Loading...
1989 10 24 PC� "' �4xtitfi'• A G N •'ems L -. PLANNING COMMISSION -- CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 24, 1989 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute ROLL CALL **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 89-061 HEARINGS 1. Item ............ CONTINUED HEARING TENTATIVE TRACT 21846 (REVISION NO. 2) Applicant ....... SUNRISE COMPANY Location ........ IN PGA WEST, IN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVIERA, TANGLEWOOD, AND ARNOLD PALMER Request ......... REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCATIONS AND INCREASE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN TRACT FROM 367 TO 434 ON 56.51 ACRES (INCLUDING LAKES) IN THE R-2 ZONE Action. .......... Resolution No. 89- Ba/AGENDA10.24 - 1 - 2. Item ............ CONTINUED HEARING SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E, AMENDMENT NO. 2; PLOT PLAN 89-041 Applicant ....... LANDMARK LAND COMPANY Location ........ WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN (CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT SITE) Request ......... APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 OF THE 80 REQUESTED HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS, IN THE R-3 ZONE ON 1.7+ ACRES Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 3. Item ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 89-012 REVISION TO PARKING ORDINANCE, MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.160 Applicant ....... CITY OF LA QUINTA Location ........ CITY-WIDE Request ......... REVISION OF THE CURRENT PARKING ORDINANCE Action .......... Resolution No. 89- PU13LIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. 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 Meetings held September 12th, September 26th, and October 10, 1989. BJ/AGENDA10.24 - 2 - BUSINESS SESSION 1'. Item ............ Continued Item Park Proposal Applicant ....... ESCO/Deane Homes Location ........ Tentative Tract 23971; located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue Request ......... Approval of parkland proposal for Tentative Tract 23971 Action .......... Minute Motion 2. Item ............ Tentative Tract 21880, "The Heritage" Time Extension Applicant ....... I.D.G. Development Location ........ Southeast corner Avenue 52 and Bermudas Request ......... Second one-year extension of time for the filing of a Final Map for a 330 lot subdivision on 736+ acres. Action .......... Resolution No. 89- 3. Item ............ Tentative Tract 21123, Time Extension Applicant ....... Landmark Land Company Location ........ Generally west of Washington Street +800 feet south of Avenue 50 Request. ......... Final one-year extension of time for the filing of a Final Map for a 20-lot subdivision on 6.74+ acres within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. Action .......... Resolution No. 89- OTHER - None ADJOURNMENT --------------------------- ITEMS FOR OCTOBER 23, 1989, 4:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY" 1. All Agenda items. 2. Identification of future Commission Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Park Land Locations b. Utilities - Tract 21555 C. Downtown Parking District d. Street Address Illumination e. Format of Minutes BJ/AGENDA10.24 - 3 - PH- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: •o tlt 041wa..I= MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 24, 1989 CONTINUED HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT #21846, REVISION # 2 This matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to permit site visits and additional information to be presented. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Continue the Hearing. 2. Approve the request as presented. 3. Modify the request. 4. Deny the request. Attachment: 1. Letters of protest received since October 10, 1989, meeting. 2. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report. 3. Response from City Attorney 4. Response to other Commission comments BJ/MEMOJH.013 Richard J. Pearson y � 1 / E���iSof I ��� RECEIVED OCT 1 11989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PI ANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEFT. FUEVIED The Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-105 Cal.le Estado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Dear Commissioners: OCT t ? 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Although I spoke at the Public Hearing on October loth, I would like to repeat my objection to construction of Medalist units at PGA West. In spite of advertising, brochures and many salesmen, most buyers come to PGA West by word of mouth. The ambiance, the lack of con- gestion, and the up -keep are well known. It would take but a short time by word of mouth if it were known that PGA West had become a zoo. Palm Springs is hurting because proper zoning was ignored. The desert can only grow in the direction of La Quinta. I believe it was Mr. Zelles who addressed the question of revenue to the city. Tax revenues from additional units at PGA West is undoubtedly appealing. However, if the present occupants are so dissclutioned by the unk:ept and devious words of PGA West that they sell their property, lack of revenue from vacant dwellings would swell the tax rolls. My husband worked at Golf Digest for many years. Golfers travel and discuss courses. A negative image that would be created by cluster housing such as the Medalists units would be dilatorious to the whole community. I heard the words "injunction" and "class action" spoken by residents at the meeting.Such a recourse would attract publicity and quickly spread around the circuit ---- to the disadvantage of all. Shortsightedness is the fastest way to long term hardship. Sincerely, Marna Harbert 55-303 Tanglewood, PGA Wes October 11, 189 THE N NY ldMAGAVirtE —lMTT MAVEN= EDWARD VE PRODUCER ERT It la//l lef EXEC4rnE PRODUCER 1 OCT 1 r2 1999 CITY OF LA QV ATA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Peter L. Morrisroe 54-433 Oak Hill La Quinta, CA 92253 619-771-0719 Planning Commission City of La. Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Members of the Commission: RECEIVED OCT 16 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANKING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT• October 13, 1989 As a concerned homeowner I am writing you to urge that you deny Sunrise's request to substitute "Medalist" units for previously approved "Greens" units and that further you reconsider your prior approval of the "Greens" themselves. To address the first item which is the request to substitute "Medalists" for "Greens", let me point out some differences which I believe are important! 1) This substitution greatly increases the density in this area. Going from 367 to 434 units increases the density by 18.2%. Since the original approval was for 308 units the first in- crease in density was 19.1%. The overall effect from 308 to 434 is an increase in density in this tract of 40.9%. This is unacceptable. 2) Each unit in the "Medalist" has only a single car garage, while the "Greens" units have a double car garage. Since all six individual condos in each Medalist unit share a common driveway, there is no provision for off-street parking other than the one single garage. This will vastly increase parking on the street, at a percentage far in excess of the actual in- crease in the number of units. 3) With each condo stacked three on top of three in each Medalist unit, only one driveway per unit, garages blocking access to four of the condos and increased parking on the street the ability to fight a fire would be substantially reduced. 4) One of Sunrise's claims in requesting approval for this change was that they already had approval to build "Medalists" some- where in the project. While that is true I believe that the placement of these units should be considered on a case by case basis. I do not believe that placement of these units in an already congested area is appropriate. 5) The "Medalist" units are substantially out of character with ,the existing units on the golf course. As far as rescinding the previous action approving the "Greens" units in this tract, the reason I believe that it should be is that the original change approval was done without any public notification on the grounds it was a "minor" change. Going from 308 single story units to 367 units, 293 of which are two-story, is not a minor change and public notification should have been made and public comment solicited. While I realize that the Commission is not responsible for Sunrise's advertising and marketing policies, it should be noted that many homeowners purchased their units on the basis of Sunrise's written and verbal statements that this was to be a single -story develop- ment. You were provided at your October 10th meeting with a copy of their brochure so stating. While nothing can be done about the already constructed units, you now have the opportunity to correct the previously made mistake and prevent the construction of any more two-story units in this tract. I would also like to take this opportunity to respond to comments made by one of the Commissioners at the October loth meeting (I'm sorry but I don't recall his name). He made the statement that now that we are down here, we can't expect to be the only people allowed to come here. All of us bought here, knowing that the eventual plan called for 5,000 hous- ing units. None of us has suggested reducing that number, only that such development proceed in an orderly manner avoiding over- crowding in any particular area. He further stated that the developer has the right to make a profit. I agree. It is in my best interests for Sunrise to remain profit- able. I do not believe that selling smaller units at a lower average price than previously built units is necessary in order for ,Sunrise to make a profit at an upscale development, such as PGA West. ;Similarly, since we are not asking for a reduction in the total num- ber of units, denying Sunrise's current request and rescinding the prior chancre approval should not adversely affect Sunrise's ability -to make a profit. The Commissioner, in response to my statement that the residents of PGA West: looked to the City of La Quinta officials to protect our interests, stated that he had a duty to protect the interests of all the citizens of La Quinta and one of the items to be con- sidered was to maximize revenues. I agree. Let's, however, look at the plan as originally approved and at the plan as it would exist after the two changes: - I. Original Plan # of Units __ Type 228 Legends 80 Champions Total 308 II. Current Proposal # of Units 22 189 71 144 8 Total 434 Estimated Average Selling Price $300,000 180,000 Estimated Average _ Type Selling Price Legends $300,000 Greens 130,000 Champions 180,000 Medalists 120,000 Galleries 500,000 Total Sales $68,400,000 14,400,000 $82,800,000 Total Sales $ 6,600,000 24,570,000 12,780,000 17,280,000 4,000,000 $65,230,000 As can be seen by my estimate the total valuation in this tract would drop from $82.8 million to $65.2 million. This means that despite an increase of 40.9 in density with the attendant demand for City ;services, revenue to the City would actually be reduced by 21.2% from this tract. Should property values in other areas of PGA West be adversely affected, as I believe they would, this potential decrease in revenue could even be greater as properties are sold. Based on the above facts and opinions I urge you to (1) deny the request which is current proposed and, (2) rescind approval for any Greens units not yet constructed in this tract. Doing this would not only serve to benefit the current residents of PGA West, but would serve the best interests of all the citizens of La Quinta. Thank you in advanced for your consideration. PLM/lm Yours very truly, Peter L. Morrisroe A October 13, 1989 La Quinta City Council 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA. —v4P"I_'.% "I/e/7,/,ek r OC: J{RAy ",f4tnAN SAUA1,0A.. j4Rio/A Rani IfIk Row S k i John, PUVA RECEIVED OCT 1 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. T :_ Ten atj_V9_Tract #21846 - 2nd Extension Dear Council Members: I respectfully request that the T.T. #21846, 2nd Extension request be denied for the following reasons: 1. The original map of 308 units was granted an extension in November, 1988. Included in the extension was a "minor" change which increased the density to 367 units, including 189 two-story units. This change of 59 units, or an increase of 19%, should not have been accepted by the City as a minor change, especially considering that 189 of the units were changed from one-story (2211) to two-story (32"). 2„ The California Map Act gives cities and counties discretionary powers in its enactment and enforcement; however, the Civil Engineers and legal counsel with whom I have consulted cannot believe any City would accept a 19% increase in density, a doubling of population and a height increase from 221 to 321, as a "minor" change. 3. On October 10, 1989, the Planning Commission postponed enactment of a change in T.T. 21846 with regard to density; but, somehow did not grasp the significance of their action to move forward on the extension. 4. We paid a premium for our westerly view of the mountains and were promised by our sales person that our view would be unobstructed because single -story units were being built across the fairway from us. We have a brochure that talks about single-family living and shows the units across from us as being single - story. DVE CANYON CO. 27285 LAS RAMBTEL (714 582-2558 FAX (714) 582-5697 ORNU� 42691 LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL Page 2. Until the Planning Commission reviews the Specific Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and the requests attached to T.T. 21846, I request that the extension be denied; or, at the very least, postponed until the Planning Commission can come to some conclusions after reviewing T.T. #21846 along with the collateral material needed to bring P.G.A. West back on a course more consistent with the wishes of the community. Sincerely, Ivan C. Simovich IC'S i S u1013891 1 I1 ca . i W .. 3-jr d Av-c�t . 120 ie C=Lty,MN 55063 Monday, Oct— 16 RECEIVED OCT 4 81989 Planning & Development Dept . ����-�� LaQui nta City Hall CITY OF LAB P .. O .Box 1504 PIANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. LaQuinta, CA 92253 SLAbjact: Sunrise Company requested revision to tenative tract map to modify dwelling unit types, their locations, and increase total number of dwelling units_ Received notice of public hearing on above named subject this day, October 16, 1989. We are absolutely opposed to the Sunrise Company request. It was implied to us at the time of our purchase that there would be no multi --level dwelling development at PGA WEST'. We know that this was not true and wish it to go no farther_ The project was not originally designed to handle t:he vol umn of traffic or the density of- population being proposed. Apparently the Sunrise Company has changed its direction from being the deserts premie►^ developer to one of greed concerning themselves only with the bottom line. Sinserely, William E. Nelson Desert Address: 55-506 Pi nehurst PGA WEST La Quinta, CA 92253 (619) 771-0903 (612) 629-2012 (612) 629--6612 WA October 16, 1989 Planning Commission City of La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: Richard J. Pearson President and Chief Operating Officer Corporate Center 150 North Orange Grove Bcjlevaro Pasadena California 91103 Phone 818 304-2148 In response to your notice about a hearing October 18, 1989, on the request by Sunrise Company to increase the density of dwellings on the Arnold Palmer Course, I am opposed. Sunrise does almost nothing to inform the existing homeowners of plans to alter the concept of the development. Adding 18% more dwellings to the existing plan seems to me to be a significant increase in population, services required, etc. Absent any motive other than increasing Sunrise revenues, I fail to see the rationale for the existing homeowners. Our home is located at 79-794 Arnold Palmer Drive, in PGA West (Palmer Course). Sincerely, fl'v� RECEIVED OCT ? 8 1989 RJP/mb CITY OF LA QUINTA 13LANNING 3 DEVELOPMENT DEPT -[ +� a. D 3-:.= A=ErE •� �Aa�:2.. =-AF_E5 S EnC•. -4 ST�i•.EO - �e,Q _E• C ___ER c^DCa• ��fC•• =Aa• r � _E,v HG ROE SEA. .;_SE __E% :ENN E L s +Ofr=cc . -)UVDQ.A (714) 5 53-2568 wA +fQ £ C RE_T C .a_ N�­BER VIA TSLJ CQFUJ9 PETTIS, TESTER, KRusE & KniNsxy N*TORN'GvS AT i.AW • ....r. aS.. - -] r0 � "•M.I]9.O r.. CG •PO AA••Cr 668 aARvAN ACE^ _:. £'• rr�GR IRVTNE. CALIFORNIA 92715 S _Ex 338- 8'2 T E.E==p EFL ♦: 2e.•:_8B2 October 18, 1989 RECEIVE® OCT 19 1989 Mr. Ivan Simovich CITY OF LA QUINTA 27285 Las Ramblas Suite 200 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Re: Jg AjLt . e Trac; NQ 2184.6 Dear Ivan: ,A r FA_'_r+ .;err A�AN 1i -E++ S A .ERs NCbE4� n � 2L PA- A 41)wj CCNArL SAVOR v AC. S^.•P JQP „,. CARC. E STE�E•v5 ERJCE r •ES*EF Airl At., _ -A �wc• -f.%, '4ET. A AL_rS_ _]NN a •EAuER C�� r _E ♦��+Bf F' Pursuant to your request, this letter will very briefly summaxiz,, your rights in connection with the amendment of the above -referenced tentative tract map (the "Map") which occurred in November, 1988 changing the permitted number of units from 308 units to 367 units, as well as changing the type of units from single :story units to two story units. In the event that you decide to pursue any of your rights, we will follow-up with a zr,ore detailed explanation of the legal issues involved. In connection with the approval of a tentative map, the City Council is required to give notice and an opportunity for hearing. In U=IL_y,--Vent ra, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979), the California Supreme Court stated that the due process requirements of the United States and California Constitutions require notice and opportunity of hearing if map approval will constitute a substantial or significant deprivation of other landowners' property rights. Sections 65090 and 65091 of the California Government Code require such notice to be given to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equali2ed assessment roll within NO feet of the real property that is the 10-17-39 f : \DWk i 12%CUQR \,b91 0A072+i14 ?ETTIs, TT _si'F_R, KRtisF. & KRi SKY Mr. Ivan S imov i ch October '18, 1989 Page 2 subject of the hearing. If greater than 1,000 owners would be entitled to receive such- notice, such notice may be provided through publication. In connection ;with the amendment of the Map in November, 1988, you have informed me that the City Council did not comply with either of the foregoing notice requirements. Since such amendment clearly adversely affects your rights as a landowner, the City Council violated the California subdivision Map Act and the California Government Code by not providing the required notice. Therefore, the approval given in November can now be attacked based upon the lack of notice. • " • You have informed me that the builder orally represented to you that your view would be protected. Additionally, you paid a substantial premium in connection with the acquisition of your lc,t based upon the views promised. Finally, you have informed me that you were provided with a brochure from the builder which showed the view you would have and showed that all other lots affecting your view would be single story lots. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the builder will be in breach of 'ts representations to you in the event that it constructs any two-story buildings. If such construction does occur, I would suggest that; you strongly consider filing a class action against the builder. The foregoing is intended as a summary of your major claims against the City Council and the builder in connection with the Map. There are other potential areas of attack against the City Council and the builder. If you are not satisfied with the results of your upcoming meetings with the City Council and the builder, 1 will provide a more detailed explanation of all of the areas pursuant to which you may sue for equitable and legal relief. If I can be of any further assistance in connection with this matter, please do net hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Kenneth A. Wolfson KAW/cn f0-1T-e9 F : `�C\1 i2 \�itR\8940Q022. LTR Gary A. McCue P.O. Box 779 79-754 Arnold Palmer La Quinta, CA 92253-0779 RECEIVED OCT 19 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT October 16, 1989 City of La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta City Hall '78-105 Calle Est:a.do La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentlemen: l recently became aware of the plans for Sunrise Company to greatly expand the number of dwelling units within tract 21846. I am strongly opposed to any new plan to increase the density of housing units in this area of PGA 'West. The original development plans for the 2nd and l lth fairways, involving only single story dwelling units, were a major factor in my selection of PGA West as my permanent residence. Increasing the density of units at this time would be a major breach of faith on the part of the developer. At the time I purchased my unit, I was informed that all of the units on the llth fairway (west side of tract 21846) would be "Champion or Legend" condominiums of a single story design. It is rumored that Sunrise not only intends to have multi -story units elsewhere in the tract, but also along Rivera Drive on the west side of the llth fairway. Multi -story units would significantly downgrade the aesthetics and liveability of this otherwise beautiful desert setting. The crowded conditions and traffic that they would introduce are not compatible with this area of PGA West. The multi -story units that are tentatively plarmed for the east boundary of the tract are equally objectionable for the same reasons. I urge you to vote to restrict tract 21846 to the originally planned housing density, thereby preserving the aesthetics and environmental simplicity of what is otherwise an ideal desert community. Sincerely, �.A . McCue STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21846 (REVISION #2 & EXTENSION #2) APPLICANT: SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS REQUEST: REVISION TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCATIONS AND INCREASE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN TRACT FROM 367 TO 434 UNITS ON 56.5 (INCLUDING LAKES) ACRES AND APPROVAL OF 2ND ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. LOCATION: IN PGA WEST, WITHIN THE AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY RIVIERA, TANGLEWOOD, AND ARNOLD PALMER. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC); PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 83-002 (PGA WEST). EXISTING ZONING: R-2 (MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FOR THE PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH THIS TRACT IS A PART. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. BACKGROUND: This Tentative Tract Map was originally approved on September 1.6, 1989, by the City Council. On November 1, 1988, a one year time extension was granted extending the approval period to October 7, 1989. The original map in 1986 allowed 308 units on +51.45 net acres (excluding lake areas). In addition to the extension, a minor change was allowed in November, 1988. That change increased the number of units allowed from 308 to 367 and added the "Greens" and "Fairways" models to the original "Legends" and "Champions" models. 13J/STAFFRPT.015 - 1 - To date, nine lots (Lots 1-8 and Lot 13) of the tract have been recorded with approximately 207 dwelling units constructed. Adjacent tracts on the west side of Firestone and Riviera, south side of Arnold Palmer, and on Shoal Creek also have residences constructed on them. The adjacent golf course and lakes surrounding -the tract have also been constructed. PROJECT DESCRIPTION For the portions of the tract not yet recorded or constructed upon (Lots 9-12, 14-18), the Applicant is requesting approval to modify the unit types and their locations, and increase the total number of units in the tract from the approved 367 units to 434 units (additional 67 units). The existing approval and proposed modification would be as follows: LOT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 TOTALS APPROVED PROPOSED UNITS UNITS 10 Legends 8 Greens 24 it 21 if 48 it 16 it 40 it 32 it 24 if 24 It 24 it 32 if 8 Champions 9 Fairways 10 " 11 it 13 if 13 it 367 10 Legends 8 Greens 24 21 48 16 40 32 36 Medalists 36 36 36 8 Champions 8 Galleries 12 Legends 23 Champions 20 20 °t 434 CHANGE IN UNIT COUNTS + 0) ;+ 0) + 0) + 0) + 0) + 0) + 0) + 0) +12) +12) +12) + 4) + 0) 1) + 2) +12) + 7) + 7) (+67) Approved Units(Total) 367 Proposed Units (Total) Legends 10 Legends 22 Champions 8 Champions 71 Greens 293 Greens 189 Faiirways 56 Galleries 8 Medalists 144 Constructed if it it It ,f it 11 Constructed 434 BJ/STAFFRPT.015 - 2 - The effect of the modification would be to add 67 new units to -the tract. The majority of the units would be the new Medalists unit recently approved by the City. Gallery units would also be added to the tract. The Fairway units which were previously approved for the tract, are proposed to be deleted completely from the 'tract. ,.As permitted by City Code and State :requesting a second one year time extension -the Final Map. This would be the last this tract. Approval of the tract would be '7, 1990, if this request is approved. ,ANALYSIS: Law, the Applicant is for recordation of extension allowed for valid till October 1. The basic changes proposed are as follows: A. Lots 1-8, & 13 - Residences constructed. B. Lots 9-12 - Replacing 104 Greens units with 144 Medalists units; replacing partial two story stacked 8-plexes with 5-curb cuts to garages with two story stacked 6-plexes, with 1-curb cut to garages. Narrower Medalists units will allow more views between units. Less curb cuts will allow more on street parking and increased landscaping in front setback areas. C. Lot 14 - Replacing 9 Fairway units with 8 Gallery units; replacing smaller (2280 - 2950 square feet) one story units with larger (3000 - 4000+ square feet) one story units. D. Lot 15 - Replacing 10 Fairway units with 12 .Legends units; replacing one story detached units (2280 - 2940 square feet) with one story duplex through 4-plex units (2280 - 3050 square feet). E. Lots 16-18 - Replacing 37 Fairway units with 63 Champion units; replacing one story detached units (2280 - 2940 square feet) with one story (1330 - 2489+ square feet) duplex to 4-plex units. Change will increase width of structures and necessitate provision of 4 swimming pools/recreation areas. 2. Tentative Tract No. 21846 received approval on September 16, '1986 subject to conditions. On November 1, 1988, a minor change to allow modification of unit type, location, and increase from 308 to 367 units was granted. Additionally, the first of two allowed one year time extensions was granted for the Tract Map on October 25, 1988. BJ/STAFFRP'T.015 - 3 - 3. The Specific Plan itself for PGA West identified a wide range of unit types to be constructed within PGA West. As a result, changes in marketing strategy and product demand can be accommodated, while also assuring design integrity through the design review process. 4. All of the unit types proposed, including the new Medalists have been approved for use in the project. Therefore, these types should be considered consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan. 5. Condition No. 21 allows modification of the front yard setback for the Legends (15-feet), Greens (13.5-feet), and Fairways (13.5-feet) units. The Applicant has requested a modification to allcw a 15-foot front setback for the 8 Gallery units and 144 Medalists units (in 24 buildings). This would be acceptable since at the front setback of these units would be side in garages. 6. Condi1-ion No. 22 allows the Planning and Development Depar;iment to grant a 10% change in the unit count, provwded the change is consistent with the overall character of the project. The request is for 67 additional units or approximately 18% increase. This requires Planning Commission approval since the change exceeds 10%. This modification changes the density of the developable lot areas (excluding golf course and lake areas) from 7.9 to 9.3 units per acre. While this density may appear high, it would be lower if surrounding lakes, open space, recreation area and golf course were added to the acreage as would be done in a typical condominium project. In considering this aspect of the request, it is important to remember that varying market demand factors have a considerable impact on unit supply. The PGA West Specific Plan is really a nonspecific plan when considering density. It allows a gross dE,,nsity factor of 3 units per acre, but does not address density allocation through phasing or other means. Therefore, the Specific Plan for PGA West is a much more flexible plan in terms of` density, primarily due to its long-range implications. In this regard, density considerations have been limited to maintaining zoning requirements and other development criteria within the context of the total number of units allowed. Because the currently approved number of units is far from the 5000 total units approved, and the requested changes to the Map generally conform to the Specific Plan approval, the La Quinta GE!neral Plan and other applicable requirements, the request of additional units could be allowed. With the next Tentative Tract Map in PGA West, Staff would like a compilation of all approved tracts and number of units so that we can verify the number of units approved to date. .BL'T/STAFFRPT.015 - 4 - FINDINGS: 1. The proposed modifications maintain the same building types (one story or two stories) as previously approved. 2. The units proposed have been approved for use in the project. 3. The change in unit type from Greens to Medalists will reduce necessary curb cuts from 5 to 1 per building, thus providing additional on street parking and additional landscaping in front yards. 4. The project provides excessive open space and recreational :Facilities. 5. The attached resolution provides additional findings for supporting approval of the requested modification and time extension. RECOMMENDATION: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending approval of Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) to the City Council, subject to conditions. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-_, recommending approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846, extending the approval expiration daite to October 7, 1990. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Letter dated September 28, 1989, requesting extension of time. 3. Letter from Applicant showing approved and requested unit types and numbers. 4. Comments from City Departments and other agencies. 5. Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 21846, adopted November 1, 1988. 6. Letter of protest. 7. Planning Commission Resolution No 89- , recommending Revision #2 to City Council. 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- , recommending one year Extension of Time. 9. Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) Exhibit. BST / STAFFRPT . 015 - 5 - 0 CASE MAP NORTH `AM "°' TT 21846 (REV 2) SCALE: LOCATION MAP I NTS 416 October 1.9, 19a9 Mr. John walling Chairman Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Real Estate Services RECEIVED OCT') 0 10 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Drn. RE: Revision No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 21846 to Modify Dwelling Unit Product Locations and Increase Total Number of Dwelling Units within Trace from 367 to 434 on 56.51 Acres in the R-2 Zone. Dear Mr. Walling: As a homeowner at PGA West I am writing to you to request that the City disapprove the subject revision. it should be disapproved and the existing approval of 367 units should be modified to allow only single story structures. You should look at specific locations within the specific plan for this area to insure that it is in keeping with the overall quality of the project. I'm sure by now you are familiar with most of the homeowners' concerns; but I would like to reiterate them. The density you are allowing in this specific location makes the area a traffic hazard; not only for residents but certainly for emergency vehicles if the occasion ever arose. The streets are too narrow for this much density and do not allow enough room for visitor parking or emergency vehicles. At the very least, a traffic study and EIR should be completed to determine the impact of this much density. The developer should not be allowed to build two-story structures on the fairways. on pebble Beach on the Stadium Course at PGA West on Lots 11 through 29, the Sunrise Company restricted those multi -million dollar homes to one-story. It is a conflict to allow the Sunrise Company to place those restrictions on others in the same project, and not have to live with a one-story restriction themselves. Any living structures on the golf courses at PGA West, should be restricted to one story, other than perhaps the hotel or clubhouses. I cannot think of any other major quality golf community that has allowed two-story living dwellings directly on the golf course. Two-story structures will detract from the beautiful views and will serve to lower property values of existing owners. Sunrise has a moral and ethical obligation, as does the City, to insure that the quality of the project is not diminished for the many existing homeowners and future owners. .18MI Ism hn.. is Qn 4 c.. .#1, r........ c^...... Mr. John walling october 19, 1989 Page 2 This is a very serious matter to the homeowners at PGA West. Tim sure ;you have heard from many and I'm also Sure you will hear from irany more. PGA West is an excellent project and I sincerely hope you will not allow it to be otherwise. sincerely, Ian B. Carter IBC; npw cc: John Pena, Mayor MITCHELL LEIT RECEIVED October 11, 1989 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 To Whom It May Concern; OCT 0 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELONENT DEPT. Regarding the proposed increase in dwellings in the PGA West resort (tentative tract 21846, revision #2) 1 would like to go on record as being strongly opposed to such further development. I have a number of reasons for my position, the first being the impact that the increase in traffic would have on not only the internal complex streets but also the general service streets in the surrounding area. Traffic is getting heavier all the time, and especially with the installation of the new PGA Hotel (and its enormous size) I expect that travel on Jefferson Avenue will be close to impossible. Secondly, the proposed development was in no way suggested by either the city or the developer when my home was purchased. I took special care to select this particular site and building for its relative position to all other dwellings. Your proposal would completely alter that position and make it considerable less desirable for myself and my family. I would appreciate a response to any further actions I and my neighbors can take in an attempt to require that the developer and city build the development based on the original presentation shown to the existing homeowners. Respectfully Mitchell Left 516 N. Carmelina Avenue, Los Angeles California 90049 natoonat m01ZtcaQE & tana company September 28, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Director of Planning and Development City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 - Request for Time Extension Dear Mr. Herman: We respectfully request a one (1) year time extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21846. On November 1, 1988, the City Council approved a one (1) year time extension for the Tentative Tract Map. This request will extend the approval through November 1, 1990. Enclosed is a check in the amount of $75.00 for the required filing fee for a time extension. If you have any questions, or require any additional information in order to approve this request, please contact the undersigned. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, S UNR 2 S E COMP Allan Levin 441.1, Vice President, Engineering AL/sl 005 M 110 9i58 09-29-89 i4 L�ASN i TOTAL 1 75 ATTAGHMEN* 42-600 COOK STREET, SUITE 200, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • (619) 568-2828 OF 'TENTATIVE 'TRACT MAP NO. 21846 Subdivided 56.51 acres into 22 lots to accomodate 367 condomin- ium units and related golf course and recreational amenities. APPROVED REVISED LOT NO. UNITS UNITS 1 10 Legends 10 Legends 2 8 Greens 8 Greens 3 24 " 24 " 4 21 ' 21 ' 5 48 " 48 " 6 16 16 " 7 40 40 " 8 32 ' 32 • 9 24 36 Medalists 10 24 36 " 11 24 36 • 12 32 36 " 13 8 Champions 8 Champions 14 9 Fairways 8 Galleries 15 10 " 12 Legends 16 11 23 Champions 17 13 20 • 18 13 20 • TOTALS 367 434 Approved Units 367 Proposed Units Legends 10 Legends Champions 8 Champions Greens 293 Greens Fairways 56 Galleries Medalists RECEIVED S E P i e) 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PUNNING & DEVELOPMENT DEFT. CHANGE IN UNIT COUNTS (+67) 434 22 71 189 8 144 A$TTACHMENi U+L V 1Z LVi" WtLI1 1 liL V IL W COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR COMMENT P16ANNING DIVISION LA CAR1 WA V& 105 ceIM ®.0. E*a 1 04 LA WAA, CA 02 tM PHONE: (61E) 6E4-224E Ubaee,�+y���wvasmss:m.,awe:�yem¢.