crates, cement, or whatever. New houses are being built with six foot high ugly Fences on the property line in the front, and practically every street in La Quinta Cove is quickly becoming a back yard. As in other cities where front yard fences are permitted, ours in La Quinta should also be ornamental and of quality material to maintain beauty in the area. In addition the wooden fences being allowed in the front of new homes will shortly deteriorate and blow over in our hot, dry, windy climate, as is already indicated by those which were erected as recently as two months ago and have already faded. We fail to understand how our city can stand by and permit ugliness to run amok here. Between new homes being built towering above older homes without consideration to either esthetics or the welfare of our older home owners, and now creating back yards in the front on any street, this area is going deeper and deeper into a state of unsightliness. We therefore prevail upon you, in view of the fact that this "hodge podge" is growing daily, to address this matter as quickly as possible so that the remainder of our area is salvaged and maintained with some semblance of thoughtful esthetics. Sincerely yours, THE LA_ QTJINTA COY, SSCCIATION C r' Ann Young, Pres. cc: Mayor & City Council Members Ron Keidrowski- C-it',' Ntr. 9.42.080 E. Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be located and directed so as not to shine directly on adjacent prop- erties or otherwise create a nuisance. F. Fencing. 1. Rear and side yards shall be completely en- closed and screened by view -obscuring fencing, walls, vege- tation -planted screens, or combination thereof. 2. Fences, walls, and vegetation screens shall generally conform with the design standards and typical lay- outs contained within the Manual on Architectural Standards. 3. Vegetation screens must consist of planting materials of a suitable type, size and spacing, so as to provide a view -obscuring barrier within a reasonable time of planting as set forth in the landscape plan approval, and shall be watered by an automatic irrigation system. The planting plan shall be approved by the community development department. 4. All walls and fences shall be continuously maintained in good repair, and vegetation screens shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable condition. (Ord. 95 §1(part), 1986: Ord. 5 §1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 (part)) 9 42.080 Building design standards. All single-family residential uses shall be determined to be in substantial compliance with building standards set forth in the Manual on Architectural Standards as adopted by the Planning Com- mission unless an adjustment is approved pursuant to Section 9.42.110B. A. Manual on Architectural Standards. The planning commission shall, by resolution, adopt a Manual on Architec- tural Standards to be used as a guideline in reviewing ar- chitectural style, exterior building materials, colors, and similar features. B. Architectural Variety. When houses using similar architectural styles are located with two hundred fifty feet of each other, exterior building elevations shall make pro- vision for architectural variety by using different colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments, garage door treatments, and similar methods. C. Roof Material. Except for flat roof designs, roof material shall be limited to clay and/or concrete tile. D. Adjustment. The planning commission may approve an adjustment to a precise plan allowing use of architectural styles, exterior building materials, colors, and similar features not set forth in the adopted manual when the plan- ning commission determines that the adjustment will be com- patible with the surrounding neighborhood. (Ord. 95 §1 (part), 1986: Ord. 5 §1(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 (part)) 186-43 (La Quinta 6/87) SITE REQUIREMENTS FENCING REQUIREMENTS REAR AND SIDE YARDS MUST BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED AND SCREENED BY A MINIMUM FIVE (5) FOOT HIGH, VIEW - OBSCURING FENCE, WALL., VEGETATION SCREEN, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE, PERIMETER CHAIN -LINK FENCING IS PROHIBITED UNLESS IT IS USED PRIMARILY FOR SUPPORT AS A PART OF A VEGETATION SCREEN. THE REQUIRED VEGETATION SCREENS MUST CONSIST OF PLANTS OF A SUITABLE TYPE, SIZE XID SPACING, SO AS TO PROV''IDE A VIEW -OBSCURING BARRIER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME OF PLANTING, AS SET FORTH IN THE LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVAL. THE SCREEN MUST BE WATERED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. REQU I RED FENc FENCES AND WALLS CAN BE A MAXIMUM OF S (6) FEET HIGH ADJACENT TO ALL THE PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT IN THE CORNER C BACK AREA ON CORNER LOTS WHERE THE MAX HEIGHT IS IQ INCHES ABOVE THE CROWN OF STREET. ALL FENCES AND WALLS MUST BE MAINTAINE GOOD REPAIR, AND ALL VEGETATION SCREEN MUST BE CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY AND VIABLE CONDITION. CUTBACK AREA 1.1