Loading...
1989 11 14 PCAWN®Aa PLANNING; COMMISSION m- CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the I,a Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California November 14, 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. 89-065 HEARINGS 1. Item ............ CONTINUED HEARING 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- 2. Item ............ TENTATIVE TRACT 25125 Applicant ....... STROTHER ENTERPRISES Locat'ion ........ SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DUNE PALMS ROAD AND WESTWARD HO DRIVE Request ......... TO SUBDIVIDE +32 ACRES INTO 117 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS Action .......... Resolution No. 89- MR/AGENDA.11.14 -1- 3. Item ............ Applicant ....... Local -ion ........ Request ......... Action .......... PUBLIC COMMENT TENTATIVE TRACT 25187; PARCEL MAP 25154; CHANGE OF ZONE 89-049 VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SAGEBRUSH DRIVE AND DATE PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION, -1-1320 FEET EAST OF' WASHINGTON STREET PARCEL MAP DIVISION OF 3C.75 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS, ONE 3.3 ACRES AND ONE 27.45 ACRES; ZONE CHANGE ON 30.75 ACRES FROM R--1-12,000 TO R-1; AND A DIVISION OF 27.45 ACRES INTO 98 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF HOMESITES Resolution No. 89- Resolution No. 89- This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. Persc:ns 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 summit the form to the Planning Director prior co the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the regular Planning Commission Meeting held October 24, 1989. 13USlNESS SESSION :L. Item ............ SIGN APPLICATION 89-104 Applicant ....... Chez Monique Location ........ 78-121 La Fonda Request ......... Approval of back -lit can wall Village area Action .......... Minute Motion sign in MR/AGENDA11..14 -2- 2. Item ............ SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004 Applicant ....... Northstar California Corp. Location ........ Area south of 48th Avenue between Washington and Jefferson Streets Request ......... Review of landscaping concept for the Pyramids project Action .......... Minute Motion 3. Item ............ TENTATIVE TRACT 23268 Applicant ....... Valley Land Development Location ........ North side of Miles, approximately midway between Washington and Adams Streets Request ......... Review of in -lieu fee to comply with park requirement for tract Action .......... Minute Motion 4. Item ............ REVIEW ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL SITES Applicant ....... Desert Sands Unified School District Location ........ Elementary site - north of Tampico, east of Eisenhower High school site - southwest of Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road Request ......... Site approval Action .......... Minute Motion '�. Item ............ REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PARC !A QUINTA/PYRAMID LANDSCAPE INTERFACE Applicant ....... City -initiated Location ........ East side of Washington Street between 2arc La Quinta and Pyramids projects Request ......... Review landscape treatment between projects Action .......... Minute Motion OTHER - None ADJOURNMENT:' MR/ AGENDA11.14 -3- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ITEMS FOR NOVEMBER 13, 1989, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION **DISCUSSION ONLY** 1. Review of proposed Parking Ordinance revisions. .2. Review of Deane Homes building heights adjacent to Washington Street. 3. Review of Parc La Quinta overhead utility issue (TT 21555), landscaping and engineering. a.. Review of correspondence regarding Parc La Quinta and Pyramid landscape interface. All Agenda items. ��. Identification of future Commission Agenda items. ITEIv'S IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Park Land Locations b. Downtown Parking District C. Street Address Illumination (3. Format of Minutes MR/AGENDAI1.14 -4- PH-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989 APPLICANT: STROTHER ENTERPRISES OWNER: LA QUINTA DUNES CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25125; REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE +32 ACRES INTO 117 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WESTWARD HO DRIVE AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION': LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-142 WAS PREPARED FOR THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT POSSIBLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MAY OCCUR DUE TO THE PROPOSAL, BUT MITIGATION MEASURES MADE A PART OF THE PROJECT WILL REDUCE THESE IMPACTS TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. :PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THIS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE +32-ACRE SITE INTO 117 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS INTENDED FOR SALE, WITH A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM (REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 2). LET DENSITY: 3.99 UNITS PER ACRE (NET ACREAGE = 29.41 ACRES) LOT SIZES: MINIMUM = 6,000 SQUARE FEET (7200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM REQUIRED - SEE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL) AVERAGE: UNAVAILABLE MAXIMUM: 11,775 SQUARE FEET DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: ON -SITE STORM WATER DRAINAGE WILL BE DESIGNED TO FLOW INTO THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL. BJ/STAFFRPT.019 - 1 - CIRCULATION: PUBLIC STREETS PROPOSED. TWO PERMANENT ENTRANCES ARE PROVIDED, ONE FROM WESTWARD HO DRIVE AND THE OTHER FROM DUNE PALMS ROAD. THE ENTRANCE ON DUNE PALMS ROAD ALIGNS WITH THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE OF THE EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK TO THE EAST. A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS LINK TO THE WEST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED (SOUTHWEST CORNER). INTERNAL CIRCULATION CONSISTS OF CUL-DE-SAC STREETS SERVED BY A COLLECTOR STREET. OFF -SITE CIRCULATION: WESTWARD HO DRIVE - DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR AT 72 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY . DUNE PALMS ROAD - DESIGNATED AS A SECONDARY ARTERIAL AT 88 FEET TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY. BACKGROUND: 1. This parcel of land has been the subject of an existing court case involving an application for high density residential. 2. Tentative Tract No. 24026, a subdivision application identical to Tentative Tract No. 25125 was denied by the City Council on February 12, 1989. The City and Developer could not come to an agreement regarding the off -site improvements. 3. The Desert Sands Unified School District wishes to acquire the land in question for a high school site. ANALYSIS: 1. Environmental Considerations - Environmental Assessment No. 89-142 considered the environmental impacts which would be associated with development of Tentative Tract 25125. It was determined that the potential significant impacts identified in the initial study could be mitigated to a _level of insignificance; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for adoption. 2. Permanent access for this Tentative Tract will be taken at two points; one on Westward Ho Drive and the other Dune Palms Road. The Applicant has also allowed for an access link to the presently undeveloped, property to the west of this subdivision. The County Fire Marshal has indicated the number of access points provided is acceptable. BJ/STAFFRPT.019 - 2 - 3. Maintenance and Common Areas - The City currently requires on -site storm water retention for all projects or provision of other technically acceptable means of storm water conveyance. The Applicant proposes to drain on -site storm water to the Whitewater Channel which is acceptable. The proposed landscape buffer provided along Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road will be maintained either by a homeowners association or by the establishment of a landscape maintenance district. A condition has been prepared to reflect these options. 4< Parkland Dedications - Chapter 13.24, Article II, of the La Quinta Municipal Code sets forth requirements for parkland dedications (see Attachment No. 4). Based on this Chapter, 1.03 acres of parkland are required to be dedicated or assessed to secure an in -lieu fee. 5„ Approval of Housing Units - The subdivider has not yet decided when and by whom single family dwellings will be built. A condition has been drafted allowing for review, prior to issuance of building permits, of dwelling elevations and floor plans whether the subdivision is developed by individual lot builders or as a larger undertaking with specific product types. 6. Archae!ological Study - An archaeological study was done for this site in February, 1984 for Tentative Tract No. 19987 by Jean A. Salpas. This study concluded that cultural resources were not observed on the subject parcel_, therefore, further research is not recommended. This finding is acceptable to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. An additional study was therefore not requested from the Applicant. A standard Condition of Approval has however been included requiring the Developer to retain an archaeologist upon discovery of archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 7. Unallocated Parcels at Head of Cul-de-sac Streets - The subdivision map shows small portions of unallocated land at the head of the cul-de-sac streets facing onto Westward Ho Drive and the Coachella Valley Water District Flood Channel (see Attachment #2)• The following needs to be done to ensure satisfactory allocation of use and suitable ownership of these small parcels. A. The small parcels along Westward Ho Drive should be either divided between the two adjoining owners or be made part of the buffer park strip. B. The small parcels along the CVWD Channel should be split between the adjoining lots with a utility and possibly pedestrian easement to be recorded. BJ/STAFFRPT.019 - 3 The above requirements will be included in the Conditions of Approval for this Tract. 