��.a�:s..uisamw.vss�a�aaaw�-�.mnma�s.¢ ea::aati..ena+muse+a..u�*r�ara�siwiwyv»smmee.maavo�+o�r�. V ®�^—.rnric�vices.aw'.rxatnncw.ear.}psyw��e'n.:aa�aae.mn�sm•.-�wwmv_�nan�wsr,asa4em�aum veryn'.m�owncv�.xsia+euue..u.v �{Q� —__ — _ Nwos�Ywe¢sss,'av�p�py�emm�ewum. ♦ : DA TZ : V "v menirewrYvvwss _ a City Manager Public Works/Engineering Fire Marshal Community Safety Department �. Building Division Chamber of CotTrerce CVWD r` Imperial Irrigation Southern California Gas DSUSD _ CV"USD ._.P�_ 1dJ____Property ia Owner's Assoction _ Coachella Valley - Palm Desert Disposal General Telephone Palmer Cable vision Sunline Transit Caltrans (District 11) Agricultural Commission City of Indian Wells City of Indio Riverside County: ® Planning Department Environmental Health Sheriff's Department Road Department -- Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUIxTA CASE NO(S). PROJEC9' DESCRIPTION: PROJECT LOCA°.PION: [�; VtSLOY) '* 2 The City of La Qufn-tla"'�evelopnrenti`feew C mnni a oka .s cuing an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information, submitted by the project proponent. Your ccents are requested with reApact to: RECEIVED 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, fac �litisGG}s� �989 and/or services; U bb 2. Recoryr-ended conditions: a.) that you or your agency Delia®j ��� �A QUINT mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should a �Y ,� t project design, c.) or improvements to satisfy other regpu$Yiii�i!�s?%FL0FMENT DI concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the enviro nment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(Les) which may be helpful. Please send your response by Q (i a, You are invited to attend the DM FKFNT RLrVfg—W CcomTTIR meet ng' Quint& city hall scheduled for: Date: _��$�®� Time: Contact Person: 26 GalA. Comments!m7ade by - Phone Agency/DivisionY11�Y�,�rD�T ATTACHMENT 0A L. 1l- 'V !_i-N.ot iviL-1.It 1 fit- y !G 11 COMMITTEE REQUEST FOR COMMENT Vil Of u QV W 1 Cos carom PA. %ftIS" PLANNING DIVISION PHONE: (1 19) 594-2246 Ta: DATE: City Manager Palm Desert Disposal _2(,_ Public Works/Engineering General Telephone R E C E Iti _,k_ Fire Marshal Palmer Cable vision Community Safety Department Sunline Transit Building Division Caltrans (District 11) AUG 1 _ Chamber of Circe Agricultural Cormission y C�1wD City of Indian Wells 3(� Imperial CalIrrifornia City of Indio Southern California Gr:a Riverside County: - DSUSD CYUSD Planning Department Environmental Health _ 4_ 1+±:� Property Sheriff's Department Owner's Association _ _ Road Deoartrsent-- - 7 - Coachella Ba;.ley - Archaeological Society SUBJECT: Cam *nts, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUINTA CASE NO(S).� C_C �-�� `ram -:1 1$4Ze re-V(slo 4 2 t' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: __ 2 _c ___� �ti 2 •; n al;ec°r LOCATION: -c�aa� C� a 9ne Ci t of La fn �, Q ✓ new of w eG r' . o Y elopment Review Committee is conducts N ng an initial ,c--vironmental •tudlY pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act EQA) for the above referenced project($). Attached is the infor-mation Zlxaitted by the project proponent, cn our cents are regatited with rsApect to: ;D 1. Physical tmpacts the projEcct presents on public resouresa, facilities, and/or services= 2. Recemended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects: b.) or should apply to the project designs e.) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible: and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environcment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(leg) which may be helpful. _ Please send your response by You art invited to attend the DEV L0 1tBVrzw ccmmr 8E ssest rig�it! t e Quints City hall scheduled fort Date:----±::36 Time: Contact Person: ��� ��_�--------- 4s.. No additional comments at this time. Comments made by: _. Jim Reeder � � Date Au use 18, 1989 Titla Fire Protection S ecialist Phone Agency/Division Riverside County Fire Department SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY 1981 LUGONIA AVENUE, REDLANDS CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS p 0 BOX 3003 REDLANDS. CALIFORNiA 92373-0306 August 18, 1989 Cj,ty of La Quinta Planning Department 78-105 Calle Estrado La Quinta, California 92253 All IL-NTION: Stan Sawa RF',: TT-21846 The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in PGA Blvd. near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the proposed ant without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action Which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. ,W 4�1 Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System lA>rea Average/Use Per meter) Yearn Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi --Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units servedby Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1-800-624.-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular pro,ect. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-624-2497. Sincerely, O K a`Roge. Ba an Technical Supervisor K—A-Vjs cc: En iron Affairs - ML209B a.o &_ a C... C... 10 COMMI' 0 AUG ACsl. Crc ACID •A b 1 y R . DIR 0 N0TE FILE SIGhA'URE OPiSA;IONS CO+awFNT$ _ ACM SERV SC RV CNT it tor"N t f LA W W A I C&II FA 1 04 La&Lrca,cA un , �v®• PLANNING DIVISIO i 604-2241TO: DA72: City Marager Pa Le Desert Dispcsal _� Public Works/Engineering General Telephone Fire Marshal PaLser Cable vision Community Safety Department Sunline Transit 1 tg� Building Division _+ Caltrans (District 11) Z Chamber of Cca=vrce Agricultural Co mission CVWD City of Indian wells Imperial Irrigation City of Indio Southern California Gas Riverside County: DSUSD _ PlanningDepartment CVUSD tal Health _w�,�Y4Property S eriff''ssnDeparrtment Owners Association _ _ Road Department—- Archaeological- -J t n.r}�pl l g vA1 t py - -- Society SUBJECT: Comments, Findings and Conditions concerning subject project. LA QUINTPA CASE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROJEI;:T LaOCJ►I'ION:...`e� The City of La Quintavelo,.rnent eview�Ccx,n+ a i' s coy n ti an initial environrlental study pursuant to the California Lnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your corm tents are requested with reipect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Reecmnended conditions: a.) that you or your agency believe would mitigate any potential adverse effects; b.) or should apply to the project design; c.) or Laproven*nts to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recormend the •cope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by Vl PT' You are invited to attend the DE P.IIo Rzv Irma greet nq at tom' Quinta City hall scheduled for: Date: .�( Contact Person: ___-_:�.2b�__-__�:�GIMT� son ilOO■p illM ft09!!!>0 !♦w0 i•it O'=am i3 OlrsmI�m 1! a®Ne m!A1 ,see ®V r t e.Ae-; .i VAi 8� �1v�®f0 Con nen:s made by: Q •�c.,Q.� Date '\k4 - 1 Titla _TEU-�. s �R� S Phone 3`%g-2kcS-- Agency/Division — G -\J - W • 0 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE 'TRACT MAP NO. 21846, EXTENSION #1 - SUNRISE COMPANY NOVEMBER 1, 1988 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City Engineer o Planning Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 4. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and adequate provision shall be made to certify that the constructed condition at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permits. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. - 1 - AwrTACHMEN BJ/CONA.PRVL.007 C+' ND1TIONS Of ' ,F,,OV L - `l iH 21846 November 1, 19e.+ Page 2 5. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. pursuant to Section 11568 of the business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final suWivision map. HYDROLOaYJ'�ATER CONSERVATION 6. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 7. Prior to approval of any portion of the final tract map, the Applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City Engineer which will indicate method and design to protect the development from the 100-year flood and any flooding caused from a breach of embankment of LaAe Cabuilla or t;e Coachella Canal. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and/or the Coachella Valley Water District. (NOTE: Hydrological analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered with improvement plans for each subsequent tract phase. 8. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which will adequately indicate the following: a. Methods to minimize the consumption of water usage including, but not limited to, water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and programs to minimize landscape irrigation. b. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased on -site surface water runoff and increased groundwater recharge. 9. That surface runoff water from landscape irrigation systems shall be minimized with the installation of drip, bubbler systems and other water conservation treasures. Also, that a system of catch basins shall be incorporated into the landscaped common areas of the project in order to contain on -site surface water runoff. 10. The Applicant shall utilize dust control treasures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 11. The Applicant shall develop all roads (private streets' applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21846 to the requirements of the City Engineer and the standards of - 2 BJ/CONAPRVLa007 _ _ (,ONDITIONS OF I Rov,AL - `rrM 21846 November le 198a Page 3 the La Quinta Municipal Code. The street improvement plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and as adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 12. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements regarding private street improvements: a. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 sha-11 be developed in accordance with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-002 (;PGA West Specific Plan) as conditionally approved. b. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21.846 shall .remain private and be maintained as such. C. Temporary cul-de-sacs of at least 90 feet in diameter shall be provided at the end of Lots 14 and 15 per Exhibit A, Minor Change #1. As an alternative to cul-de-sac improvements, the Applicant may improve "Shoal Creek" and "Riviera" streets northerly to all-weather streets, per Exhibit "A", to connect. A plan for cul-de-sac and/or all-weather access shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer prior to recordation of any remaining phases of Tentative Tract No. 21846. All improvements as specified by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer shall be made prior to issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract No, 21846. d. A plan showing proposed parking along the private road system shall be submitted for :review and approval to the Planning Department. The plan shall designate "no parking" areas and indicate the method of identifying them. e„ The width of all interior drives where residential units are to be located along shall be a minimum of 32-feet. 13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department indicating non -automotive means of transportation within the project including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian paths. PUBLIC SERVICE AND„UTILITIES 14. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. The following conditions shall be met/certified prior to the issuance of any building permit within Tract No. 21846, except that the Fire - 3 - n.T /rnNAPRVL . 007 EDITIONS OF I ROYAL - Irr N 21846 November 1, 198a Page 4 Marshal approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: a. Fire Hydrants. Install super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 1/211 2 1/211) at each street intersection. In no event shall the hydrants be installed at intervals exceeding 330-feet between hydrants. b. All water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual f ird flow of 1500 GPM from any one hydrant c:onuiected to any given water main for a two hour duration at a 20 PSI residual operating pressure. c. Required fire flow must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 15. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Coachella valley Water District. a. The water and sewage disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. b. w"hen there are identified conflicts with existing cvWD facilities, the City will withhold the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide written clearance to the City Planning and Development Department that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this development. 17. All utility improvements to the project shall be installed underground. SCHOOLS 18. In order to mitigate impact on public school, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within Tentative Tract Map No.218461 the Applicant shall provide the Building official with written clearance form the Desert Sands Unified School District stating that the per unit impact fees have been paid. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN 19. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with Exhibits A, B, B•.-F1,B-F-2, B-F3, B-GA, B-GB, B-Ad, - 4 - u T /r()VA PPVT, . 007 COND1T'IONS OF !' WVAI. - r M 21.846 November 1, 198., Page 5 B-Au, B-B, B-Cs B-D, B-E, C-F1, C-F1A, C-F2, C-•F2A, C-F3, C°-.F3A, C-GA, and C-GB, pursuant to the Planning and Development Department's Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 file as conditionally approved, and in accordance with the file for Tentative Tract 21846, Minor Change 41. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 20. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shalt be sereened from view at all sides by the roof design. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning Department. 21. The following setback criteria shall be applied to site design: a. A minimum front yard setback of 20-feet shall be rewired on all residential dwelling units in the project, with the following exceptions: 1.) The "Legends" (Plan 40) is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an, accessory golf cart storage structure. 2.) The "Greens" (Building "A") and the Fairways (Plan F1 and F2A) are permitted to have a 13.5 foot front setback at the side entry garage areas. b. A minimum sideyard setback of 3-feet (10-feet between building complexes) shall be required on all residential units. 22. Any minor changes in the tentative tract maps including, but not limited to, total number of units, unit locations, unit orientation, unit mix changes, exterior building color changes, changes in lot lines, lot shape m:)difications, changes in lot dimensions and street alignment alterations shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. A change in the total number of units shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the remaining unbuilt approved units. All changes shall be deemed compatible with approved unit designs, and shall be consistent with the overall character of the project. NOISE 23. Prior to building permit approval, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce noise impacts from nearby existing and future roadways to within the State standards. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plans.) - 5 - B J/ CONA:PRVL . 0 0 7 (.WD I T I ON S OF PROVAL - M 21846 November 1, 19od Page 6 24. Prior to approval of precise development plans, the Applicant will demonstrate that residential structures satisfy the State's indoor criterion. Where exposed to noise levels in excess of State standards, Applicant shall install special design features such as double -glazed windows, mechanical ventilation, special roof venting, increased insulation, weather-stripping, or combinations of these and similar measures. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in -building and wall plan.) ARCHAEOLOGY 25. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken. MISCELLANEOUS 26. No occupancy permit will be issued for any dwelling unit until the surrounding golf course and common landscaped areas have been planted and matured to mitigate localized blowing dust. 27. Prior to final map recordation, the Applicant shall submit a tentative time schedule of tract map development phasing as it relates to the phased implementation of Specific Plan No. 83-002. This schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the -Planning Department. 28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit grading, landscape and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's Water Management Plan. Final landscape and i.rrigtion system approval shall be obtained from the Planning and Development Department. 29. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting, if any, along roads for review and approval by the Planning Department. 30. All signing within PGA West including Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 31. Provision shall be made to comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6 A,T /rnNA'PEVL . 007 BUDOR IN VESTMENTS LTD. 477 DRIVER WAY BOX 3146 INCLINE VILLAGE. NV 89450 RECEIVED 17021 831-7142 0 P T 2 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING, & DEVELOPMENT DEP September 29, 1989 City of La Quinta Planning Commission P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Att: Chairman, Public Hearing Scheduled October 10,1989 Tentative 'Tract 21846 (Revision No.2) Dear Sir: This letter_ is written in response to the notice of Public Hearing regarding the above item, and represents the concerns of all partners holding an interest in BUDOR INV LTD, the owner of property located at 55177 Firestone, La Quinta 92253. As we understand the proposed request for revision to tentative tract map 21846, Sunrise intends to increase the density of housing to be constructed on property fronting on the llth, 12th an 13th holes of the Arnold Palmer course at PGA West. As a property owner with a view across these golf holes, we object to the proposed increase in density on the basis that, 1) such an increase in potential population will not only cause a deterioration of our view but also raise the level of traffic and noise beyond that which was expected by purchasers of property on Firestone and 2) the representatives of Sunrise failed to disclose to us at the time we purchased our property(February 1988) that there would be other than the three levels of homes on or around the Palmer course,- the Classics, Legends and Champions. In fact there was clear implication that there would be only Champion or Legend models built in the future on the undeveloped lots within the Arnold Palmer gate. Within a few weeks of closing the purchase on our home, to our surprise, Sunrise introduced "The Greens", a high density development directly across the street from our home. These models, which were approximately half the square footage of our Legend 40 model, were two story and were constructed to appeal to a totally different market than purchasers of the three model groups offered at the time we bought our home. Sunrise did not disclose to us that the "Greens" would be built on Firestone and we had no opportunity to voice our objection at a hearing such as this one. ATTACHMEN" Now it appears that Sunrise is requesting a change again which by any standard is a violation of good faith and in conflict with a ]previous pledge that PGA homes would be of no greater density than ithe three models offered in early 1988. These changes or downgrading of the character and design of the PGA complex threatens to cause a significant decrease in the value of our home and the homes of our neighbors in the Arnold Palmer course complex and on behalf of BUDOR INV LTD partners, I hereby submit our objection to the proposal and plead for the Commission to deny ithe request to revise Tentative Tract 21846. :inc ;el.AJ S rner1 Partner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 21846 (REVISION #2) TO MODIFY UNIT TYPES, THEIR LOCA.TIONS AND INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 367 TO 434 UNITS AT PGA WEST. CASE NO. TT 21846 (REVISION #2) SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Quinta, California, did on the 10th day of October, a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Sunrise Desert Partners to modify unit types, their and increase the total :number of dwelling units from units on 56.5 acres (incl%iding lakes) in the R-2 particularly described as: City of La 1989, hold request of locations, 367 to 434 Zone, more A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 17, T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Envirorumenta.l 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 has determined that part of the proposed Tentative Tract is a part of and is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan, for which an Environmental impact Report was certified on May 1, 1984. 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. 21846, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan, the goals, Policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance in that -the Tract complies with the land use designation for low density residential development. 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 will :not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife, or their habitat. BJ/RESOPC.018 - 1 - 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems. 5. The proposed subdivision is not development specific and will not result in any violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 6. The proposed modifications maintain the same building types (one story or two stories) as previously approved. 7. The units proposed have been approved for use in the project. 8. The change in unit type from "Greens" to "Medalists" will reduce: necessary curb cuts from 5 to 1 per building thus providing additional on street parking and additional landscaping in front yards. 9. The project provides excessive open space and recreational facilities. 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 previous Environmental Impact Report for the PGA West Specific Plan assessed the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract Revision; 3. 'That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and sub',ec:t to the attached revised conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this loth day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.01.8 - 2 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21846, REVISION #2 SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire on October 7, 1990 as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City Engineer o :Planning Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o :Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. 434 units are approved for Tentative Tract No. 21846 (Revision #2) per Exhibit "C" on file in the Planning and Development Department. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The grading plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer; and adequate provision shall be made to certify that the constructed condition at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permits. b;,f / CONAPRVL . 018 - 1 - Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 6. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. HYDROLOGY/WATER CONSERVATION 7. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. 8. Prior to approval of any portion of the final tract map, the Applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City Engineer which will indicate method and design to protect the development from the 100-year flood and any flooding caused from a breach of embankment of Lake Cahuilla or the Coachella Canal. This plan shall be consistent with the purposes of any similar plans of the Redevelopment Agency and/or the Coachella Valley Water District. ,NOTE: Hydrological analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered with improvement plans for each subsequent tract phase. 9. Prior to approval of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan which will adequately indicate the following: A. Methods to minimize the consumption of water usage including, but not limited to, water saving fixtures, drought -tolerant and native landscaping, and programs to minimize landscape irrigation. B. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased on -site surface water runoff and increased groundwater recharge. 10. That surface runoff water from landscape irrigation systems shall be minimized with the installation of drip, bubbler systems and other water conservation measures. Also, that a system of catch basins shall be incorporated into the landscaped common areas of the project in order to contain on -site surface water runoff. 11. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. BJ/CONAPRVL.018 - 2 - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 12. The Applicant shall develop all roads (private streets) applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21846 to the requirements of the City Engineer and the standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The street improvement plan shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and as adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. 13. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements regarding private street improvements: A. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be developed in accordance with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-002 (PGA West Specific Plan) as conditionally approved. B. All roadways within Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall remain private and be maintained as such. C. Temporary cul-de-sacs of at least 90 feet in diameter shall be provided at the end of Lots 14 and 15 per Exhibit A, Minor Change #1. As an alternative to cul-de-sac improvements, the Applicant may improve "Shoal Creek" and "Riviera" :streets northerly to all-weather streets, per Exhibit "A", to connect. A plan for cul-de-sac and/or all-weather access shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer prior to recordation of any remaining phases of Tentative Tract No. 21846. All improvements as specified by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer shall be made prior to issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract No. 21846. D. A plan showing proposed parking along the private road system shall be submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department. The plan shall designate "no parking" areas and indicate the method of identifying them. E. The width of all interior drives where residential units are to be located along shall be a minimum of 32-feet. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department indicating non -automotive means of transportation within the project including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian paths. BJ./CONAPRVL.CI18 - 3 - PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES 15. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. The following conditions shall be met/certified prior to the issuance of any building permit within Tract No. 21846, except that the Fire Marshal approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: A. Fire Hydrants. Install super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 1/211 2 1/211) at each street intersection. In no event shall the hydrants be installed at intervals exceeding 330-feet between hydrants. B. All water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and an actual fire flow of 1300 GPM from any one hydrant connected to any given water main for a two hour duration at a 20 PSI residual operating pressure. C. Required fire flow must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 16. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Coachella Valley dater District. A. The water and sewage disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. B. When there are identified conflicts with existing CVWD facilities, the City will withhold the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. 1;►. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant shall provide written clearance to the City Planning and Development Department that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this development. 18. All utility improvements to the project shall be installed underground. SCHOOLS 19. In order to mitigate impact on public school, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits within Tentative Tract Map No.21846, the Applicant shall provide the Building Official with written clearance form the Desert Sands Unified School District stating that the per unit impact fees have been paid. BST/CONAPRVL.018 - 4 - BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN 20. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with :Exhibits A, B, B-F1,B-F-2, B-F3, B-GA, B-GB, B--Ad, B-Au, B-B, B-C, B-D, B-E, C-F1, C-F1A, C-F2, C-F2A, C--F3, C-F3A, C-GA, and C-GB, pursuant to the Planning and Development Department's Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 file as conditionally approved, and in accordance with the file :for Tentative Tract 21846, Minor Change #1 and Revision #2. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 21.. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by the roof design. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning Department. 22. The following setback criteria shall be applied to site design: A. A minimum front yard setback of 20-feet shall be :required on all residential dwelling units in the project, with the following exceptions: 1.) The "Legends" (Plan 40) is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an accessory golf cart storage structure. 2.) The "Greens" (Building "A") and the "Fairways" (Plan F1 and F2A) are permitted to have a 13.5 foot front setback at the side entry garage areas. 3.) The "Gallaries" and "Medalists" units are permitted to have a 15-foot front setback. B. A minimum sideyard setback of 5-feet (10-feet :between building complexes) shall be required on all residential units. 23. Any minor changes in the tentative tract maps including, but not limited to, total number of units, unit locations, unit orientation, unit mix changes, exterior building color changes, changes in lot lines, lot shape modifications, changes in lot dimensions and street alignment alterations shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. A change in the total number of units shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the remaining unbuilt approved units. All changes shall be deemed compatible with approved unit designs, and shall be consistent with the overall character of the project. BJ' / CONAPRVL . 018 - 5 - NOISE 24. Prior to building permit approval, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be utilized to reduce noise impacts from nearby existing and future roadways to within the State standards. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plans.) 25. Prior to approval of precise development plans, the Applicant will demonstrate that residential structures satisfy the State's indoor criterion. Where exposed to noise levels in excess of State standards, Applicant shall install special design features such as double -glazed windows, mechanical ventilation, special roof venting, increased insulation, weather-stripping, or combinations of these and similar measures. (NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plan.) ARCHAEOLOGY 26. If buried remains are encountered during development, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately and appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken. MISCELLANEOUS 27. No occupancy permit will be issued for any dwelling unit until the surrounding golf course and common landscaped areas have been planted and matured to mitigate localized blowing dust. 28. Prior to final map recordation, the Applicant shall submit a tentative time schedule of tract map development phasing as it: relates to the phased implementation of Specific Plan No. 83-002. This schedule shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit: grading, landscape and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's Water Management Plan. Final landscape and irrigtion system approval shall be obtained from the Planning and Development Department. 30. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting, if any, along roads for review and approval by the Planning Department. :B:T / CONAPRVL . 018 - 6 - 31. All signing within PGA West including Tentative Tract No. 21846 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 32. Provis,ion shall be made to comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of building permit issuance. &r/CONAPRVL.018 - 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING A SECOND ONE --YEAR TIME EXTENSION TO OCTOBER 7, 1990. CASE NO. TT 21846 - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the loth day of October, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by SUNRISE DESERT PARTNERS for approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846 generally located in the northwest portion of the PGA West Specific Plan, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 17 T6S, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract No. 21846, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to the extension on October 25, 1988; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 26th day of August, 1988, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on the Environmental Analysis and the request to subdivide 105.28 acres into a 22-lot residential subdivision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 16th day of September, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21846; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director, determined that the EIR prepared for the overall PGA West Specific Plan addressed potential impacts of the subject tract as part of the overall development, and that the appropriate mitigation measures identified in the EIR would address the potential impacts of Tentative Tract #21846; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on September 16, 1986, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, BJ/RESOPC.019 - 1 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the original Applicant, the Sunrise Desert Partners, has applied for this second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 21846, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission, on October 10, 1989, did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said extension of time: 1. That Tentative Tract No. 21846, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division and Land Use Ordinances. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 21846 will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at -large, for access through the project since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 4. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been adequately addressed in the certified Environmental Impact Report prepared for the entire PGA West Specific Plan. The significant impacts presented by this project will be appropriately mitigated though conditions of approval for the project to the extent feasible. 5. Adherence to the current and proposed changes to conditions of approval will ensure that the project will not be likely to cause substantial environmental damage and that impacts on wildlife habitat will be mitigated to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. 'That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; BJ/RESOPC.019 - 2 - 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the Conditions of Approval as revised on October 10, 1.989. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quintet Planning Commission held on this loth day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JKR2RY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.019 - 3 - OCT 10 1989 (;IT`S OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEFT. I'0; City Council ut La QuInta RE: TT 21846 - Revision #2 FRari5ST dsUAelse October 10, 19989 I voice strong opposition to the 2nd revision request by Sunrise Builders in the PGA West project in the area generally bounded by Riverin, Tangl.ewood .and Arnold Palmer, based on the following factors: 1. It is my belief that the Planning and Development Department is wrong in allowing the EIR that was prepared based on the original PGA West Specific Plan to address the impact of increasiAg by 30% or more the density in just one zone of one tract of the original plan. Changes to other tracts in PGA West have been changed, but no other tract has been so significantly increased in density. I find it hard to believe that further study of impacts of traffic, fire and security are not in order. 2. While not a direct concern to the city, the present resident's of YGA WE•:st are concerned by the impact of such increase density in our future association, dues. This should not be overlooked by the city council Just because it iy not the council that will be increasing those dues. You will recall the residents of PGA West just received a tax increase to cover the cost assumed by the city in taking over utaintenanee of the road medians on 52nd and Jefferson. These were medians that were projects of 1aindmark, approved by ,.city of LLaquinta Council, and now paid for by the residents of PGA West. You as Council members therefore should surely understand our concern .as ra8ideilts regarding tlse "ripple effect" of suds an increase in density in housing all bring concentrated in one tract. 3. I am concerned that what was originally designed as a quiet and controlled growth project in a community of the same nature, is being allowed to grow far too rapidly. So many changes have been requested, it seems time to Jjut the changes back into the perspective of the, uverall intent. We have got to look past "sales volumes" and "aales market". Those of us already living in the community have g,ut to be considered for we purchased our homes based on considerations such as density, view, and traffic as well as golf and tennis. What I see happening is the Stadium side remaining low density, quiet living, Palmer side becoming "apartment resort" living, and at the end of PGA Boulevard we have "resort city living". please take these cuucerns not :dust as "anti growth" ats;tesnenis because the proposed changes are occuring across the fairway from my home. Tisesse are concerns because it seems to ice that the beautiful intent of the originaly concept of. ?GA West is quickly being squandered. All I ask is further study be done by ALL parties; affected no that YGA West trully stays a quality project, not just ano her pro�.ect (-- aurae Arrants r,R-195 41,nal rr4ov OCT 10 19�89 CITY Ur LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. TO: LA DUINTA FLANNING COMMISSION RE: PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 1 (--) . 1989 We strongly abject to the proposal submitted by Sunrise Company to increase the density on the Arnold Palmer Course at PGA WEST. The reasons for those objections include the following: 1. This represents a 20 increase of units in the designated area on the Palmer Course. 3. That represents a potential increase of an additional 134 motor vechicles, which in turn CaUSeS: a) SUbstantial deterioration of traffic conditions and safety b) ad:,erse environmental influences 3. Will have a significant ad -verse impact on the .;ic•w, and/or promised fUtUre view of a substantial 4Illi�ber o"F Cam' i st i rg honL-s . 4. The increase of b'? Unit= as proposed will cverlc,ad the existinq and proposed recreational facilities. SUnr2Se Company anc the city of La Quinta entered into a moral, if not legally enforceable contract with the effected home ow.iers that the den=_ity for the area in question would not be increased. F'Urchasers relied upon the repre=_enta;.ion Of Sunri=_>C Com.ianv as to thc type and dr-nsity of nearby units, this proposal amounts to a blatant violation of these representations. As propert',./ owners in the city of La 0-,-!inta we rely upon the city to hold developers to those comMitl7lents. W2 ask:ed that trils proposal b�• Sunrisc be r-c jcctod. If riot reJected, at least postponed _o that the true mca=ure of opposition can be communicated. Many of the effected homeowners who would voice strong opposition are unable to do so oecauso of the off-season timing of this request. We are aware that we have legal recourse in a number of ways, including a class action against Sunrise Company, but we should not be required to incur that e,.pense. In conclusion we respectfully submit that inquiry should be made of Sunrise Company as to the fact that they are not only offer`3 r1-3 Un1ts in questio'rs for sale at their sales office, but also hake commenced construction of same. nn 1 (vIL -r'va S= SxZL&1)L1N% Y®CC.A, CA.RL$ON & lE AUTH A PR4lr96810NAL CORPORATION IRIT; R. 0-31J.D61149/ Nitt.A 4. MIANSTLIN ATTORNMYS AT 6AW NICK s. YCCCA antsTIC STAML NRADV m�f0 NZWPORT CiNT6R DRiVIR, SUITi 169p C. ORAIQ CARLSON dNRISTOPH%K J. KILPATRICK WILWAM R, b.U'rM ill WIL6IAM A. MARQUIS POST OFFICZ l0lox 106(,7 K. C. RCMAAT 111110MANO C. 4000MAN 4O196 H. OJTH JULIC M. Md1C*y NiWPORT S BAGH+ 6AL11roRN,A QS6$O^6441 JOHN J. MIJROWY THOMAS IN CI.ARK, JR, I}AWi. `. MQNLYWRLL ONSN R. 6W60YY 840^9OSS SiN A. ►RYGOAN 0AV10 R. WE'NSN rAWRSNC9 L. COMN BTL►N6.v M FRERMAM FAX Ronan" RAW: " 0AL4 P{CRRY J. TARNOFBKY (714} 168.4100 RW006WH C, RIMLPARO R084 RT A. WI6SON ROSERT J. KANU CHEOV6 A. DOW H. 0, TALRIOT N1040LAB J. VOCCA 2 qu:iL G. STUART 616A M. KIT'SUTA OOU66AM F. 1413HAM JW61L M. PORTLM C, KVNT YLAORR JOHN 0. STEININKRB RC!RSRT .1. WHA69N ROSiRT C. ►UN6T%'N ROMERT e. RICH AL.LTA 6OUI02 RRTAI-Ir A. WA R:.A RZOM TMOMAS A. WiSTONL BCO'TY L. Mr-CONNILL RONALC eTLRHLN hL M-NA.MARA. RANOALL J. IINCAMAN J. MICMALL VAJGtA **VCR W. ►i JCMTLR CIMOY R. 4.16H96 MARK J. MULRSCM CiNISL S, HANRAUG" K,RK ► MA60QNADC RAR"RA 1.. zU2 KARKU A. iLI.IB RMC T. SAI.TZMAN l WRARRYH Q. GRRRW MIOHARL J. NW61NO e RNtR8T G. RROWk, MICHALL J. 6A6I09RTt Ri31 A. 6ROLINDWATSR S8*1A.Gct OLI GARYOHN 0-Mg" -JOHN 0. t1oiLACUF'J pt October 20, 1989 pONAL .b J. I+.AMMAN MICHAL6 J. PfXtP 8R6AWr JOIN J, CWHIA NTp JR. ANORSW A RI►KIN MI®µ491. A. RIA66OCKi Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quint:e 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 RH: Amen . 21.846 Dear Jerry: JOAN L. SRCOKLNRIDOL RLNA a. WrONK 9r COWNlKt, WAi-en'S OIRtt:Y 01AL1 You have requested our opinion regarding certain concerns of the Planniny Commission on an amendment to Tract No. 21846 which is scheduled for public hearing October 24, 1989. The following is a brief overview of the basic legal concerns involved. Due to time constraints, a more detailed analysis, is not possible at this time. However, if the Commission would prefer a more in-depth, review for a later meeting we would be happy to review the matter further. The initial question is whether the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council the elimination of any unbuilt two-story units in the proposed tract map. It is not appropriate at the stage of reviewing a tract may to review such issues as to whether the units will be one-story or two-story. 'phase limitations, if applicable, would be ap9lied through the specific ,planfor that area and would require, if a change is to be made, an amendment to the specific plan at. issue. Thus, it would not be appropriate to delay a decision on this Particular tract may while trying to determine whether to amend the specific plan unless a moratorium was adopted by the City t:Ouncil to hold approval of all tentative tract maps and/or building permits in the affected area until the specific plan could be reviewed for potential change. Mr. Jerry Merman October 20, 1989 Page Two The Planning Commission is certainly free to recommend a moratorium to the City Council if it believes that the current Specific Flan is inadequate. It would then be up to the City Council to, decide whether the tract map should go forward ol, whether they would want to adopt a moratorium on approving tract maps and/or issuing building permits until the specific plan could, be reviewed. in the event the City Council does not believe a moratorium, is appropriate and yet it determines to approve an amendment to the appropriate specific plan the issue as to which units would be affected would depend on what portions cf the tract snap have vested in the Developer. once a developer has started construction he has a "vested" right in constructing according to the limitations in effect at that time. Obviously, if the Developer knows that a change is being contemplated, it would be in his interest to obtain as many building permits as possible and start construction to vest his interests in the current specific plan. As far as the second issue Concerning the necessity for a public hearing and notice for an amendment to a tentative tract map, it is correct that normally an amendment to a tentative tract map would require a new public hearing with the appropriate notices in order to affect such an amendment. In this instance, the tract is now scheduled for a new amendment which has been properly noticed so there should be no concern, that a decision on this new amendment will be affected by the prior lack of notice. Concerning the prior lack of notice itself, there is typically a ninety -day statute of limitations for bringing in a writ of mandate action against the City with regard to the rights of individuals and therefore it is likely t!'aat the time has run for a challenge to the previous amendment. In any event, the amendment before you this week has been properly noticed and there should be no concern about a challenge to a decision on the Trost recent application. Should you have any further questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to give me a call. 'fiery truly yours, Dawn C. Honeywell DCH:cmp Enclosures COMMENTS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE TRACT #21846, REVISION #1 CITY ENGINEER: Q. Will the density increase create a traffic problem. A. The roadway system approved is capable of handling any increased traffic that may be a result of the proposed change:. ON -STREET PARKING: Q. Would a problem be created for on -street parking? A. The City Council on May 19, 1987 eliminated parking restrictions on 32-foot wide streets in PGA West as part of Tentative Tract #22432 (see attached). New streets however will be provided with 36-foot widths. Therefore, the Planning and Development Department has not required parking plans for on -street parking. BJ/DOCJH.0061 - 1 - �I 7 SUNZISE COMPANY June 19, 1986 Mr. Larry Stevens Director of Community Development CITY OF LA QUINTA 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 mil; `A Coh 11Ut,1TY Ult�LLJPMENT DEPT Re: PGA WEST Tract Map #20717 and #21381 Dear Larry: Following up on our conversation of June 17, 1986, let me reiterate the points we discussed and use this letter as a supplement to my letter to Gary Price dated June 10, 1986, regarding the parking issue. Your staff has indicated a desire for us to restrict parking on one side of our 32' wide residential streets at PGA WEST. I believe this restriction makes no particular sense and I ask you to look at the facts and the logic when reviewing our parking plan. As I stated in my letter to Mr. Price, PGA WEST will be primarily a second home community (historically 85% of our buyers are second home residents) and the need for on -street parking by second home owners is obviously considerably less than that of primary home residents. In the extremely rare instance that two cars would actually be parked directly across the street from each other, the travel lane would still be wide enough to allow access for emergency vehicles. Passenger cars and trucks are a maximum 8' wide, but let's allow 9' for parking on each side of the street just to be conservative; 32' less 18' leaves 14' clear for emergency vehicle passage. Fire trucks are 9' wide and, of course, they travel on 12' freeway lanes at 55 miles per hour with no problem. So the only way that a fire truck would have any difficulty traveling down one of our 32' streets would be on the very rare occasion that it encounters two cars parked opposite each other and a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction meets the fire truck at this same location and the driver of the oncoming vehicle fails to pull over and give the right-of-way to the emergency vehicle, which we can presume has its emergency lights and siren on. A rather far-fetched set of circumstances, don't you think? 75-005 Country Club Drive, Palm Desert, California 9226o, Telephone (619) 568-2828 Builder of America' Finest Country Club Communities The other area cities and the County, to my knowledge, allow 32" streets in private communities; The Lakes Country Club in the City of Palm Desert and Palm Valley Country Club in the County both have 32' wide residential streets with no parking restrictions. It is my understanding that the Fire Marshal did not request this parking restriction or wider streets in his review of either Tentative Tract Map #20717 or #21381; I know there was no such :request from the Fire Marshal when he reviewed The Lakes Country Club and Palm Valley Country Club. The City's standard of 36' wide residential streets makes sense for public residential streets, where the homes are largely primary residences, more cars tend to be parked on the streets, and much more traffic can be expected. The choice between 36' wide residential streets or 32' wide with parking restricted on one side of the street makes no particular sense for private streets in the second -home communities. I realize that the City may have been applying these standards to private communities, but I suggest that the facts and the logic require a reconsideration of this standard. I know you will consider this issue fairly and intelligently. Ver tru- yours, Jam L. Resney Vice President JLRic cc: Mr. Gary Price flm .MINUTES A regular meeting of the City Council held at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California May 19, 1987 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:30 p.m. A. Mayor Hoyle called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:32 p.m. B. The Mayor then invited Jacques Abels to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff, and Mayor Hoyle. Absent: None. Also Present:: City Manager Kiedrowski, Finance Director Harvey, Planning Director Crump, Community Safety Director Hirdler, Administrative Services Director Jennings and Secretary Beaver. 3. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA A. Council Member Pena requested that Items 10. C. and, D. be considered separately, under Item 9. B. and C. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Jacques Abels, Director for District 4, C.V. Recreation and Park District, reported that the District had :received a Special Recognition Award at the Desert Beautiful Awards Banquet: for upkeep and beautification of La Quinta Park. 5. COMMENT BY COUNCILMEMBERS A. Council Member Bohnenberger welcomed Planning Commissioner Lucia Moran to the Council meeting. 6. HEARINGS A. Home Occupation Violation Appeal - Melissa & Alan Layton. The Community Safety Director presented the staff report, outlined -the various violations culminating in City notice to the Laytons to cease operation of a landscaping business from their home at 54-070 Avenida Mendoza. Mr. Hirdler recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold Ordinance No. 29 relating to home occupations. 90 Minutes - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Two Following questioning of Mr. Hirdler by the Council, the Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Public comment was heard from the following persons: 1) Dane Drury, 54-155 Avenida Mendoza, requested denial of the Layton's appeal, citing problems such as loitering, traffic, and noise. 2) Mark Hastie, 54•-205 Avenida Mendoza, requested denial of the appeal, citing increased traffic, drinking by Mr. Layton's hired personnel and noise. 3) Brett Parker, 54-215 Avenida Mendoza, requested denial of appeal., citing above reasons. 4) Mary Ann Skals, 54-200 Avenida Mendoza, requested denial of appeal, citing problems with traffic and danger to her young children, drinking on the premises and loitering by Layton hired personnel. 5) Russell Skals, 54-200 Avenida Mendoza, requested denial of the appeal, citing parking of large trucks in a residential neighborhood. 6) Melissa Layton, 54-070 Mendoza, appellant, explained the business operations and stated that they had tried to minimize associated problems. Ms. Layton stated that an attempt had been made to relocate the business to commercial property in La Quinta, without success. She further. stated •that their home was for sale and the business would be moved upon sale of their home. Ms. Layton requested the Council grant a variance to allow operation of their landscaping business from the home until such time as the home could be sold. 7) Alan Layton, 54-070 Mendoza, appellant, expressed his feelings regarding the problems they had experienced in relocating the :business, cited his attempts to comply with City code enforcement requests, and refuted several charges expressed by his neighbors. Mr. Layton presented two supportive letters from neighbors and pictures, and requested a variance until the business could be moved. 8) Audrey Ostrowsky, La Quinta, questioned parking of commercial vehicles in R-3 zones and stated that the Layt.ons should be given a chance to find commercial space for their business. 9) Melanie Drury, 54-155 Mendoza, asked why the Laytons had a Palm Desert phone number and post office box.. Minutes - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Three 387 10) Ann Young, 77-526 Nogales, representing the La Quinta Cove Association, sympathized with the Layton's problem, but urged the Council uphold the home occupation ordinance rather than set a precedent. There being no further public comment, Mayor Hoyle closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Following extensive questioning by the Council of staff, it was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff, to deny the appeal by Alan and Melissa Layton, but allow them sixty (60) days to relocate the business to suitable quarters, and direct City staff to work with the Laytons to locate a .:suitable location. Following discussion of the feasibility of the 60 day extension, the motion was unani- mously adopted. The Council indicated that it was interested in obtaining more information and asked Staff to review commercial designations within the City, and possible reworking of ordinance No. 29 which would better define suitable and non -suitable home occupations within the City. B. Tentative Tract Map No. 22432, PGA 'West development, Sun Desert Partners (Dixie Savings & Loan), Applicant. Mayor Hoyle announced that he would abstain from voting on Item 6.B. due to a possible conflict of interest, turned the gavel over to Mayor Pro Tem Bohnenberger, and Left the dais. Planning Director Crump -presented the Staff report regarding a request to subdivide 48+ acres into 14 residential lots, one perimeter landscape lot, and related street lots, for the purpose of constructing 257 condo- minium units. Mr. Crump reported that the matter had been heard as a public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 28, 1987, at which time it was approved subject to specified conditions. Mr. Crump recommended Council adoption of Resolution No. 87-26, granting approval of Tentative Tract No. 22432, subject to attached conditions. Council. Member Bohnenberger raised the issue of parking within the PGA Nest development, and Mr. Crump explained that to date, no specific restrictions on parking had been placed on this development. Commissioner Lucia Moran explained prior Commission discussions relative to parking at PGA which led the Commission to require Condition No. 5. Upon questioning by Council Member Sniff, the City Manager clarified Condition No. 16 regarding infrastructure fee credits. 88 Minutes - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Four Mayor Pro Tem Bohnenberger opened the hearing to public comment at 8:35 p.m. Comments were heard from the following persons: 1) Jim Resney, Sunrise Company; reported that they were in basic agreement with the Staff recommendation, except for Condition No. 5 and 14 c. Mr. Resney reviewed the chronology of events leading to Planning Commission recommendations regarding parking restrictions for Tract 22432. Mr. Resney requested Council elimination of Condition Nos. 5 and 14 c, relative to parking restrictions within the tract. There being no further public comment, Mayor Pro Tem Bohnenberger declared the public hearing closed, and opened the meeting to Council discussion. Following discussion, of street width requirements and clarification by Planning Director Crump, it was moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Cox, to accept adopt Resolution No. 87-26, approving Tentative Tract Map No. 22432, subject to attached conditions, as revised, eliminating Condition Nos. 5 and 14.c, and directing Staff to prepare a policy regarding parking during special events. Unanimously adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Bohnenberger requested that it be noted for the record that Mr. Resney had stated future developments within this project, with the exception of the one remaining piece at the northwest corner, they would come back with 36' wide private streets. It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Sniff, to accept the Sunrise offer to construct future streets within the PGA West development at 36' widths, with the exception of the northwest corner parcel. Unanimously adopted. Mayor Hoyle returned to the dais at 8:50 p.m., and adjourned the meeting for a five-minute recess. Mayor Hoyle reconvened the meeting at approximately 9:00 P.M. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Communication from Darwin Oakley, Mayor, City of Indio, reporting the Indio City Council's formal support for redesignation of Highway 111 as "Palm Canyon Drive". Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to adopt the name "Palm Canyon Drive" for Highway 111. After lengthy discussion, with Council Member Sniff expressing strong opposition to renaming of Highway 111, motion was not carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council. Members Bohnenberger and Cox. NOES: Council. Member Sniff and Pena. ABSTAIN: Mayor Hoyle. MINUTES - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Five. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. The City Manager read the title of proposed Ordinance No. :108, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 108. AMENDING THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 16.02.010, OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO :INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NOS. 348 and 460. Moved by Council. Member Cox,* seconded by Council Member Pena, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 108. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff and Mayor Hoyle. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. The City Manager read the title of proposed Ordinance No. 109, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 109., AMENDING THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 109. Council Member Sniff stated that he would be unable to support the Ordinance revised to comprise seven members rather than nine. ROLL CALL VOTE: �RM • AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena and Mayor Hoyle. NOES: Council Member Sniff. ABSTAIN: None. C. The City Manager presented a report regarding annual levy of assessment: PGA West 1972 Act Landscaping District No. 1, and recommended adoption of Resolution No. 87-27, approving the Engineer's Report for annual levy, and Resolution No. 87-28, declaring intent to levy annual assessment and giving notice thereof. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff, to adopt Resolution No. 87-27. Unanimously adopted. 86 MINUTES - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Six. Moved by Council Member Pena, seconded by Council Member Sniff, to adopt Resolution No. 87-28. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff, to set the date for public hearing for the annual levy of assessments for Landscape District No. 1 as June 2, 1.987. Unanimously adapted. D. RESOLUTION NO. 87-22. Opposing AB 2190. Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to adopt Resolution No. 87-22, opposing Assembly Bill No. 2190, regarding district elections for City Council elections. Unanimously adopted. E. The City Manager presented a report regarding a request by Palm Desert Disposal for a rate increase, and reported that the increase was technically approved by the Council as part of a refuse franchise extension granted July, 1986. Mr. Kiedrowski recommended approval of the rate increase in accordance with the July, 1986, Council action. Moved by Council Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to approve a fee schedule increasing refuse collection rates in La Quinta 1.75% for the 1987-88 assessment of waste disposal charges. Unanimously adopted. The Council requested that Palm Desert Disposal prepare a news release regarding their full -range of collection services for inclusion in an upcoming City newsletter. F. Study Session Items: 1) Request for $150 one-time only payment from National League of Cities -support for State and Local Legal Center was approved as requested. 2) It was Council consensus that Mr. Zelles be notified and made aware of current vacancies on the La Quinta Planning Commission and Community Services Commission. 3) SunLine Transit Shelter Program - Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to grant conceptual approval for the Sun Line Transit Agency bus shelter program. Unanimously adopted. 4) Fire Station #70 Sleepover/Supplies Program. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to approve City funding for both programs immediately. Unanimously adopted by roll call vote. Minutes - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Seven. 5) Communication from RCTC regarding 1/2 cent local sales tax for street/highway maintenance purposes. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to support RCTC in associating with San Bernardino Transportation Committee, in obtaining enabling State legislation providing for referendum of the voters on whether or not there will be a sales tax issue only. Following lengthy discussion, with Council Member Sniff presenting views opposed to action at this time, and stating that he felt information received to date to be inconclusive, Council Member Sniff requested a roll call vote: ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena and, Mayor Hoyle. NOES: Council Member Sniff. ABSTAIN: None. 6) Summer schedule for City Council meetings. It was the consensus of the Council to announce their intention to cancel two summer Council meetings: July 21 and August 18, 1987. 9. COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 1987, were received and filed with no comment. B.' Item 10.C. (Out of Agenda Order). Plot Plan 87-830,. Construction of a 2-story retail/office building; Robert C. Monroe, Applicant. Planning Director Crump presented the Staff report, and explained that the Planning Commission action would be final unless an appeal was brought before the Council. Mr. Crump stated that the Planning Commission had reviewed Plot Plan 87-830 on May 12, 1987, and recommended approval subject to attached conditions. There was lengthy discussion regarding a pedestrian orientation along Calle Estado, and Commission requirements for elimination of parking spaces along Estado, and placement of a six-foot garden wall between the parking area and Calle Estado (Condition 4.c). Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Cox, to return Plot Plan 87-830 to the Planning Commission and :request reconsideration of Condition 4c, leaving the driveway access on an interim basis, and report back to Council at their June 2, 1987 meeting. Unanimously adopted. 84 Minutes - City Council May 19, 1987 Page Eight C. Item 10.D. (out of Agenda order) Plot Plan 86-274, Additional review of Architecture/design revisions and building setbacks; John Feld, Applicant. Planning Director Crump presented the Staff report and explained that this matter had been reviewed by the Planning Commission May 12, 1987, excepted the elevation revisions dated April 24, 1987, and the increased setback at the intersection of Avenida Bermudas and Montezuma, subject to conditions. This item was submitted for Council information, and was accepted as presented. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, Seconded by Council Member Cox, to adopt Consent. Calendar items A, B, E and F. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Cox, Pena, Sniff and Mayor Hoyle. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None A. Minutes of May 5, 1987, approved as submitted. B. RESOLUTION NO. 87-29. APPROVING DEMANDS. E. Amendment of Agreement for Services Relative to Regulation and Control of Dogs and Other Domestic Animals, approved as recommended. F. City Project No. 87-4, Construction of Street Improvements on Washington Street (Singing Palms to Whitewater River) and Avenida. Montezuma (Calle Chihuahua to Calle Durango), awarded to Massey Sand and Rock Co., of Indio, in the amount of $123,171.40, as recommended. 11. REPORT OF OFFICERS A The City Manager reported Vice -Chairman of the CVAG D Community Safety Activity and filed. E Financial Statement dated F Planning Division Monthly and filed. 12 ADJOURNMENT that he had been elected Technical Advisory Committee. Report dated April, 1987 received April, 1987 received and filed. Report dated April, 1987 received Moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, Seconded by Council Member Sniff to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. to an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters and potential litigation at the conclusion'of the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. S/982 (a8, DATE AGENDA ITEM # STAFF REPORT (APPROVED ()DENIED CITY COUNCIL MEETING O CONTINUED TO DATE: May 19, 1987 APPLICANT: Sun Desert Partners (Dixie Savings & Loan) PROJECT LOCATION: Generally southwest of Avenue 54 and Madison Street, within PGA West. PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 22432 - A request to subdivide 48+ acres into 14 residential lots, one perimeter landscape lot, and related street lots, for the purpose of constructing 257 condominium units. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-2 (Multiple -Family Dwellings) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (2-4 Dwelling Units/Acre) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared in conjunction with overall "PGA West Specific Plan" which was certified by the City Council on May 14, 1984. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the conditions of approval for the subject specific plan and are currently being implemented with each phased development. It was found that the "PGA West" project would have a significant environmental impact, and, therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for Specific Plan No. 83-002. UTII:,ITIES: All utilities exist along PGA Boulevard, and will eventually be extended to the project site. Utilities also exist along Inverness Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes the division of a 48.2 acre portion of "PGA West" into 257 condominium units. The subdivision is located in the easterly portion of "PGA West", surrounded by the "Stadium" Golf Course. The project proposes two (2) basic condominium designs which were previously reviewed for architectural aspects in Tentative Tract Map No. 20717. The project includes 146 "Champion" units and 111 "Legend" units (refer to Exhibits B1, B2, C1, & C2). MR/STAFFRPT.002 All "Champion" buildings have a front yard set back of 20 feet. Several of the "Legends" buildings are within 10 to 15 feet from the street due to an extended golf cart garage. The project proposes 8 recreational areas. Each area contains a pool and the facilities are noted to be located within 600 feet of the residential units. COMPLIANCE WITH MUNICIPAL LAND DIVISION ORDINANCE: The project is in substantial compliance with the City's adopted standards for land division, and with the design and layout of Tentative Tract 21641, previously approved as a land sales subdivision. CIRCULATION: Tentative Tract 22432 is serviced by a looped roadway layout. Temporary turn around area will need to be provided at the south terminus of Southern Hills. All roadways are 32' wide, with parking proposed on both sides of the street. Areas of extreme street curvature should be restricted to "No Parking" on either street side. A plan addressing limitations of on -street parking on •the private streets and extreme street curvatures should be provided. DENSITY: Attachment #3 indicates various density •tabulations for all previously approved development tracts. These are generally based only on net residential and gross tract approved densities. Approval of Tentative Tract 22432, including all golf course, residential and other land uses previously approved, would establish a gross density of 1.84 units per acre for current development within "PGA West". ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Applicant has proposed an additional architectural elevation. A modern style architecture (REFER TO EXHIBIT C-3) will be employed for 28 "Champion" units along Inverness Street within lots 5 and 9. This style is characterized by a flat roof design and contemporary arch and wall treatments. This elevation will provide additional architectural variety, and is consistent with the general design concepts of the Specific Plan for "PGA West". MR/STAFFRPT.002 ANALYSIS The proposed project is another development subdivision at "PGA West" having basically the same building designs and recreational amenities as other previously approved tracts in the specific plan. The Applicant's construction drawings will be reviewed by various public agencies in addition to City departments for code/regulation compliance before building permits are issued. These agencies will include the Coachella Valley Water District, Riverside County Environmental Health Department, Coachella Valley Unified School District and Imperial Irrigation District. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION In Public Hearing, conducted on April 28, 1987, the Commission acted to forward a recommendation for Council approval of the subject Tentative Map, subject to specified conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt City Council Resolution No. 87-26, granting approval of Tentative Tract No. 22432, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments:: 1. Location Map 2. Density Tabulations 3. Draft City Council Resolution MR/STAFFRPT.002 RESOLUTION NO. 87--26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ANNOUNCING FINDINGS CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 22432 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION. CASE NO. TT 22432 - SUN DESERT PARTNERS (DIXIE SAVINGS & LOAN) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28th day of April, 1987, hold a duly noticed public hearing recommending confirmation of the environmental analysis and approval of the request of Sun Desert Partners to subdivide 48.6 acres into 14 residential lots, one landscape perimeter lot, and related street lots for this construction of 257 condominium units generally bounded by Avenue 54 on the north, Madison Street on the east, PGA Boulevard on the west and Airport Boulevard extended on the south, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 26, Township 6 south, Range 7 east, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 19th day of May, 1987 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 22432; and WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (Country of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed tentative tract has been previously assessed in connection with the PGA West specific Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report was approved; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to justify the approval. of said tentative tract map: 1. The: Tentative Tract No. 22432, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the PGA West Specific Plan, the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, previously approved Tentative Tract Map No. 21641, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. MR/RESODRFT.,003 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division with a cumulative density cf 1.84 units per acre. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 22432 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage cr injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat or cause serious public health problems. 4. The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project have been adequately addressed in the certified Environmental :Impact Report prepared for the entire PGA West Specific Plan. The significant impacts presented by this project will be appropriately mitigated through conditions of approval for the project to the extent feasible. 5. The proposed subdivision will not result in any violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Coachella Valley Water District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map, the City Council has considered the effect of the contemplated action on 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 Qu.inta and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of :Ga. Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the previous Environmental :Impact Report for PGA West Specific Plan assessed the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; ­3. That is does hereby approve the above -described Tentative Tract Map No. 22432 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions labeled "Exhibit All. MR/RESODRFT.003 APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held this 19th day of May, 1987, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Manager/Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Nit/ RESODRFT . 