8. Size of Lots - The Tentative Tract Map shows a number of lots less than the minimum lot size required, 7,200 square feet. A condition has been attached to this Tentative Tract requiring all lots to be a minimum of 7,200 square feet. FINDINGS: Findings for Tentative Tract Map No. 25125 can be found in the attached draft Planning Commission Resolution 89- RECOMMENDATION: 1. By adoption of attached Planning Commission Resolution, No. 89- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the environmental analysis, and approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 25125, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Tract Map 25125 3. Map of general access/developments in North La 2uinta 4. Resolution 89- 13J/STAFFRPT.019 - 4 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- ._i ,2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS, CONCURRENCE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25125 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 117 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON A + 32 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 25125 - STROTHER ENTERPRISES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of November, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Strother Enterprises to subdivide 32+ acres into single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the southwest corner of Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road, more particularly described as: PARCEL 1: A PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TSS, R7W, S.B.B.M. AND PARCEL 2: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TSS, R7E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 25125, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of said tentative tract map: BJ/RESOPC.025 - 1 - 1. That Tentative Tract No. 25125, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall slope going from the northern to the southeastern side of the property. The proposed circulation design and single-family lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25125 may cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health. problems. 5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25125 will not conflict with. easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided -that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 25125, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas along Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road. 7. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 25125, as conditioned, provides impact mitigation for storm water, park needs, and noise intrusion. 8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission 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 Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ/R.ESOPC.025 - 2 - 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this matter; 2. That it does hereby confirm the determination in Environmental Assessment No. 89-142, relative to the environmental concerns for this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the subject Tentative Tract Map No. 25125 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of! the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California BJ/RESOPC.025 - 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-ram RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25125 NOVEMBER 14, 1989 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 25125 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 two years after the effective date unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, or a development agreement exists which identifies a longer approval time period. 3. The Applicant acknowledges that the City has created a City -Wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 5. The Developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 6. The Applicant shall construct street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows; (a) Westward Ho Drive shall be constructed to City standards for a 72-foot right-of-way width (Collector), with a five-foot sidewalk, and two -percent cross slope to centerline, plus joins. BJ/CONAPRVL.02N'1 - 1 - (b) :Dune Palms Road shall be constructed to City standards for an 88-foot right-of-way width (Secondary Arterial), with a curb -to -curb width of 64 feet, with a five-foot sidewalk and one and one-half percent cross slope to centerline,, plus joins. Dune Palms Road shall be designed for ultimate grade from Westward Ho Drive to the Whitewater Channel, and constructed adjacent to Tract 25125, and further as necessary for reasonable transitions and surface drainage requirements. (c) The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (tract map) for TT 25125, with a six-foot sidewalk and two -percent slope. Streets "A, B and H" shall be constructed to City standards with a 60-foot right-of-way. Cul-de-sacs shall be designed for a 50-foot right-of-way with 36-foot width curb -to -curb and a 5-foot utility easement on both sides of the street. Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to provide a minimum turning diameter of 90-feet. Any variations in the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 7. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructed or joining improvements. B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL. 8. Park fees as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code shall be provided based upon a dedication requirement of 1.03 acres, as determined in accordance with said Section. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the Tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the 'Tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (ber_ming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 1.0. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted. for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the Planning & Development Department. 13J/CONAPRVL.025 - 2 - 11. Owner shall execute and record a "Declaration of Dedication1P in a form acceptable to the City offering the dedication of drainage retention basin(s) and har_dscape buffer areas to the City for future acceptance and maintenance. In the interim, the owners shall maintain the basin(s) and perimeter landscaping and provide bond assurance accordingly. 12. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of the landscape buffers area via one of the following methods prior to final map approval: a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained. A homeowner's association shall be created with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are the 10 foot perimeter parkway lots along Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road. 13. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. Grading and Drainage 1.4. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is 13J/CONAPRVL.025 - 3 - required prior to acceptance of the work. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. 16. 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. 17. Any earthwork on contiguous properties requires written authorization from the owner(s) (slope easement) in. a form acceptable to the City Engineer. Traffic and Circulation 18. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings and raised median islands (if required by the City General Plan), shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and. adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). C. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the Developer in accordance with City standards. d. The Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for submitting a plan and constructing a low water crossing over the Whitewater Channel. The plan must be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and subject to review/approval by the City Engineer and C.V.W.D. prior to construction. The Registered Civil Engineer, who prepared the plan is required to supervise the construction and to certify that the crossing is constructed as per the approved plan. This certification is required prior to acceptance of the work. BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 4 - 19. Applicant shall dedicate, with recordation of the tract map, access rights to Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road for all individual parcels which front or back-up to those rights -of -way. Tract Design 20. A minimum 10-foot landscaped setback shall be provided along Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road. Design of the setbacks shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right -of --way lines. a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 12, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 21. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum dwelling lot size to be recorded in a final map shall be 7,200 square feet. 22. The ;kpplicant shall make the necessary changes to and note the following on the Tentative Tract Map. a. The small parcels of land shown at the head of the cul-de-sac streets along Westward Ho Drive shall be either divided between the two adjoining lot owners or be shown as part of the landscaped setback. b. The small parcels of land shown at the head of the cul-de-sac streets along the Coachella Valley Water District wash shall be split between the two adjoining lot owners. A utility and possibly pedestrian easement shall be recorded across these parcels of land as necessary. Walls, Fencing, Screening and Landscaping 23. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire Tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; 13J/CONAPRVL.025 - 5 - b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and, C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being 'used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 241. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 2`1). Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a. plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing locations, and irrigation. system for all landscape buffer areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, per City requirements emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 26. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards and the street side of all corner lots. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees along the street frontage (each), and an irrigation system. C. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUA14CE OF BUILDING PERMITS. 27. 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 o City of L o Planning Division. o Coachella Marshal Valley Water District BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 6 o :Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 28. 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. 29. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage C. On -site advertising/construction signs 30. If a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders, prior to the issuance building permits, the Applicant/Builder shall submit complete detailed architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission shall review and approve elevations as an agenda Business Item. Basic architectural standards shall be included as part of the C.C. 61 R's. 31. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of Tentative Tract No. 25125 and Environmental Assessment No 89-142, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit:., the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA No. 89-142 and Tentative Tract No. 25125 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA No. 89-142 and Tentative Tract No. 25125. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 7 - TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 32. The Applicant shall pay a proportionate share (1/4) of all fees necessary for signalization costs at the corner of Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road, as determined by the City Engineer. 33. The termination point of the street shown as Lot "°H" on Exhibit A (Tentative Tract Map), shall be provided with a temporary turnaround to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. If the road network for the a.djoir.ing tracts have been constructed and completed, then the above streets shall be constructed to connect with these subdivisions, in accordance with the approved street improvement plans and the requirements of the City Engineer„ PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 34. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 3.5. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for district facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. 37. All existing and new utilities will be installed underground and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. 13J/CONAPRVL.025 - 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FRED WARt LG DRIVE LA QUANTA n a � a o w n MCES AVENW lie fit. r 91HIIIINHt11114ItIitlttV CASE No. LOCATION MAP INDIO 1111111011010 ORTH SCALE: A/0 A 4 d;—:' ATTACHMENT 1 ` SiR•5 !A ila j� Mm +aJ to ... taq 'sy'1'B►" 9NC. :ts Q •• 0 CD i Ou :f Xe ..••\ta e• �e ...• . ,Games not .,., f• 11 f t t t a• b 1 • . • • . f t f • • • t • ,':::::: i Qvoa sn ivd 3Nnc i t r{ \::::: s::::: a :•f • '..• W + t t \ t t • \ t • + • s Q 1� • 0 XX 1 1 • • y..t t - �_ 0 f ®S FL�3$i ( •.p;. --..;y'- *.�.. - - _ - - - - -- - •~.r.;r.s •`yR.f.,et!!C.T. ^n O :':•: �:• • � lI'tlnNa Dwa.�8ix9 J R: r} , tl 1 v a itvtl 3 ►it 1 8 t x� o �d' Y T .Y: .J9'U't ♦1'Ft 11.. ' ti• , ,y •:v4 r •r: 1 / t I I ••�; ��•�:::: ff":•,own 16mi KXX .. L' :': ••:':tiY.,•; i :rti•::•::': ::tit}::{•: •:\ 1' y'•.'ti{' !::• I :'L{{{'::•::.. y r: ................ .......... r i �'" <•; _ - .... ...... �..:. :i z �3ai No IH vow CL :�• 3 bS IL 00 •:::: p� •::. f vy { r4:v :. .•{ . ui _ • • ■ CI • • • • ° '�{.•G it y •.ti,•i�' •.•.• ' ' 1 } fX ..... x by r•.{r•;:::•{.:•;::.:' I _ • _ -- 1�1�-1 S y s ;•• ■• UJ leave CO CO >p a�♦v••��.. f,•••a\,•Po _ O O//G CCV • e r , z 0. CC P. Q f-- Q—• I a• :a : nos ::• / ATTACHMENT No. 1 EUTE IE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LA QUINTA WES AVENUE w yseeie 'eit®i f� � • . UJ � he st r X � Wit, �''htttttiip s toR�,tttititir tii • - �,, tuiiitittii ii 3 NS LOCATION MAP CASE W. TT 25125 110010100 ORTH SCALE: IV© AIC- ATTACHMENT No. 2 Yai �i • Est i i g i7Vt 3t i _ � iati� t i ■ _ y fittt •G� ( • 3 �,`I. ■ � � _ '•'� of ■ I I w. �� ° Ly � L. " : ■t 3 • •f•::� !_ g '_3 a Y ._�� ` ;.z -l!i3. } ij t ig- s �.: J :Lv"w t►■ _ q `L cc It Xsl 1 A C I 1 M E u V! No. LL ..".?aa� ate+-a•��'- •.�o•�s t$e �... a uj ,..r.e.earr veer C:,:!:•. i • f : i • i••�'■• • Q LL Q • ■ ■ • ■ • • ■ ■ • ■ a ] .�pp _ •tar •■• ■■"LR f • •_ Q 0 r :�:ti,:};: t}'r:,:::;:;:;} < • • • • •tar • • - a s 0,,, f, •tar .... ap • • co IL ?+ : {•:{{:;::{{•:•: 'I •Q.••�{{r 't;.'.•: — w M:::: n s • • tea x W a : I :fin;•:•:•:•:•:.W a':: ■ LLIll .:::::: I _ �r �aYr'4 0 *:so ■••■• {::•:•: tatttas:ttrr■ :' O • t f t s t s• t■ n a■■ Z Z attatsa t■•■•......... Y iata■tt■ a■■■•■ i 1 J .r• :::: r• u: ■ :°::: t ..y■pam� Z <O 44 • sa••■i•a■:• :� © I � at • Q t 1 L h I • 1 0 1 O • u t� °�� .,,. ^..S - T.? - �. .�. � � .� � � -... �.a.� }J.• ws,.Tl � ^.7.^;T.�clrwT.�..;F1, ' O 13 Ul SWVQV •.w:.Y:::::}:}:::::: :A�. N9anN �NILSIX3 '-4:}'w::::::::...::::...:: . .... f'::: . r.. f { . ..... . :::::• {.: ...... .................. Xa Vd Id 3 lthtll a ®N (1.8 IX 3 �a= Xxxe- \ .r _ I 1 i •�' <"'��ti;{}C};:::;tip,::,:{}j�{:•::: {•• h '•Yr.• . •. :.Y / I I \ •}�� :... •:r7h .. •:•� V •rlr}: i :eii:i• a• 1 I pw };:; �' % •:.,��,.;�;:;:::: •..��':�� };�:.Y:::-:�... :�.}::'{:,�aj'�'••��� 133!l1SNOlONINSVM .......... ow a ��W....—_, sat •■•• :{:;.: •;Y•::' •a•a ■•tsaa• � 1 •• • • • • z o .. a t a a a r •:•:: '•::: r •r: A i— >at:::: ■ {•:�':: � :: tzy ■wruj to ,r Na 1 1 m Q > p < 0 to t.... ... Pik-3 DATE: APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXTSTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1989 VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NORTH STAR CORPORATION, INC. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 89-049; REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE ON 27.45 ACRES, FROM R-1-12,000 TO R-1. PARCEL MAP NO. 25187; DIVISION OF 30.75 ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 25154; DIVISION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 25187 INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE HOME DEVELOPMENT. NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE AND DATE PALM DRIVE INTERSECTION (SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP). LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC). R-1-12,000 (ONE -FAMILY DWELLING: 12,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE). R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING; 7,200 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-144 WAS PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THESE APPLICATIONS. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WILL OCCUR DUE TO THE PROPOSAL, WITH MITIGATION MEASURES HAVING BEEN MADE A PART OF THE PROJECT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED (REFER TO ATTACHMENT W . BJ/STAFFRPT.020 - 1 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE A +27.45 ACRE SITE FROM R-1-12,000 TO R-1 (REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 2). THIS CHANGE OF ZONE, IN EFFECT, ELIMINATES THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE PER LOT, AND PERMITS THE DENSITY TO RANGE FROM TWO TO FOUR UNITS PER ACRE WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZES OF 7,200 SQUARE FEET. THE PARCEL MAP PROPOSES A SPLIT OF THE +30.75 ACRE SITE INTO TWO PARCELS. PARCEL #1 CONTAINS +27.45 ACRES, WHILE PARCEL #2 CONTAINS +3.3 ACRES, AND WILL BE USED AS A GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE FACILITY FOR THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT IN THE FUTURE (SEE ATTACHMENT #3). TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25154 IS A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL #1 INTO 98 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS SERVICED BY A PUBLIC STREET SYSTEM (SEE ATTACHMENT #4). A STREET STUB AT LOT "D", FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS, HAS BEEN PROVIDED AT THE WEST BOUNDARY OF PARC LA QUINTA, WHICH HAS A PRIVATE STREET SYSTEM. ANALYSIS: 1. The Zone Change as requested is consistent with the land use designation of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map. 2. Because the east 3.3 acre parcel will be owned and used by the Pyramids project, it is suggested that the R-1-12,000 zoning be retained on this parcel. Parcel Map #25187 1.. The Planning Director has deferred his review authority for this Parcel. Map to the Planning Commission to be considered in conjunction with the Zone Change and Tract Map applications. The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Parcel Map separate from any action taken on the other applications. No report to, or action by, the City Council is required, and the Planning Commission action is final unless the decision is appealed. 2. No significant concerns have been identified relative to this application. Although Parcel #2 is landlocked by this map, the parcel will gain access via the Pyramids development (see Attachment #5)• Parcel #2 will be merged at that point to create the parcel boundary with the private street right-of-way. 3J/STAFFRPT.020 - 2 - 3. Standard dedication requirements for parcel maps (easements, Sagebrush right-of-way, etc.) will be applied through the Conditions of Approval. Tentative Tract No. 25154 1. The proposed map is consistent with the R-1 zone district as proposed. The lot sizes and typical street section for Lot "G" were not revised when the map was re -submitted; these items will be conditioned so as to be inapplicable to this map. The original map submitted (see Attachment #6) was reviewed as required by Staff to make Lot "G" continue through between Lots "A" and "D91 as a 60-f oot wide public right-of-way. 2. The tract will drain directly to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, therefore, no stormwater retention areas are provided. Drainage easements through the lots along the channel will be required. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) does not require any improvements to the Evacuation Channel, only encroachment permits for drainage facilities. 3. Due to recent problems with the interface between Parc La Quinta and the Pyramids project, it is recommended that disclosures regarding the development of the perimeter area of the Pyramids be made to future lot purchasers. A condition has been prepared to this effect. Also, height restrictions (one story vs. two story) will be determined at such time as tract siting and unit plans are submitted for Planning Commission review. If lots are sold for custom home development, the CC & R's will disclose the restriction that the City will determine individual unit height allowances on a lot -by -lot basis as house plans are submitted. 4. Because there will be a maintenance facility d_rectly east of this tract, a 6-foot buffer wall will be required along the easterly tract boundary. Review of the development plans for the maintenance facility may dictate that additional measures are required of that project. 5. Although this project is not located along major arterials, Policy 6.3.10 of the La Quinta General Plan requires a noise analysis of any residential project within 2,800 feet of centerline of a major street. Both 50th Avenue and Washington Street are within this radius, and a noise analysis will therefore be required, consistent with previous tract approvals. 13J/STAFFRPT.020 - 3 - FINDINGS: Findings for decision on these applications can be found in the accompanying Planning Commission Resolution No's. 89- , 89- and. 89- for the Zone Change, Parcel Map and Tentative Tract Map, respectively. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution #89- , recommending to the City Council adoption of Change of Zone No. 89-049 as per Exhibit A of said Planning Commission Resolution. 2. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution #89- , approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187, subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning and Development Department. 3. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 489- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract No. 25154, subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning and Development Department. Attachments: Location Map 1. Environmental Assessment No. 89-144 2. Change of Zone Exhibit 3. Parcel Map No. 25187 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 25154, Revised 5. Parcel #2 Access 6. Tentative Tract No. 25154, Initial Submittal 7. Planning Commission Resolution #89- ; Change of Zone No. 89-049 8. Planning Commission Resolution #89- ; Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187, with conditions 9. Planning Commission Resolution #89- ; Tentative Tract No. 25154, with conditions BJ/STAFFRPT.020 - 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89-144 PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY CASE NO: APPLICANT: .LOCATION: PROPOSAL CONSIDERED: NET ACREAGE: NET DENSITY: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN: EXISTING ZONING: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: CHANGE OF ZONE #89-049 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #25187 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #25154 VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAGEBRUSH AVENUE AND DATE PALM DRIVE ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1-12,000 TO R-1 ON 27.45 ACRES. PARCEL MAP DIVISION OF 30.75 ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS FOR PROPERTY TRANSFER. TRACT MAP DIVISION OF 27.45 ACRES INTO 99 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR SALE/FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. +30.75 3.6 UNITS/ACRE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DU/AC) R-1-12,000 (R-1 PROPOSED) "Not a part" Parcel will be sold to easterly tract for use as a maintenance facility site for golf course through recordation of Parcel Map and Parcel Merger at a later date. Zone Change and Tract Map cover remaining 27.45 acres of the site. Minor change to circulation layout reduces total lot count to 98 (see attached superseded and amended tract maps). Based upon the attached initial study (EA #89-144), no significant impacts which could not be mitigated were found to be associated with the development of this proposal. The following mitigation measures will be required as part of the project approval. CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BJ/PJDSC.004 - 1 - i¢El= a a i tf e iT 6 ti ti s --•-----'�-�; �-� � - .::-ram.-' �trirll `wro✓ - _ r _ is •/(�ji i • y�.T..�.�-ram .r -�'�'- I�� i� ary-�`---�--= � ' '� I,'�® r- l.r� Q � � o co +�iJ f war L J c J an an CD z i t i � ' �'!lll;��tt�ttt}��;FtiSu�Er��sut�if�i�§�ujti��349 � e � , • \\\ �i:lljial�j�i4al�ljijii{�i�iiill2?11liltk�ltl'�[illl • \++•'��+'/iaii(iaiei:idlllitit:iiiliifiiirldl(Idifi Mr r • ! IN, i sic....,. k 4, • �Q •� �� '� Y x p B SM; a 1� ;s E??3 i LL��fi Of , VW tv d � ql 6 ` _ --t--- "•; ,;;;,' — � �_�_.' .,�,: * �\ ; �[ljlt;�t;i;;��$4aa41�lt�t41!9a99[t1;ij�lla�i§7::i i, ' � �iaixxxaaxiaa:a:inis[.tkzlxt��liaa:ilenatf:adtlttat �"—�,� .•• .�+ '' �•� � � \ a.�a:::.�:sdd333iiaid�ddiiA�iedf�(iddidiriiEidddi�iiiid Ain 3 e Earth 1. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction. 2. 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. Air i. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and C. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 2. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided. with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. BJ/PJDSC.004 - 2 Water 1. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. The design facilities shall be capable of handling a 100•-year storm. Applicant shall provide drainage easements as required across lots abutting the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 2. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. These plans shall include the landscape and irrigation plans for all areas required to be landscaped. Animal Life 1. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. Noise 1. A 6-foot block wall shall be constructed along the easterly tract boundary of Tentative Tract No. 25154. Location and design of this wall shall be incorporated into the required landscaping plans to be submitted. 2. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter internal streets, and surrounding land uses, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques. Transportation/Circulation 1. The Applicant shall construct or bond for street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and. the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: EO/PJDSC.004 - 3 - a. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (Tract Map) for TT #25154, and the requirements of the City Engineer. All streets shall maintain a 20 cross slope from centerline to edge of pavement. Any variations to the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 2. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings skull conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). Street improvement plans shall be prepared in accordance with Measure No. 1 herein. Public Facilities/Services 1. 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. 2. Applicant shall pay in -lieu parkland fees, based upon .86 acres as determined by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Determination of payment amount shall be determined as set forth in Chapter 13.24, Article II of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Aesthetics 1. Applicant shall submit a unit siting plan at the time of submittals for architectural review of any tract development. Siting plan shall indicate two-story unit locations, if any, and shall be reviewed at the Planning Commission along with the proposed unit types. If lots are sold on an individual basis, the Applicant understands that approvals of any two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed and will be reviewed on a case by case :basis by the Planning and Development Department. The above shall be noted in the CC & R's required to be submitted for this project. BJ/PJDSC.004 - 4 - Archaeological 1. Prior to any issuance of land disturbance permits, the Applicant shall contract with the University of California Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to perform a re-evaluation of the project site. The results of this evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review, along with the proposed method of testing for any potentially significant sites identified in the evaluation. if potentially significant sites are identified, the Applicant shall submit an archaeological mitigation plan to indicate the status of any existing archaeological/cultural resources of any potential significance. Said plan shall identify any existing reports done by the University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Research Unit, and shall include methods by which any significant or potentially significant sites will be inventoried and/or excavated. A mitigation and monitoring program shall be required to be submitted, specifying a qualified archaeological monitor, including any assistants and other representatives. The statement shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Applicant Responsibility for Monitoring 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit or final inspections, 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 Tentative Tract No. 25154 and Environmental Assessment No. 89-144, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the respective permit(s). The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 13J/PJDSC.004 - 5 - •-��,uarcrg,.c �.,, yiX)�1'A Date Received { -lIs PLANNING 5 DEVELOPMENT DEPART'-'PNT k 78-105 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 �y OF MHO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Please complete Parts I and II of this form and provide ALL of the additional material requested in Part III. Failure to do so ma q delay the review and prccass of your p If you are unable to provide the information, or you need assistance, please feel free contact the Environmental Quality Section of the Planning Department at (619) 564-2246 PARE I. General r" — �3q2. 2,5 1. Vhat is the total acreage involved? 30.75+ Acres 2. To there a previous application filed for the same site? YES NO X _ If 'Yee', provide Case Number. Also provide the Environmental Assessment Number, if known, and Environmental Impact Report Number, if applicable. Case No. _---(Parcel Map, Zone Change, Etc.) EA No. „p (if Inc EIR No. (if applicable) PART II. Existing Conditions 1. Project site area: 30.75+ Acres (1,339,470+ Sa. Size of property and acreage} 2. Existing use of the project site: 3. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example: North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc.) North, Vacant South, Vacant East Vacant West, Single Family Residential (Parc La Quinta) 4. Site topography (describe): (If any portion of the site exceeds 5% slope attach a topographic display of the proposal site; if less than 5% elope, please provide elevations at corners of site) The site contains several dunes %hich shall be leveled for grading purposes. 5. Grading (Estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved): To be determined during Final Map review. 6. Are there any natural or man-made drainage channel areas through or adjacent to the property? No Yes X (If yes, sutait a display of such drainage channel areas.)_Describe the disposition of these channels/areas should the proposal be implemented. The La eta to Channel is contiguous to the south easterlX_1roiDerty line. _ 7. Are there any known archaeological finds near or on the proposed site? NO X Yes® bo 19 iC i795_SO-i2-8° CO -_-- 1� CA,`19 f`IAL 1 "4: Not known at tb s 8. Describe any cultural or scenic aspects of the project site: _Norje_kMML 9. Describe 9xisting site vegetation and their proposed disposition should the proposal be approved: The _site contains desert veoetation nativ wig Xja�. ar�a�_„_ _,��._ (If any significant plant materials, e.g., mature trees, exist on the ei please prepare a site plan that illustrates their number, type, size and location. F21'nRO;.i 'AL X1ty01DW:IOH FORXP City of La Q7utnta 10. Describe accessibility of proposal. site to the following utilities; gas, water and electricity. (If proposal site does not have iasmediate access, further describe necessary extension of services and provide a graphic displetiY, 8p a ll° that indicates their present location in reference to the subject sites All utilities are available_ to the �'+P _---•�--- - — 11. Additional comments you may wish to supply regarding your project. (Attach an additional sheet if necessary) PART III. Additional Materials The following it8ma must be submittad with this forms 1. At least three (3) panoramic photographs (color prints) of the project site, or an aerial photo of the site. 2. A clear photocopy (Xerox or similar copy) of the appropriate portion of the U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map, delineating the boundaries of the project site. Also, note the title of the map. I certify that I have investigated the questions in Parts I and II and t'l9 answers are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge. Gerald DtE'22. Senior Planrr� _.