0 0 3 CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 87-26 EXHIBIT A PAGE -1- 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 22432 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, and all other City, County and State applicable laws and ordinances. 2. 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. 3. The development of the site and buildings shall comply with Exhibits A, B and C pursuant tot he Planning Department's Tentative Tract Map No. 22432 file as conditionally approved. The following building and site design conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflicts with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 4. The final map, or any portion thereof, shall not be recorded until and unless Tentative Tract Map_No. 21641 has been recorded. 51 A program for "no parking" designations on severe curves and on local private streets shall be provi4ed for evi�w,and approval by the Planning Commission. " S�k cx cc, �� er �1 6. All roof --mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by the roof design. Any ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning Department. 7. The following setback criteria shall be applied to site design: a. A minimum front: yard setback of 20 feet shall be required on all residential. dwelling units in the project, except for the "Legend" (Plan 40), which is permitted to have a 15-foot setback to accommodate an accessory golf cart storage structure. b. A minimum sideyard setback of five (5) feet (10 feet between building complexes) shall be required on all residential units. 8. The ApplJ'cant shall comply with the recommendations of the completed noise analysis for °'PGA West". 9. The Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting, if any, for review and approval by the Planning Department. MR/RESODRFT.003 EXHIBIT A PAGE -2- CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 87-26 10. All signing within Tentative Tract No. 22432 shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. 11. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 12. The landscape irrigation systems shall consist of drip, bubbler or other suitable type of water conservation system. 13. Applicant/Developer small maintain an emergency access road at the north end of Iverness at 54th Avenue or at the Madison Avenue maintenance facility until closure is permitted by the City. 14. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall: a. Secure Agriculture Commission approval for landscape material to be used within the development. b. Provide a temporary cul-de-sac of at least 90 feet in diameter at the southern termination of Southern Hills Drive. C. Submit a plan for parking along one side of local private streets for Planning Commission approval. d. Provide written certification from the Coachella Valley Water District that the hydrants will be installed and will produce the required fire flow before any combustible material is delivered to the job site, or alternate program as approved by the fire marshal. 15. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, the Applicant/Developer shall: a. Have installed all the approved landscaping materials. b. Have complied with all conditions of approval. 16. Thirty (30) days prior to the approval of a Final Map, the Applicant/Subdivider shall have submitted to the City Manager any and all claims or requests for credit toward infrastructure fees attributable from the development of this tract. The City Manager's report shall be made a part of the Council's deliberation on a Final Map, and the action of the City Council in the acceptance or rejection of any such claim or request shall constitute the complete understanding between parties as to the disposition of infrastructure fees as it may relate to any future credit. MR/RESODRFT. 0 0 3 aw d ® v V M ni"\I H• ' / •s 1 ram• ps e+ sir r . d, 1 U , 1 � 2G7,' i-L 1 • it •u LAKE ��1 \ LAMUIL • .� 7EN7A7/VE'- 7*RAc7- NO.2Z4.72 CASE MAP ATTACHMENT f 1 P i to w CASE W. �N®RTH TRACT *2`2432' Is`"" HoSu•c ATTACHMENT #3 DENSITY TABULATIONS FOR PGA WEST INCLUSION APPROVED OF REVIS TRACT 21846 21381 20717 TOTALS 22432 TOTAi Units Approved by Planning Comm. 308 138 547 993 257 125 Units Approved / Administratively -0- -0- 65 65 N/A 6 Total Units ,Approved :108 138 612 1058 (257) (131 Net Residential. Acreage 51.45 40.10 119.70 211.25 48„20 259.4 Lake Acreage 9.98 2.30 12.50 24.78 --0-- 24.7 Golf Acreage 43.85 -0- -0- 43.85 -•0-- 43.8 Gross Acreage 105.28 42.40 132.20 279.88 48.20 328.0 Net Residential Density Density (including lakes) Density (including golf & lakes) Gross Density (All approvals) 5.99 3.44 4.57 4.70 5.33 4 A 5.01 3.25 4.14 4.21 5.33 4.4 2.93 3.25 4.14 3.55 5.33 3A 2.93 3.25 4.63 3.78 5.33 4.( Note: These numbers only reflect development tract approvals given tc Sunrise Company. Approximately 387 additional acres are covere by approved parcel maps filed by Landmark. These parcels are devoted to golf course/open space and other non-residential uses, which, if included, establish the current Specific Plan Density at 1.58 units per acre (based on 667 acres, 1058 approved units). Inclusion of Tentative Tract 22432 would increase the figure to 1.84 units per acre. 6I1:bja DIWTABUL off. � =r ra - 207 411 41 Pin TRACT 1- : I .,. �I • � � rar�.9�` toq zoo'-�A SUNRISE I N l�r/_ 1 • I tyyF+�M'�� •, AT LA QUINTA 4 0 TENTATIVE TJ R, O'Ce AM M, TA- I M S, 22432 4 � ml.. r•wa a YaaYla. . . .. a. �. raaearana a...ara QWWR wu. ems.• n aM 3AA CW.'.a 0.1a a..e ayn xfl.t n .tM : I.M w we 21. TENTATIVE TRACT MAA NO. 22432 a nE crrr OF ub WJWA' r:t PH-2 TO: FROM: I � f MEMORANDUM HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E AMENDMENT #2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89-041 This matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to permit the Applicant and property owners the opportunity to resolve their concerns. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Continue the Hearing. 2. Approve the request as presented. 3. Modify the request. 4. Deny the request. Attachment: 1. 2. Letters of protest received since October 10, 1989, meeting. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report BJ/MEMOJH.014 October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77-80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend. 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Park9:ng 80 units/14 parking spaces? Please clarify. 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic--eith _ employee or guest. 3) DensiThe project description states "Medium density residential 4-8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify. Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over -developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Secux-� It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, �a that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard -gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam -rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta, is truly concerned about protectL my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76-941 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564-1921 R .'RJ I V r 7L Al Calle Mazatlan La Quinta OCT 6 '99 California 92253 CITY 0"F LA QuINTA October 122 1989 PLANNING & DEVELOMENT DEPT. To the City of La Ouinta Planning Commission, I want to thank you all very much for your extraordinary patience and willingness to listen to our problems (especially at such a late hour and involving issues not on your agenda!)9 and for your decision to give us time to meet with Landmark with the hope of resolving our most pressing issues. I also want to "put in writing" my personal feelings about what it looks likes to men is happening not only in Santa Rosa Cove but in La Quinta as a whole. Yeso I agree I have been very "naive" about the likelihood of new development here. Also I do not believe I could have foreseen quite this kind of rape of the land. When I chose to buy my home in Santa Rosa Cove (rather than at PGA West) it was because I was led to believe this cove would retain its natural beauty and would not be "over -built." I was told specifically that "there would be a total of just over 300 units in Santa Rosa Cove." No mention was made of the "legendary" La Quinta Hotel changing its image and changing -this cove by adding over seven hundred units. No mention was made of the other projected developments by La Quinta Joint Venture --Los Estadoss The Enclave, and the soon -to -be development off Fernando. I cannot help feeling I was purposely misled., and I lea-rned,, at the meeting on Tuesday night.. that I am far from being alone. Misrepresentation seems to be _rampant among major developers here in the desert. As it turns out this unique coves once truthfully called "the gem of the desert," now has buildings and projected buildings of one kind or another packed and/or stacked on every available piece of land. I feel very strongly that this is an assault on my home and on the land. I am not against "progress At the same time I am very much against spoiling a place of such natural beauty by over -building out of pure financial greed. In our hearts I feel those of us who live here because we love it (and not because our property value is increasing --for now...) want it to continue to be a special place. I also feel strongly that the City of La Quinta will not benefits longtermp by allowing the two largest developers in this area to assert their political/f inancial power to essentially "take over" our community. And I am grateful to be able to say that I feel alot better after Tuesday nights meeting because I felt "heards" and because I feel you too are concerned. We all understand that Sunrise and Landmark benefit our City. And we give them great credit for their standard of design and building. But there has to be some kind of control., nows, if we are to safeguard our homes and our lifestyle. Landmarks La Quinta Hotel advertises itself as a "Do Not Disturb Sign." As a permanent resident of La Quinta ands specificallyp of Santa Rosa Covey I would really appreciate it if they would respect my home and their own advertising. Thank you again for listening to usp Sincerely$ ' Judy Blum John W. Lucas 77-253 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, CA 92253 October 17, 1.989 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RECEIVED OCT 1 9 1989 CITY OF LA QuATA PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Reference: Case No. EA 89-141, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #2, Plot Plan 89-421 Dear Commissioners: This letter :Follows the Planning Commission Public Hearing which was held on October 10th on the Reference item which is the request by Landmark Land Company to be allowed to construct 77 hotel units on the ;nest side of Avenida Obregon at the La Quinta Hotel. My condominium is at 77-253 Calle Mazatlan in Santa Rosa Cove. We believe that this is one of the finest developments and we feel that the hotel adds greatly to it. First of all, I am a member of the Hotel Tennis Club and I am concerned that this request will mean that the present championship court as well as other tennis courts will be razed. When I became a member it was my understanding that courts were to be added rather than taken away. I hope this is not a new trend but that new courts will be added as was stated at the hearing. As I told you at the hearing, I am especially concerned about water drainage as this project goes ahead. The entire area surrounding the proposed site is almost flat. Currently water is pumped periodically from the Tennis Club through a pipe which empties onto the east side of Calle Mazatlan just to the south of the existing tennis villas. The recent addition of an employee parking area and a utility area just north of the site have added to drainage problems. The proposed construction. will only make them worse unless, as Landmark representatives stated at the Hearing, they have a plan for disposing of the additional run-off. I respectfully ask that you make sure that Landmark has a workable plan and that it is implemented. It is my understanding that my neighbors are sending you letters addressing other issues which must be resolved such as traffic, parking, security and entrance gates. I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your personal time in helping to keep La Quinta a gem in the desert. Sincerely, cc• lly Dowd Melissa Layton Elaine Lloyd Jane Redner Dale Walter C E IVI' D OCT 19 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, CA 92253 77321 Camino Quintana La Quinta, CA 92253 After the last marathon meeting of gripes and emotion, ourrespect and admiration for the members of this commission has magnified. You displayed knowledge of the situations discussed and maintained control of the meeting with tact and authority. We, too, have a lot of respect for Landmark and their developments. The main reason we bought in Santa Rosa Cove was the proximity to and availabilty of their facilities. However, in their pursuit of profits, to which we fully acknowledge they are entitled, we feel they are sacrificing some of these amenities without fully considering the residents of the Cove, their neighbors. They seem to be viewing their added units to the hotel and now the motel only from the commercial aspect and insensitive to the already existing parking problems, especially on Los Arbolles. I walked down Los Arbolles this morning, October 14, 1989, at 7:10 a.m. and at that time there were 16 cars parked along the street on the hotel side. This is only one time and one example. 1 tc "e`r'lc" farf- c:.A7 u re tR l� �:p �3 (J atr kcd 7�P=YCJ One concern voiced by Landmark at the last meeting seemed to be with the proposed relocation of the Fernando gate below the turn at Obregon, as outlined in the staff report, also, a new gate to be installed at the south end of Obregon. If their problem is with the movement of their service vehicles with proposed gate barriers, a possible solution would be to install gates such as the one at the entrance to The Enclave. These gates would not need to be as large nor as elaborate. Small service vehicles could then move freely, yet auto traffic would be controlled. In addition, and very important to us, it should reduce traffic through the front gate by routing motel traffic via Fernando. Landmark indicated they did not feel it feasible to request a motel resident to drive all the w—" out to Fernando, to Eisenhower and the front gate, thence to the golf club, yet these same people undoubtedly drive an average of ten miles to get to their golf course in their home area. If this really would be an item, the motel/hotel should offer van or small vehicle transportation to and from the pro shop, a service already being done by the hotel. With regard to noise pollution, some better control should be exercised at the many outdoor festivities of the hotel. We live close to the Tennis Club, La Casa, and now the motel and benefit from the fall -out on all of these many occasions. Several evenings there were two such parties and on one occasion I recall there were three bands, one at La Casa, one at the Tennis Club. and one outside at stop at :1�0 p.m., however there have pla,Wed longer. Recently California had signed a bill carried more than a distance of exceeds that. the hotel. Most times they do have been times when the bands I read that the Governor of prohibiting outdoor music that -fifty feet. The hotel certainly Others have already mentioned the need for additional security and traffic control. We are not secure if the Fernando is inoperable, as it has been so much of time. All of US are extremely concerned and will support your efforts in helping solve these problems. Respectfully, r(*'�e'4t Y SANDSTROM if NELS E. SANDSTRDM STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121-E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) EXISTING ,ZONING: R-3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENV I RONMENT.'AL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan No. 121-E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82-54 - Specific Plan 121-E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87-387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 1 - In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88-393 and Specific Plan 121-E (Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89-412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot -two-story, 77-room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2-room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989-90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that, is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78-85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and/or construction workers. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 2 - 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89-141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10-feet as required for front yards in the R-3 Zone. This will. decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121-E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89-421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121-E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R-3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment provided traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and relocated gate locations. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 3 RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission take the :It is recommended that the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89-421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89-421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. 2. Location map Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 3. 1989. Comments from various City Departments 4. and other agencies. Initial study for Environmental 5. Assessment No. 89-141. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121-E (Amendment #2) & PP #89-421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-_ recommending SP #121-E (Amendment #2)• 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89-421. BJ/STAFFRPT.016 - 4 - CASE MAP CASE No. S P 121- E PP 89-421 LOCATION MAP 0 SCALE: NTS ATTAf :HM PNT I :, 6; 19s9 ;tan Sawa ►lannir,,g Dept . ;ITT OF' LA Q;;IN:A 8-105 CaJ,, Fa` ado ,a Qui??ta, CA ?2.253 ,ear StZn, RECEIvEu SEP `7 198g CITY OF LA QUINTA 'L-ANNIND R DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ,andmark Land •; ,;r,;,any is proposin.: a 77, room addition to the La Quinta otel which will :Lnciude several tennis suites, a courtyard with swimiring ool and spas, z:: J additional parking. he t­:lnis cl•-,b and r-ne bv,^.l:=r;,p of Santa Rosa ove r-='✓=c^ :1a.asant and relaxed s�ctin,, f._.r the Spar.inh ourtyard. he Span -is"'. �r._liii-ectural motif is modeled afte-r thc- Sty -Le of the xisting hct-cl. ;he courtyard allows for a variety o_ uses including arge gr-�u,­z:, intimate patties, cr ..ri :•ate 1 ar a=: _...:,� . the guest rooms o•,ok do►n on,:-. a Landscaped courtyard fEatuci,iy a lerge p^cl, spa, and uniting area. Pri.�ate guestrc"nr arm su4tet �::c_�:ae t-.,n terraces and alconies far entertaining while v_e,:-,g ',`,F te;,r.: ; c��.r,_s and courtyard eiCW, dditicnal parking for the CYpar,��r: wi_, 1, - ^ ... .g hvendia -:,•d Lt the r.ew parkin g _ot _ :ace:..- `wi t;.� e;: ;.g r,:�ir:ter:aZce a^_i d_t;; . A_ces3 `.o the parkins, � ,; _. ti•.� Y:...,. > 7P b_cC. :aWa✓ cr tre o:-rner of the buiidi::g. ... __...� _ -t_- �d� �� o,• `" �_ �. ;. ti::e La Quints • �tel Paa.:;c,a-- S � _ �, Study, the add;.*_,�.r. _1 44 r-, �; -. r�,a�s_ nr'r..c: `_ne total Dtel court to 1065 spaces,with The City of :cning ordinance cha tk-r �r,, rel.}•, .ex ordos ,ndmark. Land Design & Pla::ni^c Stephen Caplinger Paul Quill Forrest Ruag Gene ::elver Gary Knrney ATTACHMEN LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CAUFORNIA, INC., Land Planning, Engineering, Design & Constructon 78-450 Calle Tampico, P.O. Box 1000. La 9uinto, California 92253 (619) 564-4500 FAX (619) 564-8052 ('0 ATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY STR1Ct COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX '058 • COACHELL.A, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (61% 39a2651 DIRECTORS TELLISCODEKAS. PRESIDENT RAYMOND R RUMMONDS VICE PRESIDENT JOHN P POWELL DOROTHY M NICHOLS THEODORE J FISH Planning Commission (,ity of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California Gentlemen: OFFICERS THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINESUTTON.SECRETARY KEITH H AINSWORTH. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS August 29, 1989 File: 0163.1 c v P err .�.��. �tiG , 92253 Q�PT Subject: Plot Plan 89-421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. RF:gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 You s very truly, 0 Tom Levy General Manager-C r TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMEN' i i d1 •947,5�xele� RFCP'I M ED AUG - 9 1969 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. RECEIVED AUG 2. 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELoPMENT KEPT. y-Io -Pf cc 171 l?Fri is o2' /q/4r /Z/ F, �,frlr.�l fv T / f'lef /. i� - yzi 5 � `rt// f /if'� � eZ; r /' 05� ele"4 � •� �h F O /fW tlIIAS -e SP< y/v Pc° /-.P i 'A/s-t /0C16bt G� 5prd l L e s . -, ( P " a,& � a v, Wv d 6y Ar 4 Ph5 C17e - f�rt��sE � /7raf Or c I w , !i .blhcucec-ee/s{-1 JloCfy! bes * I kX,/ 6�' Ui �e Pvvlo'4�n f /A &tn.4 A-4 a4,( T-elnops 0fla5. yp RECEIVED AUG 2 21989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Pfa.mning $ Engineering Office 46-209 Oasis Street, SuitC 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8886 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Re: Plot Plan 89-421 RIYiiMX COUNTY TIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE !� CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY �= AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN NEWMAN FIRE CHiff Pfanr.iag 8 %neerim O August 21, 1989 4080 Union Street, Suite Rivvaside, CA 92501 RECEIVED (714) 787-6606 AUG 2 3 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING b DEVELOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the! Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quints, Municipal Code and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be availabl before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" a 2}" x 2}") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. Applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescrib by the Riverside County Dire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89-421 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building, Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical, clearance of 13'6". 14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designatc unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directorie shall be! a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional informati and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning b Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner BY �W )G4�4Z� Z- im Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY 1981 LUGONIA AVENUE REDLkNDS. CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS P 0 Box 300.3 REDLANDS CALIFDRNiA 92373-0306 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta 778-105 Calle Estado Ira. Quinta, California 92253 ATTENdTION: Stan Sawa RE: Specific. Plan 121E '.the Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the ,.roposed development without any significant impact on the envir©rment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on :File with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects ,gas supply or the conditions +under which service is available, gas service will be ;provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearl Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 4 or less units 482 thermos/year dwelling unit Multi -Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. i To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1-800-624-2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. if you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, 'Redlands, CA 92373-0306, phone 1-800-624-2497. Sincerely, Roger L. B Technical Supervisor P.TZ:vjs cc: Bnviron Affairs - ML209B 04-S aA­*d Cl" Of I1 ;- QIIIlrl1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR14 I. BACKGR04ND ppAa 1. Name of Proponent: LA � e,: (,� U••a cc �21 ce 2. Address d Phone Number of Proponent: FP 604 )0.� � lib A- i^�Q. -(4_o 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: J>A S. Name of Proposal, if applicable CD L, A14 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth_. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? J d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — X e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, r eieier on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, X inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- X slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a.' Substantial air emissions or deterioration of X ambient air quality? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or I emperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ - 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of eater :-movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _. f. .Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ATTACHMENT (3) Yes Ma a ! ! h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. An.ima.l Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise Ievels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new li t or glare? 8. Land 'Jse. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk oT—an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, 15 td' rib'ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housin . Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? UNEVAN X (4) Yes Maybe y, c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d.. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? — c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including _ roads? _ f. Cther governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? �( b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? _ x 17. Human 'Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? r x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the o st�c on of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view.? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ,( (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human,beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; — I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONASENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: to - 3 - eq - K RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Miti41ation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Transportation/Circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Miti. aq tion Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77-room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necE'ssitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. BJ/RSPCMT.001 - 1 - t�'ld weonmn Aw �e oai - N01S Ydx3 1310H YINInO V1 � 1 llpi Hill —F Mili Lin 11 Im I ATTACHMENT a i �< �> 066E - NOISNYdX3 1310H V1NIf10 V1 00 Qn N CL- 0661 - NDiSNVdx3 1310H V1N100 V1 75.Y�e cic `— CL . O ,uw y C'j Q w �♦ar�i a- O ^ oil •/ w tij c9 Z rJ � 2d III I I J U W 0 (! }If . e` I 0661 - NOISNVdx3 1310H V1N1f10 Vi go I I"1'Is x W + j LiW ! r 0 ly Tcnn►s Ckb SP 121E /Amendment 2 r--1 r% A rT 01^ e A I r% 1 'r c n 1 A h 1 ►:-A o- CL•a Accaas PeCestrian Accass Ntaintenanc� Facibt� I r Not A Part ._ 1 north P f I nts PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- cam% A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, REC01YEAENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121-E, REVISED. CASE SP 121-E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121-E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82-54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the loth day of October, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow 77 additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one -quarter of Section 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment 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 Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; 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 and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121-E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121-E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121--E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ/RESOPC.020 - 1 - 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89-141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described Amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89-421 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", on file in the Planning and Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this loth day of October, 1,989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.020 - 2 - L 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89-421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OCTOBER 10, 1989 t3ENERAL : 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89-421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. 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. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121-E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, cr other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89-421 and Environmental Assessment 89-141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits/final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 1 - assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant/Developer. 'TRAFFIC, Cl., CULATION--L--DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100-year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access/egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77-room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2-hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi :residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/211) will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. BJ / CONAPR)TL . 019 - 2 - 13. Applicant/Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans; shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." .14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio -controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ/CONAPRV'L.019 - 3 - approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall. be 12-feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13-feet, 6-inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4-feet by 4-feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valli Water —District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: 26. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, 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 areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 4 - Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps/signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Coriunissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. :28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. .29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. BJ/CONAPRVL.019 - 5 October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77-80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend, 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parkins 80 units/14 parking spaces? Please clarify, 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic--eithe: employee or guest. 3) DensiLy The project description states "Medium density residential 4-8 dwell`_ngs per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify, Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful desert community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars, but over -developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard -gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Draini�ge We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam -rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protecting my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76-941 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564-1921 PH-3 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 SUBJECT: REVISED PARKING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 9.160 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BACKGROUND: Attached is the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (89-012) for the Revised Parking Regulations. The changes consist primarily of updating the: former County Parking Regulations to make it fit our City expectations. The Village Parking authority is built into the regulations, as are many other minor changes, including landscaping, lighting, loading berths, pavement, and a provision for grass block in some parking lots. A certain amount of flexibility is provided so that we don't require more parking than is necessary. One of the basic changes is to not attempt to provide parking for the 20-hour absolute peak times at the holiday season. Under these circumstances employee parking will have to be forgone with van -pools or car-pools expected. This is consistent with Regulation 15 of the SCAG/AQMD requirement that any employer of 100 or more employees provide some plan for van/car-pooling or other transit oriented program. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution accepting the Negative Declaration based on Environmental Assessment No. 89-145, and recommending to the City Council the adoption of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 89-012, the Revised Parking Ordinance. BJ/MEM0TB.015 - 1 - CHAPTER 9.160 OFF-STREET PARKING SECTIONS: 9.160.005 PURPOSE 9.160.010 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED 9.160.015 DETERMINING AND AMENDING NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED 9.160.020 APPROVAL OF PARKING PLAN 9.160.025 GUARANTEES OF CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES 9.160.030 ENTITIES WHO MAY PROVIDE PARKING FACILITIES 9.160.035 JOINT USE AND TIME-SHARE USE OF PARKING 9.160.040 LOCATION OF PARKING FACILITIES 91.160.045 NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES 1.160.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9.160.005 PURPOSE. Vehicular parking is a secondary land use required by all other land uses. The provision of parking is not an end in itself. Rather, parking must be provided to make possible the transition from vehicular to pedestrian modes of movement. Off-street parking is a requirement because it ensures the health, safety, and welfare of the public by preventing the blockage of on -street rights -of -way and off-street fire lanes and pedestrian routes. Requirements for off-street parking are set at a level deemed to be the minimum necessary to accommodate reasonably expected recurrent peaks. To require more would increase costs for land, parking increase, paving, compound drainage, reduce open space and landscaping areas, etc. To require less would invite threats to the safety and mobility of the public and/or discourage patronage of the land uses. 9.160.010 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIRED. Off -Street parking is required for all uses of property, in accordance with this Chapter, with regard to numbers of spaces, locations, design, parking plans, guarantees, who may provide spaces, and development standards. BJ/ORDDRFT,.004 - 1 - 9.160.015 DETERMINING AND AMENDING THE NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED. A. Determination. Off-street vehicle parking requirements shall be determined and provided in accordance with this Chapter when the subject building or structure is constructed or the use is initiated, or a use is changed. The City (in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare) will be the final judge of how many off-street parking spaces a use or a mix of uses may require. In determining the off-street parking requirements, the City offers a number of alternative methods: 1) A schedule of the standard number of parking spaces required for most uses. This schedule should be used for smaller, single use, typical developments, as well as for larger or more complex developments for which only limited information is available. This schedule is required unless the applicant can prove it does not apply. Other options may then be employed to determine the required parking spaces. 2) The Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking" methodology for calculating the peak demand overtime for parking in a development of mixed uses using the same parking facilities; 3) Verifiable actual data and experience from other comparable developments with the particular uses in question, especially pertaining to captive market discounts in parking demand; 4) A City of La Quinta methodology for calculating the parking demand for extremely complex or unusual uses or combinations of uses for which the standard schedule, the ULI methodology and/or verifiable data are not applicable. (This methodology will be contained in a Planning and Development Department Technical Bulletin). 5) An experimental approach permitting a trial period within which parking demand may be proven (with appropriate guarantees). B. City Judgement. The City reserves the option of requiring the use of more than one method where different levels of information are provided for determining parking requirements as the nature of the development proposal may dictate. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 2 - C. Increases: 1. Additional off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with this Chapter at the time an existing building is altered, or dwelling units, apartments or guest rooms are added, or a use is intensified by the addition of floor space or seating capacity, or there is a change of use. 2. If the number of parking spaces actually provided (according to a certified parking plan) proves by experience to be inadequate to reasonably protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, the required number of parking spaces may be required to be increased. Such increase shall be ordered by City Council, based on findings and recommendations from the Planning Commission. If the property owner or user is unable or unwilling to provide the additional required parking, the City may initiate proceedings which have the effect of reducing the intensity of the land use to a level commensurate with the amount of parking available. D. Reductions: Required parking capacity may be reduced if a significant permanent reduction in the use can be demonstrated and guaranteed. E. Certification: Parking requirements shall be initially determined and amended for increases or reductions and certified by means of the approval of the parking plan, pursuant to Subsection 9.160.020. 9.160.020 APPROVAL OF PARKING PLAN. A. A plot plan, pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 9.180 and 9.182 of this title, shall be filed for approval of all off-street parking facilities, except for one- and two-family residences, unless the off-street parking facilities have been previously approved as a part of a conditional use permit or plot plan approval and no changes in intensity of use are being proposed. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 3 - B. The plot plan shall show both the off-street parking facilities and the use(s) to be served, together with pedestrian arrangements (including crosswalks, if necessary) connecting them. Accompanying the plot plan shall be submitted information required to determine total parking requirements as described in Subsection 9.160.045, together with documentation of the appropriate guarantees, pursuant to Subsection 9.160.025. C. The Planning Director may, without notice or hearing, permit modifications to the circulation, landscaping, and parking layout requirements where topographic or other physical conditions make it impractical to require strict compliance with these requirements. 9.160.025 GUARANTEES OF CONTINUED AVAILABILITY OF REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES. A. The continuation of any permit to use property shall be directly contingent on the continued provision and proper functioning of the required off-street parking. Failure to continue to provide the required parking ' in the approved usable condition shall become grounds for immediate revocation of all permits for use of the property on the grounds that it is a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. B. The owner of the property shall be directly responsible for the continued provision of the required off-street parking. C. The user of the property shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the continued provision of the required parking has been adequately guaranteed for a period at least as long as the permitted use. D. Among the forms of guarantee which may be required by the City are the following: 1. The inclusion of exclusive or joint use rights for the required parking spaces in the lease for structural space on the same property; 2. A recorded covenant merging together two properties under the same ownership which subordinates all other use claims and obligations to the provision of the required parking on the adjacent parcel; BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 4 - 3. In a contract for parking on other parcels, either: a. A non -cancellable provision; or b. The earliest expiration or cancellable date for parking facilities occurring simultaneously or after the time limit for the use requiring the parking; or C. A bond or other acceptable equivalent instrument in favor of the City which guarantees (in the event of the contract cancellation, termination, or expiration, suit, court jurisdiction, or other occurrence which has the effect of rendering the required parking spaces unavailable), the continued provision of the required parking by means of alternate arrangements. 9.160.030 ENTITIES WHO MAY PROVIDE PARKING FACILITIES. Off-street parking may be provided for a particular use by any or a combination of the following entities (so long as the appropriate guarantees described in Section 9.160.025 remain in effect): A. On property containing the use: the property owner, lessee, or agent of the use for which the parking is required; or B. On an adjacent property under the same ownership: the property owner, lessee, or agent of the use for which the parking is required; or C. On an adjacent property not under the same ownership: an approved adjacent property owner, lessee, or agent who reserves spaces on a contract basis for the adjacent use; or D. On an adjacent or nearby property not under the same ownership: 1. An approved private (for profit or not for profit) parking company which reserves, sells, leases, or rents adjacent or nearby parking spaces for that use; or 2. An approved private parking association. (such as in a shopping center) which creates and allocates parking spaces as credits or shares available to its subscribers/members to meet their parking requirements; or BJ/ORDDRFTo004 - 5 - 3. A duly authorized public entity (parking district, assessment district, redevelopment district, or similar agency) among whose powers are the authority to acquire and make available parking spaces and maneuvering areas, pedestrian walkways, shade structures, landscaping and other improvements. 9.160.035 JOINT USE AND TIME-SHARE USE OF PARKING. A. Regardless of the entity or entities providing parking, the sum of parking spaces provided for all uses in a given area shall be equal to or more than the sum of the parking spaces required by the uses for that area, even if two or more non-residential uses jointly develop and use required parking facilities, unless either Subsection B or C, or D applies in its entirety. B. The approved parking plan was developed and designed based on parking demand established by means of the Urban Land Institute "shared parking: methodology (as described in ULI Shared Parking, 1983) using locally adopted data (especially considering Coachella Valley's unique seasonality and demographics). C. The approved parking plan was developed and designed based on the methodology for unique parking demands contained in the La Quinta Planning and Development Technical Bulletin on alternative parking demand determinations. D. in cases where joint -use time shared parking is desired, but insufficient data are available to use either of the methodologies available, an experimental parking arrangement can be temporarily approved under the following conditions: 1. Reasonably comparable data from similar joint -uses demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the joint use proposal is potentially workable; and, 2. The joint uses are separated in time by a minimum of 60 minutes and/or are for separate days; and, 3. A 15 percent excess capacity is provided to accommodate unforeseen miscalculation of peak use and/or separation of time; and, BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 6 - S1.160.040 A. 4. The joint time-shared use of parking facilities is a binding part of one or more approved plans for the uses requiring the parking; and, 5. A two-year proof period is guaranteed: the land for additional parking is reserved or optioned, and a bond or acceptable equivalent mechanism (in favor of the City) is posted to cover the costs-plus-10-percent for acquiring the land and constructing the credited parking spaces for a period of two years from the commencement of the last joint use at 100 percent capacity, or until such time prior to the expiration of the two year period as the City elects to release the guarantee pursuant to the conditions of approval. 6. An acceptable program of data gathering to document the actual parking demand claimed during the trial period. LOCATION OF PARKING FACILITIES All Zones. 1. Residential Uses. Required parking shall be located on the same parcel of land as the residential building which the parking is to serve, and/or on an adjacent parcel held in common to that and other residential buildings, provided that: a. The parking is on that portion of the parcel where the erection of garages, carports, or shade structures is permitted; and, b. The placement and distribution of required parking is such that for any dwelling unit, the assigned or reasonably available parking spaces are no further than 100 feet by physical walkway to the entry of that dwelling unit. BV ORDDRFT . 0 0 4 - 7 - 2. Non-residential uses. a. Required parking provided by any entity shall be located on the same parcel of land as the use for which the off-street parking is to serve, or on an adjoining parcel of land, or be located on a parcel across an alley, or be located across a street (other than a major or primary arterial) only if a. properly -designed crosswalk is also provided to connect the parking with the use(s) requiring it. b. Such parking must be within a reasonable walking distance of the uses requiring parking, and be on a parcel in a commercial zone, or in a zone adjacent to a commercial zone which by conditional use permit allows off -site parking. B. Requirements of Special Zones. Certain zones or subzones, for objectives serving a particular Specific Plan, may place additional restrictions or requirements or grant special allowances on parking location, configuration, and other matters, which shall apply to that zone in addition to the general parking requirements of this section. 9.160.045 NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. A. Rationale. All land uses the accessory use of demand for parking depends the land use involves any require the support of off-street parking. The on the degree to which of the following factors: 1. Occupants 2. Employees 3. Customers 4. Visitors 5. Vehicles stationed at 6. Services (and loading 7. Handicapped access 8. Emergency access for enforcement the site of the use space) fire, medical, law 9. Encroachment by unauthorized parking The simplest land use, single-family residential, involves a minimum of five of these factors (and possibly more, if they involve employees or handicapped persons); the most complex, hospitals and commercial lodging, involve all nine factors. All other land uses involve six or seven or eight of these factors. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 8 - B. C. The following minimum requirements for parking are bases: on averages and should suit the majority of simple uses. The number of parking spaces required are a combination of the various factors expected for each use. Definitions. 1. GLA: Gross leasable area. Includes storage, hallways, restrooms, i.e., all the area leased. 2. Public Area: The area accessible to the public, i.e., in front of counters, not storage areas, not employee areas, not restrooms. 3. Indoor Area: Public area for the display of merchandise, waiting rooms, restrooms. 4. Outdoor Area: Outdoor public area for the display of merchandise, not including fenced off storage areas. Number of Required Parking Spaces. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be provided is established as follows: 1. Single-family detached and duplex residential: two covered enclosed spaces (in a garage) plus two spaces in driveway (tandem to garage) per unit. 2. Condominium and multi -family residential: a.) Boarding and rooming houses and single room occupancy: 1 space per sleeping room. b.) Studio unit: 1 space per unit c.) One bedroom unit: 1.5 spaces per unit d.) Senior - reserved units: 2 spaces per unit e.) Two bedroom (or more) units: 2..5 spaces per unit 3. Mobile Home Parks: 2 spaces per unit (may be in tandem) plus one guest parking space per two units. 4. Homes for the aged (not covered in #2), sanatoriums, convalescent homes, psychiatric and similar therapeutic institutions: one space per two patient beds. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 9 - 5. Resort or luxury hotel facilities with more than 200 rooms, time-shared facilities, guest ranches, clubs with rooms or suites to rent for 30-days or less, and similar uses with significant recreational amenities on -site such as golf courses, four or more tennis courts, major convention facilities or similar facilities: two spaces per guest room (or parking for suites rented to two or more parties); i.e., two spaces per key. 6. Non -resort and/or non -luxury hotels, or motels, facilities with 200 rooms or less, and similar uses without significant recreational amenities or convention facilities: 1.1 space per guest room (or parking for suites rented to two or more parties); i.e., 1.1 space per key. 7. Restaurants, dining rooms, cafeterias, clubhouses, cafes, taverns, bars, and similar uses providing food and beverage service: 20 spaces per 1000 square feet of public area. (Drive through facilities will be individually evaluated for design.) 8. Retail sales (figured separately per ownership or rental contract): a.) Convenience stores, liquor stores under 2,000 square feet: 1 space per 200 square feet, GLA. b.) Food and drug stores over 2000 square feet: 1 space per 250 square feet, GLA. c.) Other retail under 2000 square feet: 1 space per 250 square feet, GLA. d.) Other retail over 2000 square feet but under 50,000 square feet: 1 space per 300 square feet, GLA. e.) Other retail over 50,000 square feet: 1 space per 400 square feet, GLA. f.) Furniture, appliance, lumber, building material stores: 1 space per 500 square feet public area. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 10 - 0 g.) Automobile, boat, R.V., trailer, or mobile equipment sales, retail nurseries, and other commercial uses both indoors and outdoors: 1 space per 300 square feet indoors plus one space per 2000 square feet outdoors. h.) Mobile home sales: 1 space per 2500 square feet outside. Services (figured separately per ownership or rental contract): a.) Offices (business and professional): space per 250 square feet GLA including lobbies and reception areas. b.) Auto and light truck service station: 6 spaces per service bay. c.) Barber shops, beauty parlors: 2.5 spaces per station. d.) Coin -operated laundries: 1.1 space per washing machine. e.) Cleaners/laundries: 1 space per 100 square feet of public area. f.) Coin -operated car washing facilities: 2 spaces per washing bay, in addition to the washing bay itself. g.) Hand car washing facilities: 4 spaces per washing bay, in addition to the washing bay itself. h.) Car and truck rental agency: 1 space per 200 square feet of public area, plus one space for each rental unit. i.) Day child care centers: 1 space per four children the facility is designated to accommodate, plus a queuing area in the driveway capable of accommodating at least four cars arranged to prevent conflict between departing cars and the cars in the que. Credit for parking can be given to additional queing area. Parking for teachers/day care workers (one space per employee) is in addition to parking for parents. Parking for teachers/day care workers should be separated from the parking for parents. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 11 - One-way drives are preferable to prevent conflict between arriving/departing children and cars. j.) Self storage: 1 space per 10 storage bays. If RV/boat storage is associated with the self storage facility, one space per stored vehicle, in a separate area away from storage bays. Alley ways between storage bays must be wide enough for a fire lane plus a parked vehicle. k.) Funeral homes: 1 space per employee plus 1 space for vehicles stored on -site, plus assembly requirements (see 10.b.). 1.) Private clubs, lodges, halls: 1 space per 75 square feet gross area. 10. Entertainment: a.) Theaters and cinemas: 1 space per three seats. b.) Churches, funeral homes, auditoriums, stadiums, convention facilities, ballrooms, conference facilities,, banquet facilities and other places of public assembly capable of attracting persons not otherwise staying on -site (such as in a hotel): 1 space per 3 seats or 1 space per 25 square feet of assembly area. c.) Gymnasiums, martial arts studios, health and fitness clubs, spas: 1 space for each 150 square feet of public area. d.) Golf courses: 5 spaces per hole (in addition to other uses on -site). e.) Driving ranges: 1.1 space per tee. f.) Game courts: 2.1 spaces per court (plus other uses). g.) Bowling alleys: 3 spaces per alley (plus other uses). h.) Pool and billiard halls: 2 spaces per table (to be added to the parking requirement of any other facility which includes food or beverage service tables). BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 12 - i.) Library: 1 space per 500 square feet, plus the requirements of any meeting rooms. j.) Skating rinks: ]_ space per 100 square feet (plus other uses). 11. Public utility facilities: 1 space per 250 square feet of office area; 1 space per 500 square feet maintenance or warehouse facility. 12. Wholesale, industrial or heavy commercial uses: 1 space per two employees on the largest shift, plus 1 space for each vehicle stored on -site. 13. Schools: a.) Kindergarten through 9th grade: 2 spaces per classroom or office. b.) Grades 10 through 12th: 10 spaces per classroom, plus one per office. C. Colleges, business, professional, and trade schools: 20 spaces per classroom, plus 1 per office. 14. Hospitals: 2 spaces per each patient bed plus any spaces required for offices or outpatient uses. 9.160.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards shall apply to the development of all parking facilities, whether the space is required or optional. A. Parking Lot Layout and Circulation. 1,. With the exception of single-family detached and duplex residential, no parking arrangement shall be permitted which requires a vehicle to back out into a public street. 2. No parking space shall be located within three feet of any property line. 3. Tandem parking shall only be permitted on single-family detached residential, duplex residential, and in mobile home parks on rental lots or mobile home subdivisions. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 13 - 4. With the exception of single-family, duplex, and mobile home park lots, all parking areas shall be bordered by continuous curb to serve as drainage channels and as wheelstops. No separately mounted wheelstops shall be permitted. 5. All driveways shall be crowned for positive drainage. If an inverted crown is proposed for a driveway, the width of the center portion, commensurate with the drainage cross-section, shall be of portland cement, rather than asphaltic concrete. 6. Parking lot layouts, depending on their capacity, shall exhibit a clear hierarchy of major drives, fire lanes, loading areas, minor drives, parking bay maneuvering areas, etc. Parking shall not be arranged to require backing out into major drives. 7. Driveways within a parking lot shall exhibit a looped pattern, or shall have an on -site turn --around area. 8. Entry driveways shall lead into the parking area without parking along the driveway, except for very small parking lots. Sufficient throat shall be provided to allow for deceleration/queuing in -bound and queuing out -bound traffic. 9. Entry/exit driveways shall be placed where they constitute the least interference with the free -flowing function of the public street to which they connect. Sufficient distance shall be maintained from intersections for entry/exit points. 10. Adjacent driveways shall exhibit a connection between them to allow parking lot maneuvering from one establishment to another without requiring exit to the street. Adjacent properties shall maintain agreements which permit reciprocal driveway connections across property lines. 11. The design of parking lots may utilize any of the following design features, provided that the design and dimensions in the next subsection are maintained: a.) One-way or two-way drives. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 14 - b.) Single loaded or double loaded parking bays. c.) Parallel, angled or head -in (90-degree) parking angles. d.) Regular and compact spaces. e.) Handicapped spaces. B. Parking Lot Design and Dimensions. 1. Marking: With the exception of single-family detached and duplex residential, all parking spaces shall be clearly marked with white paint or other easily distinguished material. Marking shall be a minimum of 4-inches wide. 2. Regular vehicle spaces: A minimum of 80% of all parking spaces shall be designated for regular vehicular parking. Regular vehicle spaces shall have dimensions as follows: length 18 feet to curb, plus two feet overhang; where curbs are not provided, a total of twenty feet is required; width feet. 3. Compact vehicle spaces: In parking lots containing 15 or more spaces, a maximum of 20% of all parking spaces may be designated for compact vehicle parking. Compact vehicle spaces shall have dimensions as follows: length 16 feet to curb, plus 1-1/2 feet overhang; width 8-1/2 feet. Compact vehicle spaces shall be clearly marked and conveniently placed throughout the parking area. Where curbs are not provided, a total length of 17-1/2 feet is required. 4. Handicapped parking spaces: Handicapped spaces are required according to the following formula: BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 15 - Total Number of Handicapped Parking Parking Spaces Spaces Required 0 - 5 1 space unmarked 6 - 40 1 space marked 41 - 80 2 spaces marked 81 - 120 3 spaces marked 121 - 160 4 spaces marked 161 - 300 5 spaces marked 301 - 400 6 spaces marked 401 - 500 7 spaces marked Over 500 The above require- ments plus I for each 200 additional spaces provided. Handicapped spaces shall be 14 feet in width and 20 feet in length, close to entrances, clearly marked, with minimum slope, a ramp provided, and meeting all State regulations. 5. End spaces: Parking spaces at the end of a parking bay against a curb shall be widened by two additional feet and/or shall have a backing -out pocket provided. 6. Parallel spaces: Spaces provided for parallel parking shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide and 24 feet in length, to permit room for maneuvering. If a wall or curb in excess of 8 inches in height is adjacent to the parallel parking space, the space shall be 10 feet in width. The end space, if confined by a curb, shall be 30 feet long. 7. Driveways: Entry driveways for commercial and multi -family parking lots, shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide, plus any median. width (minimum of 3 feet wide). Additional turning lanes (if required) shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. A one-way entry or exit lane shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. Maximum driveway width shall be 48 feet plus median width properly radiused. Internal driveways shall conform to the minimum widths, depending on the angle of parking in Table 1. 8. Radii: Entry driveways shall be radiused at 5 feet. Internal planter radius shall be a minimum of 3 feet. Driveway radius shall be a minimum of 16 feet inside and 29 feet outside if confined by a curb or other construction. 9. In commercial parking lots the first parking space parallel to the property line shall be at least 10 feet from the property line. R,7/nRDDRFT.004 - 16 - 10. Walls: All parking areas, other than those required for single and two family residential uses, which adjoin property zoned for residential uses, shall have a six foot high solid masonry wall installed in such a manner as to preclude a view of the parking area from such adjoining residential property, except that any walls within 10 feet of any street or alley shall not exceed 30 inches high. This restriction shall not apply in the C-V-T Subzone of the Village. 11. The following dimensions shall apply as minimums for one way and two way parking lanes, for parallel, 45 60 and 90 parking, for standard and compact vehicles, see Table 1: BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 17 - C. D. Fire Lanes. 1. Fire lanes, meeting Fire Department standards, shall be provided to access all structures (both in front and to the rear). Fire lanes also serve for medical emergency and law enforcement purposes. 2. Fire lanes shall be kept separate from loading or servicing areas and shall have a minimum of parking capable of backing into the fire lane and blocking it. 3. Fire lanes shall be adequately marked and patrolled to prevent parking which may block access. Pedestrians 1. The purpose of a parking lot is to provide for the transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement. All parking lot arrangements shall be designed to provide for maximum safety and convenience of pedestrians in their movement to and from the parking area. 2. Where possible, landscaped areas shall also contain paved pedestrian walks for the safe movement of pedestrians. 3. On major driveways, crosswalks shall be provided to call attention to the vehicular driver the place to expect cross• -vehicular pedestrian movement. 4,. Textured surfaces and speed bumps shall be used to keep vehicular speeds within a tolerable range. E. Service 1. Off-street Loading Requirement. a.. Whenever the normal operation of any development requires that goods, merchandise, or equipment be routinely delivered to or shipped from that development, a sufficient off-street loading and unloading area must be provided in accordance with this section to accommodate the delivery or shipment operations in a safe and convenient manner. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 18 - b. The loading and unloading area must be of sufficient size to accommodate the numbers and types of vehicles that are likely to use this area, given the nature of the development in question. The following table indicates the number and size of spaces that, presumptively, satisfy the standards set forth in this subsection. However, the City may require more or less loading and unloading area if reasonably necessary to satisfy the foregoing standard in Table 2. TABLE 2 Gross Leasable Area of Building Number of Spaces 1,000 - 19,999 1 20,000 - 79,999 2 80,000 - 127,999 3 128,000 - 191,000 4 192,000 - 255,999 5 256-000 - 319,999 6 320,000 - 391,999 7 Plus one (1) space for each additional 72,000 square feet or fraction thereof. C. Each loading berth shall be not less than forty-five feet in length and twelve feet in width exclusive of aisle or maneuvering space, and shall have an overhead clearance of not less than fourteen feet. d. Such space may occupy all or any part of any required yard space, except -front and exterior side yards, and shall not be located closer than fifty feet to any lot in any residential zone unless enclosed on all sides except the entrance by a wall not less than eight feet in height. e. Loading and unloading areas shall be so located and designed that the vehicles intended to use them can (1) maneuver safely and conveniently to and from a public right-of-way; (2) complete the loading and unloading operations without obstructing or interfering with any fire lane, public right-of-way or any parking space or parking lot aisle, and (3) be internalized whenever possible. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 19 - f. Each loading berth shall be accessible from a street or alley or from an aisle or drive connecting with a street or alley. g. Entrance from and exists to streets and alleys shall be designed to minimize traffic congestion. h. Sufficient room for turning and maneuvering delivering vehicles shall be provided on the site so that vehicles shall cross a property line only by driving forward. i. The loading area, aisles, and access drives shall be paved so as to provide a durable, dustless surface and shall be so graded and drained so as to dispose of surface water without damage to private or public properties, streets, or alleys. j. Bumper rails and bollards shall be provided at locations where needed for safety or to protect property. k. if the loading area is illuminated, lighting shall be deflected away from abutting residential sites so as to cause no annoying glare. 1. No repair work or servicing of vehicles shall be conducted in a loading area. M. Off-street loading facilities shall be located on the same site with the use for which the berths are required. n. If more than one use is located on a site, the number of loading berths provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements prescribed in this title for each use. If more than one use is located on a site and the gross floor area of each use is less than the minimum for which loading berths are required but the aggregate gross floor area is greater than the minimum for which loading berths are required, off-street loading berths shall be provided as if the aggregate gross floor area were used for the use requiring the greatest number of loading berths. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 20 - o. Off-street loading facilities for a single use shall be considered as providing required off-street loading facilities for any other use as long as sufficient spaces are provided to meet the requirements of all uses. p. There shall be provided off-street loading berths prior to the time of initial occupancy, major alterations or enlargement of a site, or of completion of construction of a structure, or of a major alteration or enlargement of a. structure, meeting the requirements. The number of loading berths provided for a major alteration or enlargement of a site or structure shall be in addition to the number existing prior to the alteration or enlargement. q. No area allocated to loading and unloading facilities may be used to satisfy the area requirements for off-street parking, nor shall any portion of any off-street parking area be used to satisfy the area requirements for loading and unloading facilities. r. Loading space being maintained in connection with any existing main building existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter shall thereafter be maintained so long as the building remains, unless an equivalent number of such spaces are provided on a contiguous lot in conformity with the requirements of this chapter; provided, however, that this regulation shall not require the maintenance of such space for any type of main building other than -those specified above. S. No loading space which is provided for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this title shall hereafter be eliminated, reduced, or converted in any manner below the requirements established in this title, unless equivalent facilities are provided elsewhere, conforming to this Chapter. BJ/ORDDRFT..004 - 21 - 2. Utili•ties. All utility connections, utility meters, and mechanical equipment shall be accessible from an area adjacent (but not within the maneuvering area) to the fire lanes. Enough space shall be provided for a service truck to park adjacent to the utility area. Such area shall not conflict with the loading and maneuvering areas in Subsection 1 above. 3. Solid Waste. A separate area shall be provided for the collection of solid waste. Such area shall meet the specifications of the contracting solid waste company. Solid. waste containers shall be screened from view by means of an opaque 6 foot wall and opaque gates. Oates shall not open toward the street or on -site parking areas. F. Landscaping 1. Landscaping of parking lots is beneficial to the public in that landscaping ensures public welfare, minimizes nuisances such as noise and glare, moderates the microclimate, and enhances the visual environment. 2. Landscaping shall be incorporated into the design of all off-street parking areas as follows: a. Parking lot shading. Trees, of suitable eventual size, spread and climatic conditioning, shall be placed thrcughout the parking area to provide adequate shade for pedestrians and vehicles. Shade trees shall be placed so as to shade a portion of the total parking area with tree canopies within 15 years per the following Table. Professional landscaping judgement shall be used to evaluate the plan as to its 15-year growth and coverage. TABLE 3 of Total Parking Parking Area Spaces Required to be Shaded 5 - 24 spaces 30o minimum 25 - 49 spaces 40o minimum 50+ spaces 50% minimum Tree coverage shall be determined by the approximate crown diameter of each tree at 15 years of age. BJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 22 - A shade plan shall be submitted with detailed landscaping plans, which shows canopies after 15 years growth to confirm the above percentages. Tree locations should not interfere with required lighting of public areas or parking areas. b. Landscaped planters and perimeter treatment. Trees shall be placed in planters that must also include plant material such as groundcover or appropriate vines and screen shrubs. Boulders, gravel, and the like, may be integrated with plant material into a, well conceived plan; berming or other aesthetic approaches integrating into the overall design are encouraged. C. Labeling the plant material. A plant list shall be included giving the botanical and common names of the plants to be used and size at time of planting. d. Screening. Proper screening by fences, hedges or walls shall be installed as required in the process of design review. Parking areas that adjoin residential zoned property shall be screened by minimum 6 foot fences or walls provided in connection with each residential zone. e. Whenever any parking area, except that provided for single family dwellings, adjoins a street right -of --way, a planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking area shall be established,and continuously maintained and landscaped. Any planting within 10 feet of any entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than 30 inches. Berms or low walls may be incorporated into the planting strip. The width of the planing strip shall be as follows (from the property line: TABLE 4 Highway 111 50 feet Major and Primary Arterials 20 feet Other Streets: 10 feet BST/ORDDRFT,.004 - 23 - f. In addition, where more than 4 automobile spaces are required on a lot or a parcel of land, not less than 5 percent of the interior parking lot area shall be landscaped, not including parking lots located in enclosed structures. Planting along the exterior perimeter of a parking lot will not be considered as a part of the 3 percent interior landscaping. At least one 5-gallon size tree for every 10 spaces, or major fraction thereof, shall be included in the development of the landscaping program. All open areas between any curbs, walls, and the property line shall be permanently landscaped with suitable materials and maintained. Landscaping shall include shrubs, trees, vines, groundcovers, hedges, flowers, bark, chips, decorating cinders, gravel, and similar material which will improve the appearance of parking area. g. All planter beds containing trees shall be at least 6 feet in diameter. All landscape planter beds not containing trees shall be not less than 3 feet in width. All planter beds shall be bordered by a concrete curb not less than 6 inches or more than 8 inches in height adjacent to the parking surface. h. Curbs shall also be installed as protection of buildings, sidewalks, walls, fences and against encroachment into public or adjoining property. i. Landscaped areas shall be distributed throughout the entire parking area as evenly as is appropriate in the design of the parking facility. j. Effective irrigation systems shall be installed and maintained in all landscaped areas so that landscaping remains in a healthy growing condition and in compliance with the approved plan. All dead vegetation shall be removed and replanted. Hose bibs shall be placed at intervals of not less than 200 feet. Irrigation water shall be contained within property lines. BVORDDRFT.004 - 24 - G. k. Where trees already exist, the parking lot shall be designed to make the best use of this existing growth and shade. 