•.�. — Name andand Titles a of Person Completi�.g "s �-gr—tur-qzo'f4pp OIi1 OF L�. QflZ1�TA .40.a '"t39- /Yy ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: l,.q,,,2tQ-5� �. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: q0-6C0 Cm..T ST Svc /(fo 3. pate of Checklist: /v 2 /59 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: C rY v,e e4 Qc�i r—A S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Ci-I 39-0-19 r1-1 2s�3,Zs isy II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on at -ached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Cisraptions, displacements, compaction or cvercovering of the soil? _ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? K f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, v either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 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? — n e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, V 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? (3) Yes !ja bye No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? — 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, Y 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 X -Top? S. Animal 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, X or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration v or movement of animals?— d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _< _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an x 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? 1_L 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of 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, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. Housing. 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? (4) 14. 15. 16. 19. 20. 21. 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? 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. Other governmental services? Ener 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? 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. 'Rater? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 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? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obsti- c iu on of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or wills tie proposa result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 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 Pdaybe No X _ _x x Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- viron..mental 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 hunan 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: A012 (�/&9 Signature rr) II:I. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Earth Disruption of soil will occur due to development of the property, but will not have significant impacts if regulated as required by the City. Topographical changes will not be significant, and no important geologic or physical features will be affected. Increases to wind/water erosion of soil will be accommodated through approved grading and drainage plans. Erosion could cause impacts to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel if not improved, but Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) requirements, for channel improvements will mitigate any such impacts. Adherence to seismic safety requirements of the UBC will mitigate potential groundshaking impacts to the furthest extent, short of prohibiting development. Air The proposal is not foreseen to impacts to air quality. Short be addressed through dust control projects. Water have significant long term term construction impacts will as routinely required of such This proposal has no potential to affect any natural conveyances of saline or fresh waters. There will be incremental changes to current drainage and absorption rates and patterns, but required drainage plans will address that increase. This proposal does not have the potential to significantly affect flood water flows, surface water volumes, surface water discharge and water quality, or ground water sources or flows. Public water supplies will not be significantly affected, and the project will not expose persons or properties to any flood hazard if developed in accordance with City requirements and the approved plans. Plant Life No significant plant species have been identified on the site and no agricultural crop has ever existed on this site. New landscaping, installed as part of this development will introduce new plant species on the site, but will have no adverse impact. Animal Life Development of the site will affect the habitat of the Coachella 'Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, which is listed as endangered, by reducing its range and numbers and eliminating habitat area. Payment of the required fees for establishing and maintaining a habitat conservation area will mitigate this impact. BJ/PJDSC.004 - 6 - Noise Increases in existing noise levels will occur primarily due to interim construction activities (temporary) and road noise impacts (long-term). The only feasible mitigation of interim construction noise is by adherence to City established work hours as adopted by Ordinance. Mitigation of long term impacts will be assessed by a required acoustical analysis required by Policy 3.6.10 of the La Quinta General Plan; however, this tract is not located on any arterial roadways, so minimal mitigation measures are anticipated. Potential noise impacts will occur due to location of a maintenance facility to the east. These: impacts will be addressed upon submittal of this facility to the City for review. In the interim, conditions will require: a 6-foot block wall along the east property line of the tract:. Light/Glare The project: will produce lighting impacts from source lighting such as exterior home lighting and glare impacts from window areas. These impacts are incremental and not seen as significant, as all new lighting will be required to comply with the City's recently adopted Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance. Natural Resources Development of this proposal will result in an incremental but negligible increase in the rate of natural resources for energy purposes. Risk of UpsE�t No risk factors (chemical or other hazardous substances) are involved with the development of this proposal. Housin Impacts to housing factors are difficult to anticipate and judge as adverse or beneficial. The proposal may affect housing costs to some extent, either lowering prices by increase of supply or increasing price due to rising property valuations. In any event, the scale of this proposal is not likely to significantly affect any housing factors. Transportation/Circulation The proposal will both create and satisfy new parking demands (driveway, on -street parking). Less than 1000 ADT (980 estimate) will occur due to the development; this is not considered to be substantial in light or the surrounding area development and its impact on Sagebrush Drive. Some increase in traffic conflicts can be expected as with any new BJ/PJDSC.004 - 7 - development, but proper traffic controls, development of Pedestrian traffic provisions and road improvements should alleviate these conflicts. Public Services M-:nor insignificant increases in the need for public services will occur as with any development of this type. No service expansions are necessary, and current service levels can be maintained. Inergy See response: under Natural Resources. TTI- i l i t- i PS Similar response as under Public Services. The most significant item relates to improvement as required by CVWD of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel bordering the southerly boundary of the project. The required channel improvements will benefit the general area by furthering flood control efforts. Aesthetics Development of the site will hinder views of existing residences to some extent, whether limited to single stories or not. Also, some units in this project will have their westerly views obstructed by the existing Park La Quinta project. Unit height restrictions will be determined as part of the design _review for the architectural component of the tract at such time as those plans are reviewed. Recreation There will be some incremental impact upon existing recreation facilities due to an increase of approximately 295 persons in this project. Applicant will be required to pay a fee based .86 acres, in -lieu of dedicating parkland. This fee will be used towards purchase of future park facilities in more appropriate locations. Archaeological/Historical Although an archaeological assessment has been done on the property, it is outdated and therefore does not reflect existing conditions. A re-evaluation of the site will be required to be submitted prior to any grading activities being undertaken. BJ/PJDSC.004 - 8 - Mandatory Finding of Significance This proposal will not substantially reduce the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard (CVFTL) Habitat area. The area in which this project is situated has been identified as one in which "takings" or CVFTL could occur, with mitigation (10-A permit) which funds maintaining the CVFTL preserve in Thousand Palms. No significant archaeological sites have been identified, but a re-evaluation of the site will be required as a condition, of approval for the project. The cumulative impacts of the project are not significant relative to existing and proposed projects in the area. BJ/PJDSC.004 - 9 - ~�"r « 1 f :1 »1206D 3.30Ayr_, 1 \ .,j, , a o \ • iL _ —1• a "~ V ♦ � •-'_ fir` sk � ¢ + ' 1 `° A '1 O •_____ �' �~_ _�� �I / ♦ e � � wrw.ira rrw+► '-�—•tee'- • .+.r. � .• �, � CASES MAP .,sue ;K> '�y$f: „ NORTHI_ CASE: No. j:.' ` �� _, ��..J ^j,'i L..'�ie L :JA'` i °� • SCALE i , S,r`,t�a,. �,3 r�,fi� •T �„� .�� T'}"dig . .'�,.•i "i`.`w�: +"1�:.i0� +.