1. Any open areas, including future pads, in the interior of any parking area shall be landscaped with appropriate plant material and be maintained in good condition. M. on large projects (exceeding 20 acres) an option is provided: the exterior portions of the parking lots adjacent to the streets (up to 25% of the required parking spaces) (excluding driveways and other maneuvering spaces) may be planted with grass block (a form of block into which grass is planted). This practice increases percolation of rain, reduces detention basin sizes, gives the impression of greater landscaped space, reduces the hard paved surface thereby reducing the local heating effects. Grass block areas must be irrigated (preferably at night) and mowed. The configuration of the grass block will require solid block between spaces to demarcate parking stalls. Curbs are still required as edges of grass block parking areas. This option is provided on the theory that the outer edges of parking lots are only used during holiday season peak periods. Surfacing 1. All parking areas shall be designed and built with positive drainage to an approved drainage conveyance. No ponding shall be permitted. 2. All parking and maneuvering shall be surfaced with asphaltic or portland concrete, over the appropriate base. a.) Concrete surfacing with a minimum thickness of 3-1/2 inches and shall include expansion joints. 13J/ORDDRFT.004 - 25 - b.) Asphaltic concrete paving compacted to a minimum thickness of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class 2 base. The base thickness can be varied based on the recommendation of a preliminary soil report. The structural section may be modified based upon the recommendation of a registered civil engineer. H. Valet Parking 1. Valet parking shall be approved by the Planning Commission as a separate item apart from the plot plan approval. 2. When valet parking is provided, a minimum of 250 of the required parking area shall be designated and arranged for self -parking, to prevent on -street parking and blocking of fire lanes. 3. The drop-off point for valet parking shall be convenient to the front door of the facility, shaded, one way, and of sufficient capacity to handle 3 cars abreast. 4. The route from the drop-off/pick-up point to the area designated for valet parking shall be via a private drive on -site and not involve any public street. 5. A safe pedestrian route for valet staff shall be provided without crossing the path of the valet parking route. 6. valet parking shall contain a condition of approval that sufficient liability insurance for patrons be carried each year of operation. I. Shopping Carts. 1. Every use which utilizes shopping carts shall provide a shopping cart collection area or cart racks. 2. Each cart rack or collection area shall be placed within 100 feet of any parking space, to prevent parking spaces being lost to the random abandonment of shopping carts. I3J/ORDDRFT.004 - 26 - J. 3. Each cart rack or collection area shall utilize either a steel frame or curbs (on the lower side) to contain the shopping carts. 4. A condition of approval of commercial plot plans shall contain a provision that parking lots be cleared of shopping carts no less frequently than once every two hours. More than 250 of the required parking spaces being blocked by shopping carts shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be abated. 5. Parking shall be arranged around uses which involve shopping carts in such a way that pedestrians with carts need not cross major internal driveways, or provide a crosswalk at the appropriate point with textured material proceeding the crosswalk to alert the driver of the approach of a crosswalk. 6. If sidewalks adjacent to stores are used for temporary storage of assembled shopping carts, such sidewalks shall be designed with extra width so that pedestrian flows are not blocked by shopping carts. Underground, Decked, and Covered Parking. 1. The minimum dimensions for underground, decked, or covered parking shall be as required for uncovered surface area parking as specified throughout this Section, except additional minimum dimensions may be necessary for specific circulation conditions resulting from underground or decked parking. 2. The heights of overhead obstructions shall be clearly marked for all underground, decked, or covered parking. 3. A level transition area between the street and ramp serving underground or decked parking shall be provided for a. distance which will provide adequate site distance at the street. 13J/ORDDRFT.004 - 27 - 4. Decked parking structures shall be subject to design review in all cases. Special care shall be taken to prevent the mass and height of parking structures from intruding into the street scape. 5. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop landscaping as deemed appropriate by the Planning commission. 6. Multiple level (decked) parking structures shall contain light wells (minimum dimensions: 20 feet X 20 feet), placed at least every 200 feet. The base elevation of the light well shall be landscaped. Tall trees (especially palms) shall be used to tie together the various levels of the parking structure. K. Drive• -through Facilities. Such facilities shall conform to the following regulations. Exceptions to these regulations may be permitted by the Planning commission when existing on- or off -site conditions warrant alternative design solutions. 1. No drive -through facility shall be permitted within 200 feet of any residentially zoned or used property. 2. Safe on- and off -site traffic and pedestrian circulation shall be provided, including, but not limited to, traffic circulation which does not conflict with entering or exiting traffic to the site, parking, or pedestrian movements. 3. A stacking area shall be provided for each service window or machine and shall provide a minimum of 7 tandem standing spaces inclusive of the vehicle being serviced. Said standing spaces shall not extend into the public right-of-way nor interfere with any internal circulation patterns. 4. The drive -through facility shall be designed to integrate with existing or proposed structures, including roof lines, building materials, signage and landscaping. 13J/ORDDRFT.004 - 28 - L. 5. vehicles at service windows or machines shall be provided with a shade structure. 6. Amplification equipment, lighting and location of drive -through elements and service windows shall be screened from public rights -of -way and adjacent properties. 7. Exits from drive -through facilities shall be at least 3 vehicles in length, shall have adequate exiting sight -distance, and shall connect to either a signalized entry to a traffic way or the exit shall be right turn only. Lighting. 1. Parking lot lighting shall be provided For parking lots exceeding 4 spaces. 2. All off-street parking areas in multiple residential zones shall be illuminated at. night. 3. Commercial establishments shall provide night lighting throughout required parking areas at all hours of customer and employee use. 4. Might use of loading areas shall be provided adequate lighting. 5. Entries/exits to all parking areas shall provide safety lighting all night as approved by the Planning Commission. 6. bighting, where installed for parking area, sales and/or display area, shall be so arranged as to reflect away from adjoining residential areas and shall be designed not to cause a nuisance either to vehicular traffic or to the living environment. 7. The light source shall not be visible from off the property, shall not direct light skyward, and shall be so arranged by means of filters or shields to avoid reflecting light onto adjoining properties and streets. 8. Light standards should be placed between parking spaces or built into landscaped areas. 13J/ORDDRFT.004 - 29 - 9. Light standard heights shall be as per manufacturer's recommended photometics, but in no case shall the height exceed the maximum permitted building height of the zone in which it is situated or 18 feet, whichever is greater. Graduated light standard heights within a site with lower heights in peripheral areas, may be required by the Planning Commission to provide compatibility with adjoining properties and streets. 10. Illumination levels in parking areas which require lighting shall be an average of 1 foot candle with a ratio of average light to minimum light of 3 to 1. Low voltage up -lighting wall surfaces are also encouraged. Lighting plans shall take into account the placement and growth of landscape materials. 11. illumination of parking and loading areas shall conform to the requirements of the "Outdoor Light Control Ordinance", Chapter 9.210 of the Muncipal Code. M. Bicycle Parking. 1. Commercial establishments shall provide bicycle parking facilities at a ratio of one bicycle space per 50 automobile parking spaces. 2. Bicycle parking facilities shall be placed in scattered locations, adjacent to anchor store locations and/or where youthful customers are likely to frequent. 3. Bicycle parking facilities shall be placed in shaded locations, out of the way of pedestrian flows and the areas for assembly of shopping carts. 4. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided with a mechanism which permits locking a bicycle into the parking facility. EJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 30 - 19 . KIM Encroachments. 1. Required parking spaces shall not be used for the storage of vehicles unless such storage is calculated into the required parking formula. 2. No required parking spaces shall be used for the display of vehicles for sale. 3. If an area of parking is for park -and -ride programs, such area shall be in addition to the required parking area. If no additional area is provided for such purposes, the owner/operator of the parking lot shall arrange for part of the parking lot, at peak usage hours, to have encroaching parking removed by means of tickets and/or towing. Nonconforming Parkin 1. Multi -family and commercial establishments which are legal uses, properly permitted, at the date of effectiveness of this Parking Ordinance Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, shall be allowed to continue in operation at whatever parking ratios are in effect at that time. 2. Any additional uses, any intensifications of use, any expansions, or any changes of use which involve a need for added parking shall comply with this Section. That is to say, the existing use, if left undisturbed by changes, may continue at the pre-existing state. Only the changes will be required to conform to this Section, unless an overriding public safety issue, confirmed by the Planning Co;:nmission and the City Council, requires some re -design of the existing parking. EIJ/ORDDRFT.004 - 31 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA #89-145), AND APPROVAL OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT #89-012 BEING THE REVISED AND UPDATED OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 9.160 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. CASE NO. ZOA 89-012 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of October, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the City to revise and update Title 9 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 9.160 "Off -Street Parking"; and, WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment 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 the City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that t:ne proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; 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 the Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the goals„ policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is also consistent with the other provisions of the Municipal Code. 3. The content of the update and revision of the "Off -Street Parking Ordinance" Chapter 9.160 of the Municipal Code were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan, and were more specifically addressed by Environmental Assessment No. 89-145 prepared in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 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. BJ/RESOPC.022 - 1 - 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment No. 89-145 relative to the environmental concerns of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the Revision to Title 9 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 9.160 "Off -Street Parking". PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of: the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.022 - 2 - BS-1 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 This matter was continued from the October 10, 1989, Planning Commission meeting due to shortage of time. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Recommend acceptance of the request as presented. 2. Modify the request. Attachment: October 10, 1989, Planning Commission Staff Report BJ/MEMOGL.007 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 APPLICANT: ESCO/DEANE HOMES CWNER: M. W. INVESTORS PROJECT: PARK PROPOSAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 (SEE ATTACHMENTS #1 AND #2) LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND MILES AVENUE. BACKGROUND: This park proposal was originally submitted to the Planning Commission on September 26, 1989. At that meeting (see Staff Report Attachment #3), the Planning Commission took action to continue the above matter and requested a resubmittal of plans with the following revisions: 1. That an additional raised park area be provided alongside the existing raised pad. This area shall be of sufficient size for playground equipment and be raised approximately 1-foot. 2. A i5-foot high combination block/wrought iron fence be placed along the Miles Avenue side of the proposed park; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. Consideration should be given to the Noise Study for Miles Avenue. 3. A 6-foot high block wall be built between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the CVWD well site (except for approved openings); plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. 4. The park and retention basin be seeded with grass, accent trees and permanent irrigation system provided. Slope areas of 3:1 around the perimeter of the retention basins should be planted with groundcover. A park landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 5. The 3:1 slope between the park and the retention basin should be redesigned to follow a more curvilinear pattern. If possible this should follow the street curve and knuckle of Via Palomino. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 1 ANALYSIS OF THE RESUBMITTED PARK PROPOSAL: 1. An additional .raised pad area has not been provided alongside the existing raised pad. However, it is shown that the water from a 100-year flood will drain first from the area alongside the elevated pad area. 2. A 6-foot high wall has been shown along Miles Avenue. 3. A 6--foot high wall has been shown between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the Coachella Valley Water District well site. 4. A condition of approval will be provided covering the landscaping of the park. 5. The 3:1 slope between the park and the retention basin has been designated to follow a more curvilinear pattern. RECOMMENDATION: Determine whether acceptable; if acceptable by minute motion, recommend to the City Council approval of the parkland proposal submitted for Tentative Tract No. 23971 with the following conditions: 1. The proposed park shall comply with Exhibit "A" of the park proposal plan (see Attachment #1). 2. A 6-foot high combination block/wrought iron fence be placed along the Miles Avenue side of the proposed park; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. Consideration should be made of the Noise Study for Miles Avenue. 3. A 6-foot high block wall be built between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the CVWD well site (except for approved openings; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. 4. The park and retention basin be seeded with grass, accent trees and permanent irrigation system provided. A park landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 5. This approval is subject to review and approval of the hydrology plans by the Engineering Department. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 2 - i 10 4 " ri ATTACHMENT No. �Q 83 `tom CIRCLE v1 PJ%O ARWA ADDY E CLACIV• IaX - 1.45 Art. n X. Yam• W..�. /004c.cw i e 1 i . . 3 v Of W. D WELL \E i n S°1 7 _-- e�ac _ AVE • '%TA,- 14,ee�4 BE DEA/CA TEA 2397/ V1 r,s/,eErZW7'1ate 8/4` S/7-,5 �'GA,0%1 ATTACHMENT No. 2 Q Q Attachments: 1. Revised park/retention layout 2. Revised section view 3. Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting September 26, 1989 BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 3 - ATTACHMENT No. 3. DATE: APPLICANT: OWNER: PROJECT: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 ESCO/DEANE HOMES M. W. INVESTORS PARK PROPOSAL FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23971 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1 AND #2) TENTATIVE TRACT NO. NORTHEAST CORNER MILES AVENUE. Condition of Approval No. 8 for states the following: 23971 IS LOCATED ON THE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND Tentative Tract No. 23971 118. Prior to Final Map approval by the City Council the Applicant shall submit a proposal to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council, for meeting parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code. The proposal for dedication, fee -in. -lieu, or combination thereof shall be based upon a dedication requirement of 1.96 acres, as determined in accordance with said Section." The Staff analysis for this Tract identified the need for a neighborhood park in this general area. Based upon this the Applicant has submitted a parkland proposal (see Attachment #2). The submitted plan shows three major land uses, the park, retention basin and a Coachella Valley Water District well site (required by CVWD during tentative tract approval). The park itself is bordered on the north by Bradford Circle, west by Via Palomino and south by Miles Avenue. Access to the park will be off Bradford Circle and Via Palomino. There will be no access to the park from Miles Avenue. A 6-foot wall is proposed on the Miles Avenue boundary of the park. The park is 1.96 acres in size with an elevated pad of +1/3 acre positioned in the northwest corner of the park. The Applicant states the following regarding use of the park as an emergency retention basin: BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 1 - "As proposed, the retention basin area will accommodate the runoff expected from a ten-year design storm without encroaching onto the park site (maximum water depth of 4.0-feet). During the 100-year storm, it is proposed to allow the maximum water surface to raise to a maximum water depth of 6.0-feet (as limited by Condition No. in the retention basin area and to allow encroachment of ponded runoff over the park site." NOTE: Ponded runoff should not encroach on to the elevated pad site on the park. "The maximum depth of water over the park site would vary from 1.0-feet to 2.0-feet for the 100-year event. Following the end of the 100-year storm, the water level is estimated to recede to below the 4.0-feet depth in the basin (and thereby drying out the park site) within 24 hours through percolation and evaporation." "As shown, the preliminary plan utilizes 3:1 slopes around the retention basin itself and 5:1 slopes along the street frontage of the park site to reduce the severeness of the slopes (usually 2:1) and to provide large, flat areas conducive to retention basins and recreation areas." ANALYSIS: 1. A total of 1.96 acres of parkland has been dedicated as required by Condition of Approval No. S. 2. Approximately five -sixths of the proposed park will be flooded by a 100-year storm. A pad of approximately one-third of an acre will not be flooded. 3. The elevated pad in the park site could accommodate a shelter, benches, landscaping and other park elements that should not be subjected to flooding. 4. Playground equipment could be placed on the lower level alongside Bradford Circle, just east of the elevated pad. theThis floodingaoccursdbe from aaised 100-yearff lood, t to ensure that when thisarea is the first to drain off. as a cer 5. The fieldborance of the similar activityrkwithe8couldspectatorsusutilizing�the surrounding slopes. 6. A 6-foot wall has been proposed on the south side of the park alongside Miles Avenue. This should be a combination block and wrought iron fence to allow for security viewing from Miles Avenue into the park by the Sheriff's Department as may be provided by the Noise Study. BJ/STAFFRPT.014 - 2 7. As shown, a 6-foot wall should be constructed on the south and east side of the retention basin and around the CVWD we;1�1 site. 8. A wall should also be constructed between the park and Lot 16 on the southwest corner of the site. 9. The Engineering Department states that the park/retention area layout looks satisfactory subject to review and approval of the hydrology plans. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, recommend to the City Council approval of the parkland proposal submitted for Tentative Tract No. 23971 with the following changes: 1. This area shall be of sufficient size for playground equipment and be raised approximately 1-foot. That an additional raised area be provided alongside the existing raised pad. 2. A 6-foot high combination block/wrought iron fence be placed along the Miles Avenue side of the proposed park; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. Consideration should be made of the Noise Study for Miles Avenue. 3. A 6-foot high block wall be built between the proposed park and Lot 16, along the east side of the retention basin and well site and around the CVWD well site (except for approved openings; plans to be approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to recordation of Final Map. 4. The park and retention basin be seeded with grass, accent trees and permanent irrigation system provided. A park landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Attachments: 1. Tract #23971 2. Park retention basin layout 3. Section view BJ/STAFIFRPT.014 - 3 I'1 I I f1%J(liviL..l11 1 lVv � I I i � 1 �} T i• a __.. 1 I i 1 1� • .s� • �'+, ! • 1 Z /WJ U : • CC • a cc ' 1 • W _ ON'Wo-Wd : V/N --� ,j - �- 1— • -i ? t 'i _eo:_ . .•• 1 4 : • 0: t- :�� 71 OP i ' • • • . �i' _ . lam' \ • f i' cc Y / ', ATTACHMENT No. 2 MRADF-0 J.� -- -• r - -- -- M%LES AVE �_ to, >o i 4E''LrVT'ON CASIN boTTOM E�.ry ®e 00 I A-^Y /O Y/! W Z /0& 00 MAX OOY! w S. IDS 00 _CVWD WELL SITE \\4 V A I RECEIVED SE P = c on DIN OF u WN •,rrrc 3 xRxr ! EMERVIC GIIYEERIRG SE C©RPORAUM Ossr M s• C i !0.►KF1QN p G7Y► b*!�a[OMM � �A•.l►Ar� 4l1rl WW LqW 7X- ACr 4e XXsn�_u� Pn et ssrt / Vtr`--rso-f mr, �!—[ f,-jr .404A.' - PARK/RETENTION BASIN PROPOSAL Al . ACHMENT No. BS-.e STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 APPLICANT: J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES OWNER: I.D.G. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND AVENUE 52 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) PROPOSAL: SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 21880, (THE HERITAGE CLUB) SUBDIVIDING 417 ACRES OF A 731-ACRE SITE INTO 340 LOTS FOR 330 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, AN 18-HOLE GOLF COURSE AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES, WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE IN NATURAL, MOUNTAINOUS, OPEN SPACE. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); OPEN SPACE AND WATERCOURSE/FLOOD CONTROL. ZONING: R-2*-20,000 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 1200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE, 20,000 SQ. FT. NET LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT);R-1*++-10,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING, 1200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE, 10,000 SQ. FT. MINIMUM LOT AREA); N-A* (NATURAL ASSETS, 1200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING SIZE). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP EXTENSIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CEQA. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The current approval is for a subdivision of a 417-acre portion cf a total 731-acre site, into 330 single family lots, with additional lots for golf course, clubhouse, landscaping and other associated uses, including one 314-acre natural, mountainous open space lot (see Attachment #2). Overall density of the project is 0.8 units per acre. BJ/STAFFRPT.018 - 1 - PROJECT BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract #21880 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 9, 1986, and by City Council on October 7, 1986. Some activity relative to stormwater/drainage improvements has occurred over portions of the site to date, primarily relative to construction of the east portion of the La Quinta Stormwater Control project. Some final map checking had also been initiated in late 1986, but none of those activities were ever fully carried through. On December 6, 1988, the City Council approved the first time extension on this map, which effectuated the current expiration date of October 7, 1989, (see Attachment #3). REQUEST: The request is to extend the time in which to file a final map to October 7, 1990. The tentative map approval currently expires on October 30, 1989, by virtue of the application to extend the map. ANALYSIS: 1. This map is directly related to several other approvals: A. Specific Plan #85-006 (Oak Tree West) - Staff is currently in the process of the first amendments to this approval as well. B. Street Vacation #85-007 "A" and "B" - Vacation of existing right-of-way for Avenue 52. C. Specific Plan #85-005 "A" and "B" - Specific Plan for the realignment of Avenue 52. 2. After review of these related approvals, it has been concluded that most of the inter -related requirements have not yet been addressed. Therefore, revisions to any technically oriented conditions of the subject tentative map have been limited to consistency with current policies/standards. Additionally, some assurance needs to be provided relative to ultimate dedication and design of 52nd Avenue, as it was previously approved for realignment. 3. The following recommended revisions to the Tentative Tract Map approval conditions are as follows (changes to existing conditions underlined): Condition ll.A.1(b): The 11120-foot" dimension should be asterisked and a footnote added that says: "*The 120-foot dimension may be reduced to 110-feet pending outcome of proposed General Plan Amendment." BJ/STAFFRPT.018 - 2 - Condition 11.B.2: The current paragraph should be replaced with the following paragraph: "Avenida Bermudas: Half -width, plus an 8-foot wide combination sidewalk/bikeway in the east parkway. The following additional Conditions of Approval are recommended: 1111.A.1(d): Avenue 52 has an alignment problem in the vicinity of Avenida Bermudas as currently proposed by the 1985 Specific Plan. In order to correct the problem and some other undesirable attributes of the 1985 Specific Plan alignment, some realignment of Avenue 52 may be required within the boundaries of Tract #21880. The City is currently studying the situation and will publicly release its findings as soon as practical. The Applicant acknowledges the unsettled state of affairs, and agrees to comply, with the forthcoming revised alignment, when formally adopted, to whatever extent required." 1111.A.4: So as to insure the orderly development of the new alignment of Avenue 52 per the intent of the Avenue 52 Referendum, Washington Street and Avenue 52 Specific Plans, the Applicant/Developer shall dedicate right-of-way from the easterly tract boundary to Washington Street. The width shall be determined by the City Engineer and dedicated within 90 days of the City Engineer's request for said dedication." "11.B.4: Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas: if any street improvements required under these Conditions of Approval, except as otherwise provided in Condition 11.B.1, have been constructed by a third party or the City before the Applicant constructs said improvements, the Applicant shall reimburse the third party or City for the incurred costs. If the third party has been reimbursed by the City for the improvements, the Applicant shall reimburse the City for said costs." Condition #43: Revise to read as follows: "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." RECOMMENDATIONS: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution #89- recommending to the City Council a second one-year extension of time for 'Tentative Tract #21880 to October 7, 1990, subject to conditions as revised. BJ/STAFFRPT.018 - 3 - Attachments: 1. Location/vicinity Map 2. Approved Tentative Tract #21880 3. Existing Conditions of Approval - City Council Resolution #88-135 4. Planning Commission Resolution #89- with revised conditions. IIJ/STAFFRPT.018 - 4 - I rm, tj- CASENIO. 7,Y-,;e CA- ve o9 rrA W 1 I NORTH SCALE: .r , I-c� f- , �► ��\ w f • LJL AV go 90 ke do dt w � ••w ,��� we ~ �r t/ � r NI R � � � w► 11 P � I doo dk% OW wk it pr a vac &" v LA JmT4.vL e "' w jtTATiVE TRACT NO 21890 1tn11r w. .. o. r . w.. .... OIL, so OW .. ` ♦ ... off i l secs .I. , •. r.. w.a.w • rr1 iwv •— rarw wear wiv Aq 48, Or .7 4. ~ 1 / w�i.s�i—.very~•'� ♦. •� '� I► � 1 / .r. w.,w, �.--tea..- �.A' t ..ter ....•w wr Di • /3 AV ca w � .n w• 1. � , �1', � • .w w, � � w � a.. .r fft ' •W 1 ® e�,irk , ` 1; S13�lEl1ll� s%wr isvAm -w f~ \ ,. � �,�•..�*"� s''► t � _ sty _ _ r ��� ✓ice'/�1�� :.dam t �S�7i w1.. 9. '• 'I Ir •I w •♦ ::::L ; - - ATTACHMENT #2: TT 21880, EXTENSION #1 A APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP 17 '"--; NoZjpa° E,fr' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - THE HERITAGE CLUB TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21880 DECEMBER 6, 1988 - CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 88-135 Ir Indicates condition revised. GENERAL ],. Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. *2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections, unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. *3. Tract: phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. *4. Prior -to the issuance of a grading (a) or building (b) permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: -- City Fire Marshal (a) - Public Works Department (a,b) - Planning and Development Department (a,b) -- Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department. (b) -- Desert Sands Unified School District (b) •- Coachella Valley Water District (a,b) •- I.mperial Irrigation District (b) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan Nos. 85-005A and 85-005B, Street Vacation Nos. 85-007A and 85-007B, the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 6. The Applicant accordance with Building Code Engineer. shall utilize the Municipal and subject to dust control measures in Code and the Uniform the approval of the City - 1 - BJ/CONAPRVL.011 7. The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade state 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 required prior to final approval of grading construction. *8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department the for following detailed components of the grading p lan review and approval: A. Design of the area of R-1 zoned lots shall incorporate natural elements and any necessary specialized grading technique sand design features to minimize potential adverse effects of hillside grading and of views from the exterior of the project. g. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and theeport submitted for review along with the grading plan. report's recommendations shall be incorporatedinto The the grading plan design prior to grading p lan soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of 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. 10. Applicant shall comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of fees required therewith, and the City's flood protection ordinance. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. Drainage facilities along 52nd Avenue shall be constructed and drainage easements dedicated as required by the City Engineer. TRAFFIC ,AND CIRCULATION 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. 1. 52nd Avenue: (a.) 110' total right-of-way from west project boundary to 400' west of waghinaton Street. - 2 - BJ/CONA:PRVL.Cll (b.) 120' total right-of-way from 400' west of Washington to east project boundary. (c.) Intersection at Washington Street as required by the City Engineer. 2, Avenida Bermudas: 50' half -street right -Of -way. 3, Washington Street: Intersection at 52nd Avenue as required by City Engineer. B. That the Applicant shall construct street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 1, 52nd Avenue: Full width, plus a minimum of two lanes from the west project boundary to Avenida Bermudas. If improvements from the west project boundary to Avenida Bermudas as have been installed by others, Applicant/Subdivider shall be relieved of this condition; but, if the Applicant/Subdivider installs said improvements as a part of this tract, he shall be eligible for reimbursement of construction costs consistent with any City policy or program in existence at that time. *2, Avenida Bermudas: half -width. 3, Private Streets: As set forth herein. C. 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 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 2 Base Minimum for residential streets). Street design shall take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. D. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to the City's standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. 12. Applicant shall dedicate vehicle access rights, except at street intersections, to 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. 3 - BJ/CONAPRVL.0ll 13. Applicant shall install traffic signal at Washington Street and 52nd Avenue. 14. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements for private street improvements: A. "A" Street shall be aligned to connect to the new precise centerline of Washington Street. B. Tract entry streets shall provide two entrance and two exit lanes with a minimum 24-foot each way. C. The width of all interior streets, which have units along both sides of the roadway, excluding cul-de-sacs, shall have a minimum pavement width of 36'. 15. Applicant shall provide a bicycle/pedestrian link between 52nd Avenue and Avenida Nuestra near Calle Rondo. TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN *16. Development of the project site shall comply with Exhibit A, as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Tract No. 21880, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map. *17. A minimum 20' landscaped setback shall be required along 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. Design of these setbacks shall be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be consistent with the 52nd Avenue Specific Plan and any applicable approvals/conditions as set forth in Condition #5- A. The minimum setback may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. *B. The setback area shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 17.(C•), unless an alternative method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. C. A Landscape Maintenance and Lighting District shall be formed to maintain medians on 52nd Avenue and landscape and wall improvements on the northerly side of 52nd. Applicant shall establish, through its homeowners Association, provisions to maintain the parking and setback areas along the south side of 52nd and the east side of Bermudas contiguous to the project. These provisions shall allow the City - 4 - BJ/CONAPRVL.011 to take over maintenance if not adequately performed. D. The Applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas along 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. in no case shall these areas have slopes or berming in excess of 33 percent as measured from the top of the crown of the street elevation. 18. This approval authorizes the construction of a golf clubhouse, tennis building with tennis courts, gatehouses, and a maintenance facility at the general locations shown on Exhibit A, as amended by these conditions. These buildings' specific locations, design, height, and size shall be subject to separate plot plan approval by the Planning Commission. *19. The development of custom, single-family lots shall be governed by the following: A. The Applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all development within Tentative Tract No. 21880. The main objectives of this Committee shall be to assure that building architecture, building materials and colors, building height and setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate design themes throughout the tract. *B. Applicant shall establish within the CC&R'S site design standards appropriate to estate and villa lots, including but not limited to, front, side and rear setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development Department as part of its review of the CC&R's, but be no less restrictive than the R-1 or R-2 Zone standards, as appropriate. *C. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract No. 21880, landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained. Type of planting, method of installation, and maintenance techniques shall be subject to plan approval by the Planning and Development Department. *D. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. E. No two-story units shall be allowed on a lot any portion of which is within 200' of 52nd Avenue, - 5 - BJ/CONAPRVL.011 Avenida Bermudas, or common property lines with the Desert Club of La Quinta. No two-story units shall be allowed within the R-1 Zoned portion of thesite unless appropriate zoning changes are approved. 20. Provision shall be made for a significant viewing opportunity on both sides of the main project entrance at 52nd and Washington through the use of landscaping, lakes, fence design and setbacks. Provision shall also bemade on Avenida Bermudas near both intersections of I�� Street with "C" Street and give consideration to the former site of the maintenance building (Revision #1) located at the northwest corner of the project site (the area generally eying south of the existing 52nd Avenue alignment and east of Avenida Bermudas) for extensive wall setback and landscaping to enhance views, but open fencing shall not be required. *21. Any minor changes in lot mix, or size lot, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 22. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal, who may approriVeandternate equivalents of to compliance where deemed appropriate these standards: A. Install Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") located no less than 25 feet from any building nor more than 165 feet from any lot frontage. Hydrants shall be spaced notmore than 330 feet apart as measured along approved travelways. Minimum fire flow shall be 2500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi. B. Cul-de-sacs longer than 150 feet shall have a minimum turning diameter of 90 feet. Cul-de-sacs shall be no longer than 550 feet unless provided with an approved emergency alternate access or other appropriate fire protection approved by the Fire Marshal. C. Applicant/Developer shall furnish two (2) ccpies of the water system plans to the fire department for review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." BJ/CONAPRVL.011 23. D. Prior to arrival of combustible materials on the site, the above conditions (a and b) must be operating. E. Interior street widths shall be a minimum of 36 feet. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as follows: A. The water and sewage disposal system for the project shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and CVWD- B. Tentative Tract No. 21880 shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. C. Where there are identified conflicts with existing Coachella Valley Water District facilities, the City shall withhold permits until satisfactory arrangements have been made with the District. D. The alignment and sizeoff the needed stormwateff-e facilities, including an facilities, shall be in accordance with plans approved by CVWD in conjunction with the La Quinta Redevelopment Project. 1. Applicant shall provide easements without compensation for these stormwater facilities in accordance with the signed agreement with the City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley Water District. 2. Actual construction of stormwater facilities shall be subject to reimbursement from redevelopment agency funds to the extent that construction is part of the regional stormwater facility system and in accordance with any signed agreement. 24. Applicant shall install "dry" stormwater facilities on Avenida Bermudas in conjunction with the installation of street improvements. These facilities shall include catch basins, culverts, and other improvements torscontect these facilities to the regional system, to plans approved by CVWD and the City of La Quinta. A. Applicant shall provide easements without compensation for these facilities in accordance with the Applicant's signed agreement with the City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley Water District. - 7 - BJ/CONAPRVL.O11 al er facilities B. Actual constructiono reimbursementmbytany assessment shall be subject funding mechanism) if such is district (or similar structio implemented to accept esitehat localndrainagen is for facilities to acc p off 25. 26. *27. C. Applicant shall comply with with the City to accept developed area to the west. his signed agreement local drainage from the The Applicant shall comply ranuirements regarding fire station Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City a one acre site for a fire station, at a location approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City. The Applicant shall prepare and submit building plans for the proposed station for the review and approval by Riverside County Fire Department and the City. The APP licant shall make a payment of $100,000 to rtial provide for thePacontributionructr shall be used as station. This credit for fire infrit astructure until those f exceed A. B. C. with the following facilities: All utility improvements shall be installed underground. In order to mitigate impacts on public schools, the Applicant shall comply with the following: *p„ Prior to the issuance of any building Permits, the and Application shall provide the Planning Development Department with writteclearance from fees the DSUSD stating that the per -unit have been paid. WALL ,.-FENCING. _ SCREENING AND Ltuvv��-n=j••" ermits, the Applicant *28. prior to the issuance of building ing and Development Department, shall submit to approval, athe nplan (or plans) showing the -C review and or following: Landscaping, including revisions to plant sixes, spacing, and locations as required uireby conditions, or proposed by the App KV B. C. Landscape irrigation system. detail of any proposed and/or types, these Location and design required walls. - 8 - BJ/CONAPRVL.011 D. Location and design of sidewalks on -site and on adjacent streets. E. Exterior lighting plan. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, viable condition for the life of the project. Landscaping within 10 feet of all entry roadways shall not exceed 30 inches in height. landscaping shall not interfere with vehicle overhand areas. 29. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planing materials shall be encouraged to be incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. Provision shall also be made for planting materials which provide forage and nesting areas for nearby wildlife. 30. Adequate provision shall be made for continuous maintenance of all landscaping and related features. *31. A minimum six -foot -high, solid, masonry wall shall be provided along the west, north, and a portion of the east project perimeters of the project, except for the perimeter adjacent to the mountains where fencing, any, shall be designed so as to permit wildlife to enter the site. Fencing shall be prohibited along the project portions which abut the mountain areas to permit unobstructed wildlife migration. The exact location, design, and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. *32. All lighting facilities shall be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. *33. The existing trees on the site shall be incorporated into the design wherever feasible. All grading, construction and related operations for this project shall be in compliance with the approval for tree retention, dated 11/18/86. MANAGEMENT 34. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval. A. The document to convey title; BJ/CONAPRVL.011 B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and, C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded recordede same time that the final subdivision map is A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that duch is ofeed of trust is record prior to the in lien ooffatitie and for value an homeowners association. MISCELLANEOUS *35. Appropriate establishing signs on the approvals shall any construction or subject property. be secured prior to sales facilities, and/or 36. 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. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. *37. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall contract with the UC-Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to complete the resource study and collection at the following sites: A. CA-Riv-2823: Recover information and preserve rock cairns where possible. B. CA-Riv--2824: Conduct date recovery excavations. C. CA-Riv•-2826: Move some of the seed milling features to an interpretative setting elsewhere within the project. D. CA-Riv-2827: Conduct additional arecoveryg anexcavations basis of this testing, conduct if warranted. B, CA.-Riv-1179: Conduct data recovery excavations. Applicant shall provide of completion oftthisthe tasknning and Development Department 10 - BJ/CONAPRVL.011 The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately and take appropriate mitigation measures when any archaeological remains or artifacts are encountered during project development. *38. The Applicant shall pay the required processing, plan checking, and inspection fees as are current at the time the work is being accomplished by City personnel or subcontractors for the Planning and Development, or Engineering Departments. *39. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting along roads, if any, for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. 40. 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. 41. The Developer/Subdivider shall provide a 30-foot•-wide access easement from the realigned 52nd Avenue to the old 52nd Avenue along the eastern boundary of the "Desert Club" property. The Developer/Subdivider shall provide the "Desert Club" owners access, improvement and maintenance rights over said easement. Also, the City of La Quinta shall be granted public right of pass and repass over said easement. 42. Prior to recordation of any portion of Tract Map No. 21880, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by -the City Engineer and Planning Director plans which relocate the maintenance facility entrance and associated frontage road improvements to an appropriate location which will minimize traffic hazards and conflicts on Avenida Bermudas and Calle Arroba to the extent feasible. 43. Thirty (30) days prior to the approval of a Final Map, the Applicant/Subdivider shall have submitted to the City Manager any and all claims or requests for credit toward Infrastructure Fees attributable from the development of this tract. The City Manger's report shall be made a part of the Council's deliberation on a Final Map, and the action of the City Council in the acceptance or rejection of any such claim or request shall constitute the complete understanding between parties as to the disposition of Infrastructure Fees as it may relate to any future credit. BJ/CONAPRVL.011 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL MAP. CASE NO. TT 21880 - SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME I.D.G. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OWNER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 26th day of August, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing on the Environmental Analysis and the request to subdivide +731 acres into a 330-lot single-family residential subdivision with associated golf course and open space lots, generally located on the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 6 AND 7, T6S, R7E, S. B. B. & M. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at said Public Hearing, dial decide to continue the Hearing until September 9, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, at the continued Public Hearing of the 9th day of September, 1986, considered the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 and recommended to the City Council adoption of the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21880; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 7th day of October, 1986, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the Environmental Analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21880; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director, after initial study (Environmental Assessment No. 86-059) determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made conditions of the development approval, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; and, BJ/RESOPC.023 - 1 - WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held on October 7, 1986, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Ccuncil did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, 'WHEREAS, the former owner, Crystal Canyon of La Quinta, applied for and received the initial Extension of Time for Tentative Tract 21880, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of: the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and, WHEREAS, the current owner, I.D.G. Development Corporation, has applied for a Second Extension of Time on said Tentative Tract pursuant to said Section 13.16.230; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission, on October 24, 1989, did find the following facts to justify recommending approval for said extension of time: 1. The design and improvements of the approved Tentative Tract No. 21880 are consistent with the current goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan and as proposed for Amendment by the City. 2. Tentative Tract No. 21880 is consistent with current standards of the Municipal Zoning and Land Division Ordinances. 3. The subject site is physically suitable for a 330-unit development with a density of 0.8 units per acre. 4. The design of Tentative Tract No. 21880 and its related improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat provided that approval conditions related to mitigation measures for the flora, fauna, and archaeological resources are complied with. 5. The design of Tentative Tract No. 21880 and the type of improvements are not likely to cause public health problems nor would they conflict with existing public easements. 6. The 'location and appearance of the proposed dwelling units will be made compatible with the area in which the 330-unit development is located. 7. The ;proposal to provide approximately 700 of the site as usable open space area exceeds the minimum requirements for planned residential developments. BJ/RESOPC.023 - 2 - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission and the City Council in this case; 2. 'That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval the above -described Second Extension of 'Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 for the .reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as revised on October 24, 1989. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of: the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.023 - 3 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - THE HERITAGE CLUB TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21880 - EXTENSION #2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-/� OCTOBER 24, 1989 * Indicates condition revised. + Indicates new condition. GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2., This tentative tract map approval shall expire as provided by Government Code Section 66452.6 or other applicable sections, unless approved for extension oursua.nt to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the: City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading (a) or building (b) permit: for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - City Fire Marshal (a) - Public Works Department (a,b) - Planning and Development Department (a,b) - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department. (b) - Desert Sands Unified School District (b) - Coachella Valley Water District (a,b) - Imperial Irrigation District (b) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan Nos. 85-005A and 85-005B, Street Vacation Nos. 85-007A and 85-007B, the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 1 - GRADING AND 'DRAINAGE 6. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 7. The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade state 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 required prior to final approval of grading construction. 8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department the following detailed components of the grading plan for review, and approval: A. Design of the area of R-1 zoned lots shall incorporate natural elements and any necessary specialized grading technique sand design features to minimize potential adverse effects of hillside grading and of views from the exterior of the project. 9. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. The report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall be indicated on the final subdivision map. 10. Applicant shall comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of fees required therewith, and the City's flood protection ordinance. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. Drainage facilities along 52nd Avenue shall be constructed and drainage easements dedicated as required by the City Engineer. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: Bi/CONAPRVL.022 - 2 - A. 'The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City :Engineer. 1. 52nd Avenue: (a.) 110-foot total right-of-way from west project boundary to 400' west of Washington Street. *(b.) 120-foot total right-of-way from 400-feet west of Washington to east project boundary. *The 120-foot dimension may be reduced to 110-feet pending outcome of proposed General Plan Amendment. (c.) Intersection at Washington Street as required by the City Engineer. (d.) Avenue 52 has an alignment problem in the vicinity of Avenida Bermudas as currently proposed by the 1985 Specific Plan. In order to correct the problem and some other undesirable attributes of the 1985 Specific Plan alignment, some realighment of Avenue 52 may be required within the boundaries of Tract #21880. The City is currently studying the situation and will publicly release its findings as soon as practical. The Applicant acknowledges the unsettled state of affairs, and agrees to comply with the forthcoming revised alignment, when formally adopted, to whatever extent required. 2. Avenida Bermudas: 50-foot half -street right-of-way. 3. Washington Street: Intersection at 52nd Avenue as required by City Engineer. 4. So as to insure the orderly development of the new alignment of Avenue 52 per the intent of the Avenue 52 Referendum, Washington Street and Avenue 52 Specific Plans, the Applicant/Developer shall dedicate right-of-way from the easterly tract boundary to Washington Street. The width shall be determined by the City Engineer and dedicated within 90 days of the City Engineer's request for said dedication. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 3 - B. That the Applicant shall construct street ,improvements to the requirements of the City :Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 1. 52nd Avenue: Full width, plus a minimum of two lanes from the west project boundary to Avenida Bermudas. If improvements from the west project boundary to Avenida Bermudas have been installed by others, the Applicant/Subdivider shall be relieved of this condition; but, if the Applicant/Subdivider installs said improvements as a part of this tract, he shall be eligible for reimbursement of construction costs consistent with any City policy or program in existence at that time. *2. Avenida Bermudas: Half -width, plus an 8-foot wide combination sidewalk/bikeway in the east parkway. 3. Private Streets: As set forth herein. +4. Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas: if any street improvements required under these Conditions of Approval, except as otherwise provided in Condition 11.B.1, have been constructed by a third party or the City before the Applicant constructs said improvements, the Applicant shall reimburse the third party or City for the incurred costs. If the third party has been reimbursed by the City for the improvements, the Applicant shall reimburse the City for said costs. C. 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 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 2 Base Minimum for residential streets). Street design shall take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. D. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to the City's standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 4 - 12. Applicant shall dedicate vehicle access rights, except at street intersections, to 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. 13. Applicant shall install traffic signal at Washington Street and 52nd Avenue. 14. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements for private street improvements: A. "A" Street shall be aligned to connect to the new precise centerline of Washington Street. B. Tract entry streets shall provide two entrance and two exit lanes with a minimum 24-foot each way. C. The width of all interior streets, which have units along both sides of the roadway, excluding cul-de-sacs, shall have a minimum pavement width of 36-feet. 15. Applicant shall provide a bicycle/pedestrian link between 52nd Avenue and Avenida Nuestra near Calle Rondo. TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN 16. Development of the project site shall comply with Exhibit A, as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Tract No. 21880, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map. 17. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be required along 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. Design of these setbacks shall be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be consistent with the 52nd Avenue Specific Plan and any applicable approvals/conditions as set forth in Condition #5. A. The minimum setback may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. B. The setback area shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 17.(C.), unless an alternative method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 5 - C. A Landscape Maintenance and Lighting District shall be formed to maintain medians on 52nd Avenue and landscape and wall improvements on the northerly side of 52nd. Applicant shall establish, through its Homeowners Association, provisions to maintain the parking and setback areas along the south side of 52nd and the east side of Bermudas contiguous to the project. These provisions shall allow the City to take over maintenance if not adequately performed. D. The Applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas along 52nd Avenue and Avenida Bermudas. In no case shall these areas have slopes or berming in excess of 33 percent as measured from the top of the crown of the street elevation. 18. This approval authorizes the construction of a golf clubhouse, tennis building with tennis courts, gatehcuses, and a maintenance facility at the general locations shown on Exhibit A, as amended by these conditions. These buildings' specific locations, design, height., and size shall be subject to separate plot plan approval by the Planning Commission. lca. The development of custom, single-family lots shall be governed by the following: A. The Applicant shall establish a Design Review Committee to review and approve all development within Tentative Tract No. 21880. The main objectives of this Committee shall be to assure that building architecture, building materials and colors, building height and setbacks, and landscape design follow appropriate design themes throughout the tract. B. Applicant shall establish within the CC&R's site design standards appropriate to estate and villa lots, including but not limited to, front, side and rear setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development Department as part of its review of the CC&R's, but be no less restrictive than the R-1 or R-2 Zone standards, as appropriate. C. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract No. 21880, landscaping/groundcover shall be installed and appropriately maintained. Type of planting, method of installation, and maintenance techniques shall be subject to plan approval by the Planning and Development Department. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 6 - D. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the :Planning and Development Department. E. No two-story units shall be allowed on a lot any portion of which is within 200-feet of 52nd Avenue, Avenida Bermudas, or common property lines with the Desert Club of La Quinta. No two-story units shall be allowed within the R-1 Zoned portion of the site unless appropriate zoning changes are approved. 20. Provision shall be made for a significant viewing opportunity on both sides of the main project entrance at 52nd and Washington through the use of landscaping, lakes, fence design and setbacks. Provision shall also be made on Avenida Bermudas near both intersections of "I" Street with "C" Street and give consideration to the former site of the maintenance building (Revision #1) located at the northwest corner of the project site (the area generally lying south of the existing 52nd Avenue alignment and east of Avenida Bermudas) for extensive wall setback and landscaping to enhance views, but open fencing shall not be required. 21. Any minor changes in lot mix, or size lot, lines, or shapes, or street alignments, shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 2:2. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal, who may approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: A. Install Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/211) located no less than 25 feet from any building nor more than 165 feet from any lot frontage. Hydrants shall be spaced not more than 330 feet apart as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Minimum fire flow shall be 2500 gpm for two hours duration at 20 psi. B. Cul-de-sacs longer than 150 feet shall have a minimum turning diameter of 90 feet. Cul-de-sacs shall be no longer than 550 feet unless provided with an approved emergency alternate access or other appropriate fire protection approved by the Fire Marshal. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 7 - 23. C. Applicant/Developer shall furnish two (2) copies of •the water system plans to the fire department for :review. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the :Eire flow requirements. Plans shall be ,signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." D. Prior to arrival of combustible materials on the site, the above conditions (a and b) must be operating. E. Interior street widths shall be a minimum of 36 feet. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as follows: A. The water and sewage disposal system for the project shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and CVWD. B. Tenta•tive Tract No. 21880 shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. C. Where there are identified conflicts with existing Coachella Valley Water District facilities, the City shall withhold permits until satisfactory arrangements have been made with the District. D. The alignment and size of the stormwater facilities, including any needed off -site facilities, shall be in accordance with plans approved by CVWD in conjunction with the La Quinta Redevelopment Project. 1. Applicant shall provide easements without compensation for these stormwater facilities in accordance with the signed agreement with the City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley Water District. 2. Actual construction of stormwater facilities shall be subject to reimbursement from redevelopment agency funds to the extent that construction is part of the regional stormwater facility system and in accordance with any signed agreement. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 8 - 24. Applicant shall install "dry" stormwater facilities on Avenida Bermudas in conjunction with the installation of street improvements. These facilities shall include catch basins, culverts, and other improvements to connect •these facilities to the regional system, pursuant to plans approved by CVWD and the City of La Quinta. A. Applicant shall provide easements without compensation for these facilities in accordance with the Applicant's signed agreement with the City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley Water District. B. Actual construction of local stormwater facilities shall be subject to reimbursement by any assessment district (or similar funding mechanism) if such is implemented to the extent that construction is for facilities to accept off -site local drainage. C. Applicant shall comply with his signed agreement with the City to accept local drainage from the developed area to the west. 2-5. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements regarding fire station facilities: A. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City a one acre site for a fire station, at a location approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City. B. The Applicant shall prepare and submit building plans for the proposed station for the review and approval by Riverside County Fire Department and the City. C. The Applicant shall make a payment of $100,000 to provide for the partial construction of the fire station. This contribution shall be used as a credit for fire facilities infrastructure fees until those fees exceed the amount of the credit. 26. All utility improvements shall be installed underground. 27. In order to mitigate impacts on public schools, the Applicant shall comply with the following: A. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Application shall provide the Planning and Development Department with written clearance from the DSUSD stating that the per -unit impact fees have been paid. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 9 - WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department, for review and approval, a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including revisions to plant types, sizes, spacing, and locations as required by these conditions, or proposed by the Applicant. B. Landscape irrigation system. C. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. D. Location and design of sidewalks on -site and on adjacent streets. E. Exterior lighting plan. The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy, viable condition for the life of the project. Landscaping within 10 feet of all entry roadways shall not exceed 30 inches in height. landscaping shall not interfere with vehicle overhand areas. 29. Desertor native plant species and drought resistant planing materials shall be encouraged to be incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. Provision shall also be made for planting materials which provide forage and nesting areas for nearby wildlife. 30. Adequate provision shall be made for continuous maintenance of all landscaping and related features. 31. A minimum six -foot -high, solid, masonry wall shall be provided along the west, north, and a portion of the east project perimeters of the project, except for the perimeter adjacent to the mountains where fencing, if any, shall be designed so as to permit wildlife to enter the site. Fencing shall be prohibited along the project portions which abut the mountain areas to permit unobstructed wildlife migration. The exact location, design, and materials shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. 32. All lighting facilities shall be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. EIJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 10 - 33. The existing trees on the site shall be incorporated into the design wherever feasible. All grading, construction and related operations for this project shall be in compliance with the approval for tree retention, dated 11/18/86. MANAGEMENT 34. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Director the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval. A. The document to convey title; B. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions to be recorded; and, C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. The approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision map is recorded. A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess; the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the homeowners association. MISCELLANEOUS 35. Appropriate approvals shall be secured prior to establishing any construction or sales facilities, and/or signs on the subject property. 36. 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 Distract. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. 37. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall contract with the UC-Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to complete the resource study and collection at the following sites: Bi/CONAPRVL.022 - 11 - A. CA-Riv-2823: Recover information and preserve rock cairns where possible. B. CA-Riv-2824: Conduct date recovery excavations. C. CA-Riv-2826: Move some of the seed milling features 'to an interpretative setting elsewhere within the project. D. CA-Riv-2827: Conduct additional testing and, on the basis of this testing, conduct recovery excavations if warranted. E. CA-Riv-1179: Conduct data recovery excavations. Applicant shall provide verification to the Planning and Development Department of completion of this task. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately and take appropriate mitigation measures when any archaeological remains or artifacts are encountered during project development. 38. The Applicant shall pay the required processing, plan checking, and inspection fees as are current at the time the work is being accomplished by City personnel or subcontractors for the Planning and Development, or Engineering Departments. 39. Applicant shall submit plans for street lighting along roads, if any, for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. 40. 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. 41. The Developer/Subdivider shall provide a 30-foot-wide access easement from the realigned 52nd Avenue to the old 52nd Avenue along the eastern boundary of the "Desert Club" property. The Developer/Subdivider shall provide the "Desert Club" owners access, improvement and maintenance rights over said easement. Also, the City of La Quinta shall be granted public right of pass and repass over said easement. 42. Prior to recordation of any portion of Tract Map No. 21880, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director plans which relocate the maintenance facility entrance and associated frontage road improvements to an appropriate location which will minimize traffic hazards and conflicts on Avenida Bermudas and Calle Arroba to the extent feasible. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 12 - *43. 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. BJ/CONAPRVL.022 - 13 - BS-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND CO. OWNER: LANDMARK LAND CO. PROPOSAL: TT 21123 Extension #3 (FINAL ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL MAP FOR A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 6.74+ ACRES WITHIN THE DUNA LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCATION: GENERALLY WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET; +800 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 UNITS/ACRE) ZONING: R-2-8000 (MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, 8,000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT/LOT REQUIRED) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. #83061305) WAS PREPARED ON THE OVERALL DUNA LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA #83-001 AND WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 10, 1984. THE EIR ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TT 21123. EXTENSION OF TIME REQUESTS ON TENTATIVE MAPS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PROVISIONS. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On November 5, 1985, the City Council approved the original Tentative Tract No. 21123. Subsequently, two extensions of time for this map were approved by City Council on December 1, 11387 and November 15, 1988, respectively, effecting a new expiration date of November 5, 1989. The Applicant requests a third and final time extension of one year in which to record the final map. If approved, the new expiration date would be November 5, 1990. The subdivision, which created 20 estate -type lots for the purpose of development of custom single-family housing, is located in the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan project. The tract is to be developed on 6.74 net acres with all lots facing north onto a portion of the La Quinta Storm Water Channel. The proposed net project density is 2.97 units per acre, which is BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 1 - substantially less than that which is currently approved for development on the site. The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan concept approved up to five (5) units per acre, equivalent to an ultimate gross site buildout of 40 units. Avenida Los Verdes, the main private street access to the tract, extends through the storm channel and branches out to the east and west to serve the south portions of the lots (refer to Tract Map, Attachment #2)• Lot sizes within the tract range from 11,400 square feet to 21,950 square feet in area. Lot widths are generally between 95 and 100 feet with the exception of the odd -shaped lots and those which have 70- to 80-foot widths. Lot depths are generally 120 feet. Attachment 43 shows a typical section through the tract at Lot #7, with existing and proposed grades. The overall tract elevation is +11 feet above the overall elevation of the Duna La. Quinta Specific Plan area. Existing conditions of approval limit building height to 29 feet. Attachment #4 shows the grade differential between the former Village Pointe project area and Tentative Tract 21123. A condition of approval for the original tract required emergency access from the southwest cul-de-sac area of the tract to the Desert Club Drive alignment. Attachment #5 shows the alignment as it relates to this area of the tract and the Village Pointe apartment project, which has since expired. No final map activity has taken place since the original approval. ANALYSIS: l., The revised conditions of approval for Extensions #1 and #2 brought the tract into conformance with the La Quinta General Plan. No amendments to the General Plan have been approved which would substantially change the existing conditions. 2.. The request for extension was distributed to the following departments/agencies for comment: a. Public Works b. City Fire Marshal C. Community Safety d. Coachella Valley Water District e. City Manager's office 3. Based upon the comments received, the Planning and Development Department recommends no modifications to the current conditions of approval. BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 2 - FT'NDINGS : Findings for this time extension can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- to recommend to the City Council approval of a third and final one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 21123, subject to conditions as currently in effect. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Approved TT 21123, Exhibit "A°' 3. Typical Section through TT 21123 4. Cross section through Village Pointe/TT 21123 boundary 5. Delineation of emergency access location 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- with Conditions BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 3 - i5S pelts:- - a - VICIA11 T Y MAP CASE frm ;;7 f Ark4005 5St</!i Imel iV'•MI► 1 �._ 1 `.' ICACF W RYe 1�• i • Weer? nr XV30 •,` � jg a CkNO a.. Ak.Ig +��:..... °fie •� •' •. �. r�. �' � � • . i i I qL ��a rrnl► ti a '� � i • .� $L•Jt�:_,.L••JI /.! Ie r,r•, .r •� ` •�11 ••t i•''if• .�a q • ,lye p eu � .�, ► .. - — - • _ :- - � � � �. cis.:; � L.� i� 't � � � awomw � �.'' e. �.�• �{r���..-• C' `•,' a �,.. �� Q ; S 441960 aw.�+rZ 0 1 1 ® F' 4 ( c u.ae • 1d • J / r/l�s.- 00 CA SE MAP CAM No. f r 2- 112 3 N.T.50 i w 00•G WAS ®o•i ws 1 ao 01? MIS r v v � Z .or&AVAs'4f PF40-Tf--- C--r Alk W,, - CAREE No. TIrl it 7- 3 ATTACHMENT- � 4 SrRAA;117 CRAp9,E r. C. ro Ex t s, e , o amo e-els,r"c CROkINIO "riloeor . rR. .. �, 3:. :. �.;�°ice �au - ...�.'�,�`n�'s - :;. �7" �..`.:,�._�: �_� u v£�• ":-� .> $14 ►•y � �., � � o u Un— a \ ti. a . �� • a Ag .' �' d goo �•� � �`` �.s.,"' Sk �" q '1�IL on \ �) a II t tit� oe i1 f — 1 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION. CASE NO. TT 21123 - THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1985, hold a duly -noticed public hearing recommending confirmation of the environmental analysis and approval of the request of Landmark Land Co. to subdivide +6.74 acres into a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision, generally located west of Washington Street, +800 feet south of Avenue 50 within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area, more particularly described as follows: Being a resubdivision of parcels 182 and lots A-D of Parcel Map 19730, PM 122/89-90, also being a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, S.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 5th day of November, 1985, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21123; and WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director determined that the Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for the overall Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area adequately addressed the impacts associated with Tentative Tract 21123; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, BJ/RESOPC.021 - 1 - WHEREAS, the owner, Landmark Land Company, applied for and received two subsequent extensions of time for Tentative Tract 21123, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps, thereby extending the original map approval to November 5, 1989; and, WHEREAS, said owner has applied for a third and final extension of time for said tentative tract, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify a recommendation for approval of said extension of time: 1. '.tentative Tract No. 21123, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division and Land Use Ordinances. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the ;proposed subdivision. 3. Adherence to the current Conditions of Approval will ensure that the project will not be likely to cause substantial environmental damage and that impacts on wildlife habitat will be mitigated to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described third and final Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions (which replace those contained in Council Resolution #88-127). PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: .ABSTAIN: BJ/RESOPC.021 - 2 - JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JERKY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.021 - 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- 1 ,C� TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21123 FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME OC'TOBER 24, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, and approved Exhibit A, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall be developed in accordance with the standards for Specific Plan 83-001 (Duna La Quinta), Amendment #3, as conditionally approved. Where there are identified conflicts, the provisions within these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City Engineer o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated. herewith. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 5. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. 6. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. BJ/CONAPRVL.021 - 1 - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 7. The Applicant shall develop all roads applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21123 in conformance with City standards and with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-001 (Duna La Quinta), as amended and conditionally approved, and subject to approval of the City Engineer. 8. The following modification shall be made in the Circulation Plan: a. A standard offset cul-de-sac (with 90-foot diameter per the Fire Marshal) shall be provided at the end of Lots A and B, or alternatives may be provided subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer. b. A plan indicating proposed parking and method of traffic control along the private road system shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. Final street typical section shall be as per requirements of the City Engineer (32-foot minimum curb -to -curb width for parking on one side only). C. Cul-de-sacs shall be no longer than 550 feet long unless provided with an emergency "all-weather" alternative access or other appropriate fire protection as approved by the City Fire Marshal. d. The common area between the south tract boundary and the private streets (Lots A and B) shall be designated as Lot "D". e. Emergency access gate(s) shall be provided at Lot A (and other locations if required by the Fire Marshal). The design, location and installation of these gates are subject to review and approval of -the City Fire Marshal and the Planning and :Development Department, through the plot plan review procedure. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 9. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. Prior to issuance of any building permit within Tentative Tract No. 21123, the following conditions shall be met/certified to, except that the Fire Marshal may approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: BST/CONAPRVL.021 - 2 - a. Fireflow requirement is 1000 GPM for two-hour duration at 20 PSI residual pressure available from super (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") hydrants, located at intersections if possible, but in no case more than 165 feet from any residential lot. Prior to the recordation of the final map, water improvement plans to be submitted to Fire Marshal for approval. b. Emergency access extensions shall be improved to all-weather. C. Cul-de-sacs shall be 90 feet in diameter. 10. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District as follows: a. The water and sewage disposal system for the project shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and CVWD. b. When there are identified conflicts, the City will withhold the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. C. Tentative Tract No. 21123 shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for Sanitation Service. 11. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract. 12. All utility improvements shall be installed underground. MANAGEMENT 13. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval: a. 'The document to convey title; b. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded; and C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. BUJ / CONAPRVL . 0 21 - 3 - The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision map is recorded. A homeowners' association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value, and is of record prior to the lien of -the homeowners' association. ARCHAEOLOGY 14. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately and take appropriate mitigation measures when any archaeological remains or artifacts are encountered during project development. NOISE 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be used to reduce noise impacts from existing and future nearby streets to within State standards. 16. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall submit a site -specific noise study for the entire tract. The study shall, at a minimum, address the mitigation measures identified in Condition 422 of Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment #3, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. TRACT SITE AND DESIGN 17. Applicant shall establish, within the CC & Rs, site design standards appropriate to estate lots, including, but not limited to, front, side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards should maximize building separation, enhance the overall streetscape and minimize the appearance of bulk. Any such standards shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development Department as part of its review of the CC & Rs, but shall be no less restrictive than R-2 zone standards. B:J / CONAPRVL . 0 21 - 4 - 18.. All lots shall be maintained with appropriate temporary landscaping/groundcover to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties from windblown particulates and erosion. This groundcover shall be installed in conjunction with phased on -site improvements to the tract, and shall remain in place in good condition until such time as a building permit is issued for construction. 19. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract Map No. 21123, permanent landscaping/groundcover shall be installed. Type of planting, method of installation, and maintenance techniques shall be subject to plan approval by -the Planning and Development Department. 20. Prior to submission of any unit construction plans for building permit issuance to the Planning Department, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a landscaping plan to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval, for each unit. Prior to submittal of the landscape plan, the Applicant shall secure written approval of the plan from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office. The plans shall include: the contractor's name, address and phone number, and the place of origin of all planting materials. 21. No portion of any structure within Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade, except that two-story units not exceeding 29 feet in height may be approved by the City if architectural and site design features adequately provide for architectural diversity (i.e., varying roof lines), reduction in the appearance of bulk, appropriate setbacks, and similar features. 22. All roof --mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. MISCELLANEOUS 23. The Applicant shall submit a plan for perimeter fencing (south side wall) for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. 24. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. BJ/CONAPRVL.021 - 5 - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 10, 1989 CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to Chairman Walling. The Commissioner Bund. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. order at 7:05 p.m. by Flag Salute was led by A. Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Bund, Moran, Zelles, and Chairman Walling. Commissioner Steding was absent. B. A motion was made by Chairman Walling and seccnc'ed by Commissioner Bund to excuse Commissioner Steding from this meeting. Unanimous. C. Staff Present: Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman and Principal Planner Stan Sawa. UVhVTMnQ Chairman Walling introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: A. Continued Hearing - General Plan Amendment 89-027, Change of Zone 89-046, and Public Use Permit 89-005; requests by Landmark Land Company to redesignate the 47.2-acre site from Low Density Residential to Commercial on the City's General Plan Land Use Map; to change the zoning from A-1-10 to C-P-S; and to construct a 140-child day care center on a one -acre site located in the southwest corner of the site. 1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Repart, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Herman also informed the Commission that the Applicant had requested that the request for the Public Use Permit be continued. MR/MIN10-10.DFT -1- 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag of Landmark Land Company briefly addressed the Commission, then introduced Barry Ingleman who addressed the Commission to explain the request for commercial on the site. Ann Melvin addressed the Commission with concerns regarding traffic impacts. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Zelles commented that the area makes sense to be commercial, that commercial development on Highway Ill and the downtown area will come on its own and doesn't need to be forced. Commissioner Bund agreed. with Commissioner Zelles' comments. Commissioner Moran commented that she was not comfortable with the reference to "neighborhood" commercial, that it was an inappropriate term in this situation. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adopt Planning Commission Resolutions 89-058 and 89-059, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-027 and Change of Zone 89-046, with the resolutions revised to delete the word "neighborhood" in all references to the commercial land use; recommending concurrence with the environmental determination; and continuing the consideration of Public Use Permit 89-005. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Commissioner Steding absent. B. Tentative Tract 21846 (Revision No. 2); a request by the Sunrise Company for a revision to the Tentative Tract Map to modify unit types, their locations, and increase total number of dwelling units within the tract from 367 to 434 on 56.51 acres (including lakes) in the R-2 zone. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. Mr. Sawa also called the Commission's attention to two letters of protest which were handed to them prior to the meeting. MR/MIN10-11O.DFT -2- 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. Allen Levine, representing Sunrise Company, addressed the Commission to explain the request. The following citizens addressed the Commission in protest of the request: Phil Chandler, Ivan Simivitch, Geraldine Hall, Kristy Franklin, Marshall Johnson, Mrs. Harbert, Bebe Sanoff, John Triana, George Richards, Pete Morithroe, Robert Pruett, Ted Harbert, Charles Swartz, Frank Pierson, and Bob Shaeffer. They raised concerns regarding two-story units, density, traffic, congestion, views, property values, and emergency access. Mr. Philip Smith, representing Sunrise Company, addressed the Commission to further explain Sunrise Company's approach to PGA West and to further explain the request. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Moran commented that she feels some misinformation was given to present owners when they bought; that street widths should be looked at; and that she would not be comfortable recommending an approval at this time. Commissioner Zelles commented that he agreed with Commissioner Moran and that a balance needs to be found. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to continue the Public Hearing for Tentative Tract 21846 (Revision No. 2) to October 24, 1989, and to schedule a Study Session for the week of October 16, 1989, with representatives from Sunrise Company, PGA West Homeowners, Planning Division, and City Council. Unanimously adopted. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Bund to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 89-060 recommending approval of a one-year time extension for Tentative Tract 21846, extending the approval expiration date to October 7, 1990. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Commissioner Steding absent. MR/MIN10-10.DFT -3- C. Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89-041; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment -to allow elimination of a tennis court and construction of additional hotel units; and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of 77 hotel units in a two-story structure on the site where a championship tennis court now exists, in the R-3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side of Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa and Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairman Walling opened the Public Hearing. The following citizens addressed the Commission in opposition to the request: Melissa Layton, representing the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners Association, Ellie Dowd, John Lissberger, Nels Sandstrum, Elaine Lloyd, Ed Warnsides, John Lucas, Ann Melvin, Toni Warnsides, and Judy Blum. They expressed various concerns regarding parking problems, traffic, security, density, drainage, and emergency access. John Curtis addressed the Commission to urge both sides to reach a compromise. Forrest Haag and Greg Abadie, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission to state Landmarks position on some of the matters raised by those in opposition. There being no further comment, Chairman Walling opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Commissioner Bund commented that he is disappointed with this situation and does not like the lack of communication between Landmark and the residents. Commissioner Zelles commented that the residents have to expect other development, that it would be unrealistic to think that such progress should not occur. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Bund to continue the Public Hearing on Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89-041 to October 24, 1989. Commissioner Moran also suggested that the parties involved get together to discuss their concerns, and inform the Planning Commission of the MR/MIN10-10.DFT -4- outcome. Commissioner Zelles said he felt the Hearing should not be continued, but rather the requests be approved and sent to the City Council for further resolution. A. roll call vote was held for the motion on the floor, Commissioners Bund, Moran, and Chairman Walling voting aye, and Commissioner Zelles voting no. The motion was carried by a 3-to-1 vote, with Commissioner Steding absent. IV. Due to the fact it was now 11:30 p.m., a motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to continue the remaining agenda items to the next regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 1989. Unanimously adopted. V. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to adjourn to a continued regular meeting on October 24, 1989, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 11:32 p.m., October 10, 1989. MR/MIN10-10'.DFT -5- BS-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 1989 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND CO. OWNER: LANDMARK LAND CO. PROPOSAL: TT 21123 Extension #3 (FINAL ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE FILING OF A FINAL MAP FOR A 20-LOT SUBDIVISION ON 6.74+ ACRES WITHIN THE DUNA LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA LOCATION: GENERALLY WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET; +800 FEET SOUTH OF AVENUE 50 (SEE ATTACHMENT #1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-8 UNITS/ACRE) ZONING: R-2-8000 (MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS, 8,000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT/LOT REQUIRED) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. #83061305) WAS PREPARED ON THE OVERALL DUNA LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA #83-001 AND WAS CERTIFIED ON APRIL 10, 1984. THE EIR ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH TT 21123. EXTENSION OF TIME REQUESTS ON TENTATIVE MAPS ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA PROVISIONS. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On November: 5, 1985, the City Council approved the original Tentative Tract No. 21123. Subsequently, two extensions of time for this map were approved by City Council on December 1, 1987 and November 15, 1988, respectively, effecting a new expiration date of November 5, 1989. The Applicant requests a third and final time extension of one year in which to record the final map. If approved, the new expiration date would be November 5, 1990. The subdivision, which created 20 estate -type lots for the purpose of development of custom single-family housing, is located in the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan project. The tract is to be developed on 6.74 net acres with all lots facing north onto a portion of the La Quinta Storm Water Channel. The proposed net project density is 2.97 units per acre, which is BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 1 - substantially less than that which is currently approved for development on the site. The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan concept approved up to five (5) units per acre, equivalent to an ultimate gross site buildout of 40 units. Avenida Los Verdes, the main private street access to the tract, extends through the storm channel and branches out to the east and west to serve the south portions of the lots (refer to Tract Map, Attachment #2). Lot sizes within the tract range from 11,400 square feet to 21,950 square feet in area. Lot widths are generally between 95 and 100 feet with the exception of' the odd -shaped lots and those which have 70- to 80-foot widths. Lot depths are generally 120 feet. Attachment #3 shows a typical section through the tract at Lot #7, with existing and proposed grades. The overall tract elevation is +11 feet above the overall elevation of the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area. Existing conditions of approval limit building height to 29 feet. Attachment #4 shows the grade differential between the former Village Pointe project area and 'Tentative Tract 21123. A condition of approval for the original. tract required emergency access from the southwest cul-de-sac area of the tract to the Desert Club Drive alignment. Attachment #5 shows the alignment as it relates to this area of the tract and the Village Pointe apartment project, which has since expired. No final map activity has taken place since the original approval. ANALYSIS• 1. The revised conditions of approval for Extensions 4-1 and #2 brought the tract into conformance with the La Quinta General Plan. No amendments to the General Plan have been approved which would substantially change the existing conditions. 2. The request for extension was distributed to the following departments/agencies for comment: a. Public Works b. City Fire Marshal C. Community Safety d. Coachella Valley Water District e. City Manager's office 3. Based upon the comments received, the Planning and Development Department recommends no modifications to the current conditions of approval. BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 2 - FINDINGS: Findings for this time extension can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- to recommend to the City Council approval of a third and final one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 21123, subject to conditions as currently in effect. Attaclunents : 1. Location Map 2. Approved TT 21123, Exhibit "A" 3. Typical Section through TT 21123 4. Cross section through Village Pointe/TT 21123 boundary 5. Delineation of emergency access location 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- with Conditions BJ/STAFFRPT.017 - 3 - Z. x' rk'^P 1� 1! I I' • I' �1 s-----r---- V/Cl/V1 rY AMP CASE PV 7T ?, 1123 s Fxrr=NSIDAJ 4t— mil' MO.. a.F z'- ozor 11,4:7 At ---------------- r ti 1 II" � i • • 81 • .• +1 1 WAC1 &r 841 i h — I . rf arST�i6 - � • � .. 1. • � i YCwrnr our rT /j war • •` / �► •ems 4c •r 1� / `.L• � �-,. _ �rCiil :. t a}+r�ti • `ter ;.e, r rt� it ---q j" j • o � . e.. ,... "� 9�• � .ICE f f 00 ®. i w oo • o VAI; oo•i vas i AJIMMAW 1 ;0'&-f1 v � Z fT !. Aw,or,VR,r VAJA 66 PO ( N'l- ppoxf-z Cr r- . RI NI #XIII: �-. d000l� • sr"/c//.r CRAPE r. C. ro ArA aeovmv 4e;#,/s4r/,vc CRAVWO CASE' MAP CASE No. -1-7- ATTACGPM ENT- � 4 • ♦a; tq Q b /4 �' =Lf aft 1) • t / ICA,SE No. -rr21 /'%3 a OAJ ,A,-rA,5jj.4Lt,cA,,r- sp .5' ��s�i aau a LeAjja: TQ 7-1i2.3 CM Qd ggGm j* WIMA/O,, It ORTH SCALE: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- )% A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION. CASE NO. TT 21123 - THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1985, hold a duly -noticed public hearing recommending confirmation of the environmental analysis and approval of the request of Landmark Land Co. to subdivide +6.74 acres into a 20-lot single-family residential subdivision, generally located west of Washington Street, +800 feet south of Avenue 50 within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area, more particularly described as follows: Being a resubdivision of parcels 182 and lots A-D of Parcel Map 19730, PM 122/89-90, also being a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, S.B.M. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 5th day of November, 1985, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning the environmental analysis and Tentative Tract Map No. 21123; and WHEREAS, said Tentative Map complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director determined that the Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for the overall Duna La Quinta Specific Plan area adequately addressed the impacts associated with Tentative Tract 21123; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract map; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 was approved by the La Quinta City Council based on said findings and subject to certain conditions; and, BJ/RESOPC.021 - 1 - WHEREAS, the owner, Landmark Land Company, applied for and received two subsequent extensions of time for Tentative Tract 21123, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps, thereby extending the original map approval to November 5, 1989; and, WHEREAS, said owner has applied for a third and final extension of time for said tentative tract, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extensions on tentative maps; and WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify a recommendation for approval of said extension of time: 1. Tentative Tract No. 21123, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division and Land Use Ordinances. 2. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision. 3. Adherence to the current Conditions of Approval will ensure that the project will not be likely to cause substantial environmental damage and that impacts on wildlife habitat will be mitigated to the extent feasible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -described third and final Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions (which replace those contained in Council Resolution #88-127). PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: .ABSTAIN: BJ/RESOPC.021 - 2 - JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: JE,RRY HERMAN, Planning Director BJ/RESOPC.021 - 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-JI5;id_ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21123 FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME OC;TOBER 24, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, and approved Exhibit A, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall be developed in accordance with the standards for Specific Plan 83--001 (Duna La Quinta), Amendment #3, as conditionally approved. Where there are identified conflicts, the provisions within these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and the Planning and Development Department. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City Engineer o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Riverside County Environmental Health Department o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. SOILS AND GEOLOGY 5. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. 6. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. B,J/CONAPRVL.021 - 1 - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 7. The Applicant shall develop all roads applicable to Tentative Tract No. 21123 in conformance with City standards and with the design standards specified in Specific Plan No. 83-001 (Duna La Quinta), as amended and conditionally approved, and subject to approval of the City Engineer. 8. The following modification shall be made in the Circulation Plan: a. A standard offset cul-de-sac (with 90-foot diameter per the Fire Marshal) shall be provided at the end of Lots A and B, or alternatives may be provided subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshal and City Engineer. b. A plan indicating proposed parking and method of traffic control along the private road system shall ,be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department. Final street typical section shall be as per requirements of the City Engineer (32-foot minimum curb -to -curb width for parking on one side only). C. Cul-de-sacs shall be no longer than 550 feet long unless provided with an emergency "all-weather" alternative access or other appropriate fire protection as approved by the City Fire Marshal. d. The common area between the south tract boundary and the private streets (Lots A and B) shall be designated as Lot "D". e. Emergency access gate(s) shall be provided at Lot A (and other locations if required by the Fire Marshal). The design, location and installation of these gates are subject to review and approval of the City Fire Marshal and the Planning and Development Department, through the plot plan review procedure. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 9. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. Prior to issuance of any building permit within Tentative Tract No. 21123, the following conditions shall be met/certified to, except that the Fire Marshal may approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards: BUJ / CONAPRVL . 0 21 - 2 - a. fireflow requirement is 1000 GPM for two-hour duration at 20 PSI residual pressure available from super (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2") hydrants, located at intersections if possible, but in no case more than 165 feet from any residential lot. Prior to the recordation of the final map, water improvement plans to be submitted to Fire Marshal for approval. b. Emergency access extensions shall be improved to all-weather. C. Cul-de-sacs shall be 90 feet in diameter. 10. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley water District as follows: a. The water and sewage disposal system for the project shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and CVWD. b. 'When there are identified conflicts, the City will withhold the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for -the relocation of these facilities. C. Tentative Tract No. 21123 shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for Sanitation Service. 11.. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the imperial Irrigation District prior to issuance of any building permits within the tract. 12. All utility improvements shall be installed underground. MANAGEMENT 13. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the open space/recreation areas and private streets and drives shall be maintained in accordance with the intent and purpose of this approval: a. The document to convey title; b. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded; and C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division. D�J / CONAPRVL . 0 21 - 3 - The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision map is recorded. A homeowners' association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs, shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided that such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value, and is of record prior to the lien of the homeowners' association. ARCHAEOLOGY 14. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately and take appropriate mitigation measures when any archaeological remains or artifacts are encountered during project development. NCISE 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, building setbacks, engineering design, orientation of buildings, and noise barriers shall be used to reduce noise impacts from existing and future nearby streets to within State standards. 16. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall submit a site -specific noise study for the entire tract. The study shall, at a minimum, address the mitigation measures identified in Condition #22 of Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment #3, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. TRACT SITE AND DESIGN 17. Applicant shall establish, within the CC & Rs, site design standards appropriate to estate lots, including, but not limited to, front, side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Standards should maximize building separation, enhance the overall streetscape and minimize the appearance of bulk. Any such standards shall be reviewed by the Planning and Development Department as part of its review of the CC & Rs, but shall be no less restrictive than R-2 zone standards. BJ'/CONAPRVL.021 - 4 - la. All lots shall be maintained with appropriate temporary landscaping/groundcover to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties from windblown particulates and erosion. This groundcover shall be installed in conjunction with phased on -site improvements to the tract, and shall remain in place in good condition until such time as a building permit is issued for construction. 19. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for any house within Tentative Tract Map No. 21123, permanent landscaping/groundcover shall be installed. Type of planting, method of installation, and maintenance techniques shall be subject to plan approval by the Planning and Development Department. 20. Prior to submission of any unit construction plans for building permit issuance to the Planning Department, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a landscaping plan to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval, for each unit. Prior to submittal of the landscape plan, the Applicant shall secure written approval of the plan from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office. The plans shall include the contractor's name, address and phone number, and the place of origin of all planting materials. 21. No portion of any structure within Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 shall exceed one story or 29 feet, as measured from the levee grade, except that two-story units not exceeding 29 feet in height may be approved by the City if architectural and site design features adequately provide for architectural diversity (i.e., varying roof lines),, reduction in the appearance of bulk, appropriate setbacks, and similar features. 22. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the house. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view by methods approved by the Planning and Development Department. MISCELLANEOUS 23. The Applicant shall submit a plan for perimeter fencing (south side wall) for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. 24. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. BJ/CONAPRVL.021 - 5 -