• _TP"�.t`'. v \4 diitttiiiiiiiiliiititiftttffliiiiffiftfittftlffif 40 e l 1• I* � � � roc./,./b �•, - �+►+�!, -----� •. , i r i N - co rn N A, ���`� ��. f t, Ne ..��<I aye '.�+ 4;;,�•,�``;`,� <�„�?%P „�a 1 j, r'"' ff •�/ - �__ �� s�.r. M1� :fib"'' \� R:E/ T � \,..,��5 41,E 7 j,:w�"" �..>�� ._.. •� � _ ,� ,.! .. 130 ,,fi�rr �, _ � �..V�,�; ,? • ' l �,�/ �TO'�`� `-'-" „�"' !-'•� �---�; � � , �� � •"'Z= '\ t` � � BBC r.� ��.e-^ l "' IP," �• l is r�= i 1192 1-93 77 � .'•^"M4....,,m�� � \ "„\ "lR1 mow- .��Y»• v� -yq.` � _ b".y� m. U � ` � Q.1: �� � _' "'0iti `� q4S �_. /�,:. 1'k� \,.yo..:.��`_^.i�_ - � ✓'-, t+,y �r x '� i 01 �00 ,' •- ��,aiaitiA3•�...y,�e.,,�„,,,,,rr' ..,,�..� - ��� aa�eu�Yu . .. ". ....,__� � ,d.. 'di.���li4i$9. irYFS�t'tw�.y '&1��.Mf4l�rl` ♦ � 'ii � .. � � i '_ 208 e; OARM Rpm I N'~ R.C. v oe- � 1 ` o s � � o �� 1 � ♦!tee o °.. � ! �� ;� � )� . ass' r f • cl c�1 I �/yy PLr cn a } 1 1 1 1 r- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- to A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1-12000 TO R-1 ON A +27.45-ACRE SITE. CASE; NO. CZ 89-049 - NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORP. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of November, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of North Star California Corporation for a Change of Zone, from R-1-12000 to R-1 for a +27.45-acre site, located on the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive, more particularly described a s : A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 31, T5S, R7E, S.B.B.M. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request 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 Change of Zone will not have a significant effect 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 said Change of Zone: 1. The proposed Change of Zone to R-1 is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. R-1 zoning is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). 3. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impacts on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ/RESOPC.026 - 1 - 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 of Environmental Assessment No. 89-144, indicating that the proposed Change of Zone 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 Change of Zone request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated on the map labeled Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMA_N, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 13J/RESOPC.026 - 2 - g� i17 Z59 "t Pla" snv�,-muyiq- ME --al r-or4mvp cy I f .1e 000, 'm % 100, ZPAR"ruwr 4" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-1/ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO PARCELS, ON A 30.75-ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TPM 25187 - NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Director has deferred his review authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Tentative Parcel Map to the Planning Commission for action; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of November, 1989, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Valley Land Development to subdivide 30.75 acres into two parcels, generally located at the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M., IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA. WHEREAS, said Tentative Parcel Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 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 two -lot Tentative Parcel Map: 1. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. 2. That the subject site, as conditioned, is physically suitable for the proposed land division in that adequate rights -of -way, easements, and provisions for improvements have been provided for. BJ/RESOPC.C27 - 1 3. That the design of Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187 will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4,. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not cause serious public health problems. 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 approve the above -described two -lot Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director C.it-y of T,a Quinta, California BJ/RESOPC.027 - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-b'4,; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -• PROPOSED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 25187 NOVEMBER 14, 1989 GENERAL 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187 shall comply with the standards and requirements 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 Parcel Map approval shall expire two years after the date of approval by the La Quinta Planning and Development Department unless approved for extension as provided for by the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. SITE PLAN 3. The Final Map shall conform substantially with the approved Tentative Map as contained in the Planning and Development Department's file for Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187, and the following Conditions of Approval, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the Tentative Parcel Map. STREETS, DRAINAGE, AND GRADING 4. The Applicant shall comply with the following street requirements as they apply to Tentative Parcel Map No. 25187. a. Dedicate right-of-way for Sagebrush Avenue as a 60-foot wide local street. b. Applicant shall acquire adequate easements for access southerly from the terminus of Sagebrush Avenue into Parcel #1 in order to provide a 60-foot wide public street extension into Parcel #1• Format of easement shall be consistent with TT #25154 and shall be as required by the City Engineer. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 5. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements for utility easements: a. Prior to submittal of the Final Record Map for plan check, the Applicant shall coordinate with all utility companies (including gas, water, sewer, and electricity) to ensure that adequate provisions are made for on -and off -site easements for the provision of future facilities. BJ/CONAPRVL.026 - 1 - b. At the time of Final Map submittal, the Applicant shall provide the Engineering Department with letters from the applicable utilities stating that adequate provisions for future facilities are provided and. that there are no conflicts with other easements. All easements shall be shown on the final recorded Map. No easements shall be granted or recorded over any portion of the site prior to the recordation of Final Parcel Map No. 25187 without the prior written approval of the City Engineer. 6. The Applicant shall provide and dedicate to Coachella Valley Water District any land needed for the provision of additional facilities, including but not limited to sites for wells, reservoirs and booster pumping stations. BJ/CONAPRVL.026 - 2 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. 25154 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND SALES SUBDIVISION ON A +27.45 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 25154 - NORTH STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 14th day of November, 1989, hold a. duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of North Star California Corporation to subdivide +27.45 acres into 98 single-family development lots for sale, generally located at the northeast corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Date Palm Drive, more particularly described as: A SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M. IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative tract will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, 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. 25154, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 may cause some environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but mitigation in the form of fees for a new habitat area will reduce this impact to an insignificant level. BJ/RESOPC.028 - 1 - 3. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the design of Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Tentative Tract No. 25154, as conditioned, provides for mitigation of incremental impacts on park facilities, noise and aesthetic factors. 6. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of '-hp 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 of Environmental Assessment No. 89-144 relative to the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of the subject Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14th day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BJ/RESOPC.028 - 2 - JOHN WALLING, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, planning Director City of La Quinta, California BJ/RESOPC.028 - 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL •- PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 25154 NOVEMBER 14, 1989 A. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 25154 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 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 Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 4. 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District BJ/CON.APRVL.025 - 1 - 0 Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building 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 Tentative Tract No. 25154 and Environmental Assessment No. 89-144, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of the respective permit(s). The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. CONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO GRADING PERMITS) 7. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction and to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to final map approval. Certification at the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also required prior to final approval of grading construction... 8. 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. 9. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities; b. Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site; and BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 2 - c. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing,, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 10. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 11. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. The design facilities shall be capable of handling a 100-year storm. Applicant shall provide drainage easements as required across lots abutting the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. 12. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping, and irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to CVWD's water management program. These plans shall include the landscape and irrigation plans for all areas required to be landscaped. 13. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 14. Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 15. The Developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Coachella Valley Water District prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the La Qu.inta Evacuation Channel. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage inlets, landscaping, and .roadways. Developer shall install suitable facilities to prohibit access to this right-of-way from the subject tract. 13J/CONAPRVL.025 - 3 - C. 16. Prior to any issuance of land disturbance permits, the Applicant shall contract with the University of California Riverside Archaeological Research Unit to perform a re-evaluation of the project site. The results of this evaluation shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review, along with -the proposed method of testing for any potentially significant sites identified in the evaluation. If potentially significant sites are identified, the Applicant shall submit an archaeological mitigation plan to indicate the status of any existing archaeological/cultural resources of any potential significance. Said plan shall identify any existing reports done by the University of California, Riverside, Archaeological Research Unit, and shall include methods by which any significant or potentially significant sites will be inventoried and/or excavated. A mitigation and monitoring program shall be required to be submitted, specifying a qualified archaeological monitor, including any assistants and other representatives. The statement shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the autho.t.ity to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. CONDI'.TIONS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL/RECORDATION. 17. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Public Works Department: a. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required, including all corner cutbacks. b. The Applicant shall submit street improvement plans that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings shall conform to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code (three-inch AC over four -inch Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 4 - 18. The Applicant shall obtain a 30-foot right-of-way easement over the property to the south of the subject site (portion of Sagebrush Avenue), for street construction purposes unless an alternative arrangement is approved by the Public Works Department . 19. Cul-de-sacs shall provide a minimum turning diameter right-of-way of 90-feet. Present design will require additional right-of-way dedication as sidewalks are required. 20. The Applicant shall construct or bond for street improvements to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows a. The interior public street system shall be designed pursuant to the approved Exhibit A (Tract Map) for TT #25154, and the requirements of the City Engineer. All streets shall maintain a 20 cross slope from centerline to edge of pavement. Any variations to the approved street system design sections shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 21. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test reports for review by the City Engineer, as may be required. 22. `1fract phasing plans, including phasing of public :improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department and the :Planning and Development Department prior to Final ]`Rap approval. 23. 'The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the CVWD. Any necessary parcels for District facility expansion shall be shown on the Final Map and conveyed to the CVWD, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. 24. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Fire Marshal prior to Final Map approval. 25. Applicant shall pay in -lieu parkland fees, based upon .86 acres as determined by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Determination of payment amount shall be determined as set forth in Chapter 13.24, Article II of the La Quinta Municipal Code and shall be payable prior to Final Map recordation. B"7 / CONAPRVL . 0 2 5 - 5 - 26. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter internal streets, and surrounding land uses, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.). 27. The approval herein contemplated is related to Change of Zone No. 89-049 and no Final Map of the proposed subdivision shall be recorded prior to the effective date of an Ordinance changing the official zoning classification of the subject property to R-1. 28. The Tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in a Final Map shall be 7,200 square feet. 29. All residential lots within the approved boundaries of Tentative Tract No. 25154 shall only be conveyed to new ownership with the following declaration: "This property may be subject to limited or restricted viewshed(s) due to surrounding previously approved developments to the north and west of this tract (Tract 24545, the Pyramids Development and Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta respectively). Northerly views will be limited by approved landscaping and fencing which may be approximately 8-12-feet above finished grade of this property. Westerly views may be impacted due to development of two story homes on certain lots within the Parc La Quinta project. The prospective buyer is urged to investigate the full range of any potential view impacts prior to committing to any agreement(s)." 30. The Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for Planning Commission review and approval as a Business Item. The Architectural Standards shall be included as part of the CC & R's. 31. Applicant shall submit a unit siting plan at the time of submittals for architectural review cf any tract development. Siting plan shall indicate BST / CONAPRVL . 0 2 5 - 6 - D. two-story unit locations, if any, and shall be reviewed at the Planning Commission along with the proposed unit types. If lots are sold on an individual basis, the Applicant understands that approvals of any two-story units on any lot are not guaranteed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis by the Planning and Development Department. The above shall be noted in the CC & R°s required to be submitted for this project. 32. The westerly termination point of the street shown as Lot t'D" on Exhibit "A" (Tentative Tract Map), shall be gated with controlled access devices that restrict ingress/egress to emergency vehicles. Permits for the installation of controlled access devices shall be obtained from the Building Division and Fire Department prior to installation. TRACT DESIGN 33. Prior to any landscape installations, 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, location, and irrigation systems for all areas to be landscaped. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. ia. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 34. Prior to issuance of any unit building permits (excluding model complex), the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees (five trees on a corner) and an irrigation system. 35. Developer shall install a 6-foot block wall along the eastern tract boundary of Tentative Tract 25154. The wall may be constructed along with the interior street improvements required for the tract, but in any event, shall be in place prior to issuance of any residential building permits. Location and design of this wall shall be incorporated into the required landscaping plans. BJ/CONAPRVL.025 - 7 - 36. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a.. Temporary construction facilities. b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage. C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 37. 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.025 - 8 - CC MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California Cctober 24, 1939 1:00 i'•-m. :i. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.ii. by - Vice Chairman Moran. The Flag Salute was -led by cciumissioner Steding. II. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Moran requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Bund, Zelles, and sterling; Chairman Wailing was absent. B. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Bund to excuse Cha-Irman Vla:L ling f rcm this meeting. Unanimous. ;. Staff Present: Planning and Development Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Principal Planner ed Bower. D. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Bund to re -order the Agenda, moving Business Session items 1, 2, and ? and Public Hearing item 3 to the beginning cf the Agenda. Unanimous. 1,i I . BUSINESS Vice Chairman Moran introduced the Business Items as follows: A. Continued. item - Park Proposal; a request by ESCO/Deane Homes for approval of a parkland proposal for Tentative Tract 23971; located on tn.e northeast corner of Washington Street and :Mlles Avenue. MR/1MIN10-24.DFT _1- 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. The Commission discussed the matter as presented. Commissioner Bund inquired of Staff if there are any requirements 2or a. barrier along Bradford Circle where the elevation changes along the sidewalk and the drainage area. Planning Director Oerzy Herman responded that the slope is 5:1 and considered gentle enough to be sate. 3. A minute motion was inade by Commissioner Stedine an6. seconded by Commissioner Zelles to approve the plans for the park as presently designed, subject to attached conditions. Unanimously adopted. B. Time Extension for Tentative Tract 21880; a request by L.D.C. Development for a second one-year time extension for the filing of a final map for a 330-lot subdivision on 736+ acres; located at the southeast corner of Avenue 52 and Avenida Bermudas. 1. Dr.. Steven Carter of the Desert Trails Association addressed the Commission, requesting the consideration of a 12-foot easement along the back of the project along the mountain for a trail. 2. 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. 3. The Commission discussed the request as presented. Commissioner Steding questioned whether this was the proper forufn to address Dr. Carter's request. Commissioner Zelles responded that Dr. Carter was just asking for a dialogue with the Developer, and it could be made a part of the Resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning Commission Resolution recom-mending approval of a second one-year time extension for Tentative Tract 21880, subject to attached conditions and treat an in-depth dialogue be held with Dr. Carter. OR/YIIN10-24 . DFT -2- Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Chairman Walling absent. C. �:_'ime Extension for Tentative Tract 21123; a request by Landmark Landmark Land Company for a final one-year extension of time for the filing cf a final map for a 20-lot subdivision on 6.74+ acres within the Duna La guinta Specific Plan; located generally west of Washington Street, +800 feet south of Avenue 50. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Zell.es and seconded by commissioner Bund to adopt Planning Commission Resolution e9-062, recommending approval of the one-year time extension for Tentative Tract 21123, subject to attached conditions. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Chairman walling absent. uF.n PTNr,S Vice Chairman Moran introduced the Public Hearing items as follows: C. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 89-012; a city -initiated request for revision to the current Parking ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 9.160; efi-ective city-wide. 1. Principal Planner Ted Bower presented the information contained in the Staff Repert, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Develcipment Department. 2. Mice Chairman Moran opened the Public Hearing. No one wished to address the Commission at this time. 3. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by Commissioner Zelles to continue the Hearing on Zoning ordinance Amendmenc 89-012. Following roll call vote, the motion was unanimously adopted, with Chairman Walling absent. 14R/MINIO-24.DFT -3- A. Continued Hearing - Tentative Tract 21846 (Revision No. 2); a request by the Sunrise Company fcr 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. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained. in the Staff Report, a copy cf which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. vice Chairman Moran opened the Public Hearing. Allen Levine, representing Sunrise Company, addressed the commission, to explain the request. Commissioner Steding asked the Applicants if the Medalists are higher density than other areas of PGA..: if they are the highest density in PGA West. I�!"r. Levine re.spcnded affirmatively. Comn-issioner Steding asked why that particular location. Mr. Levine responded that it was a marketing decision. commissioner Zelles asked. the Applicants why can't these units be --ilaced. elsewhere in PGA vacant area. Mr. Levine responded that there is no other area that is not on a fairway. commissioner .Buns asked the Applicants if a site line study has been clone. Mr. Levine used an illustratior: -to Explain the site line impact. The following citizens addressed the c,arranission in protest of the request: Laurie Arrants, Pete Morithroe, Kristie 7ranklin, w__lliam Walter, Sonny Frolin, Karen Pelletier, Robert Percibal, Mrs. Moses, Bole Pruett, Mr. Grayford, Richard Lenhardt, Anna. de Lorta, Geraldine Hall, Gordon Davis, Ralph Halley, Jane Pruett, Ted K1ien, mrisha waiter, Phil Pelletier, Art Markowitz. -Phey raised concerns regarding two-story units, density, traffic, congestion, views, property values, and emergency access. i`!r. Philip smith, representing Sunrise Company, addressed the Commission to further explain the request. Commissioner Steding asked Staff if the Medalists were to be denied, would the Greens approval still be in effect. Mr. Herman responded yes. ills. Steding asked what has been the total percentage density increase for this tract since November 1988. i�lr. MiZ/ INTO-24.fFI' -4- Herman responded that it has been about 40 percent. Ms. Steding asked whether the Medalist unit type models were approved for a specific tract. Mr. Herman responded no. Ms. Steding noted that the Findings state that the Medalists' fewer curb cuts will allow more parking; she inquired that since density is higher, isn't the need for parking greater? Mr. Herman -responded that it is essentially a wash. There being no further comment, Vice Chairman Moran closed. the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. The Ccliumission discussed the matter in depth and determined to summarize their comments during, the roll call vote on the following motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Vice Chairman Moran recommending denial of Planning Commission Resolution request 89-063 for Tentative Tract 21846, Revision No. 2. Roll call vote was held, as follows: commissioner Bund: AYE. Wants to see Netter product design for the area. Also, stated earlier that there were traffic safety concerns, and that he did not agree with Resolution Findings 6 and 8. commissioner Steding: AYE. triable to agree with Resolution Findings 6 and. 8. commissioner Zelies: NO. Feels the Applicant has fulfilled all requirements. Says that when a density p oblem is addressed, it is something thar. exists throughout the whole area -- to say you don't want these people here and move them somewhere else and intensify another area is not a solution. Feels that the I'ledalist structure, in comparison to the structure that will eventually go there, is much more attractive. price Chairman Moran; AYE. Doesn't like such density increase on small streets; a 40 percent increase with no additional amenities. Is not comfortable with an approval without seeing the total negative MR/M NA-24. uFT -5- impact. Cannot agree with Resolution Findings 6 and 8. Also noted that she �Arants a Study Session with the City Council on the entire PGA West Specific Plan. Chairman Walling: ABSENT. The motion was carried as a denial of the request by a vote of 3-1-1; 3 for, 1 against, and 1 absent. B. Specific Plan 121-E, Amendment No. 2, and Plot Plan 89-04L1; a request by Landmark Land Company for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment t(-, allow elimination of a 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 a chan:ipior..ship tennis court presently exists, in the R-3 zone on 1.7+ acres; on the west side o- Avenida Obregon, approximately midway between Avenida Fernando and Caile Mazatlan (championship tennis court site). 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which-s on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Vice Chairman Moran reopened the Public Hearing. Forrest Haag and Alejandro Martinez, representing the AIDOlica.nt, addressed the commission to explain the request. Melissa Layton, property Association manager for Santa Rosa Cove, addressed the Commission and read a sta.te.nent from the Association's Board of .Directors askiz:; for a 30-day continuance, and a letter of protest from the President of the Board. Eleanor Dowd, Judy Blum, Elaine Lloyd, Nels Sandstrom, Genevieve Lucas, and Walter Frei.dis addresses. the Commission in opposition to the request. Ivis. %)owd also presented to the Commission photos ojf: parking and through-traffic/emergency access probler:s on Avenida Obregon. Commissioner Steding asked Staff what is the reauired additional parking for a 77-room addition. Planning Director Herman responded -that the parking meets the minimuiz! requirement for the total project. i'IR%I'!=_N10-24.DFT - b - Commissioner Moran asked if the location of required parking spaces is regulated. Mr. flerrlan responded no. Commissioner Moran asked if additional employee parking `•7as addressed. Mr. Herman responded yes. I+Is. Moran asked if the type of hotel is considered. Mr. Herman responded no. commissioner Bund asked ii the parking analysis takes into account additional ]nor -el expansion. Mr. Herman responded than. a new analysis was done for this expansion. Commissioner Bund asked the Applicant -_f the parking analysis takes into account tree parking at the tennis club. Mr. Haag responded yes. commissioner Zelles colnYr.en ted that growth in the area is inevitable. Vice Chairman Moran polled the Commission for a consensus regarding continuing the Hearing versus; making a recommendation. The consensus was unanimously against continuance. There being no further comfr,ent, Vice Chairman Moran closed the Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 3. Comrtiissioner Steding stated that she haci nc problem with approving the project, and that the problems aired need to be addressed at the management level with all involved agencies. Commission Zelles stated that he agreed with Commissioner Steding. Vice criairrnan Moran also agreed, and stated "; hat parking seems to be a problem - that the hotel needs to take a hard look and consider additional parking. commissioner Band also agreed, and recommended to all involved co get together, and if that results in no satisfaction, bring the issue to the City Council and City Staff. A motion was made by commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Steding to adopt Planning commission Resolution 89-064, recommending approval of Specific Plan 12i-E, K.mendrnent No. 2. Following roll call vote, the motion, was unanimously adopted, with Chairman Nulling absent. A Minute Motion was made by commissioner Steding and seconded by Col,nissioner Zelles to recommend approval of Plot Plan 89-041, subject to conditions modified to specify in c:on6dtion 1 that the approval is `oz 77 IeIR/1%UNIO-24.DFT .-7- units, and an addition to Condition 9 to include a golf cart/pedestrian access. "Unanimously adopted. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT No one wished to address the Commission. V. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by Commissioner Bund to approve the minutes of the September 12, September 26, and October 10, 1989, Planning Commission meetings. Unanimous. VII . OTHER Commissioner Moran asked that the Specific Plan for PGA West be the subject of a future discussion. Commissioner Bund asked that a review of the City's life -safety support design, including access and circulation, public and private, be the subject of a future: discussion. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Stediny and seconded by Commissioner Bund to adjourn to a regular meeting on November 14, 1989, at 7:00 p-o- , in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Qu4Lnta Planning_ Commission was adjourned at 11.15 p.m., octoner 24, 1989. ,AR/1,�IN10-24.DFT -8- BS-1 DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: T1Ar_Xr,hZnTTNn_ STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1989 SA 89-104 MONIQUE PIERRE; DBA CHEZ MONIQUE APPROVAL OF BACK -LIT CAN WALL SIGN IN VILLAGE AREA 78-121 LA FONDA, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA FONDA AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE The Applicant is requesting approval of a new can wall sign to replace an existing damaged freestanding sign. Although Staff could approve this sign, we felt the Planning Commission should review it due to its design features and location in the Village area. The proposed sign would be four feet high by five feet wide, and be mounted on the front wall facing La Fonda. The :lettering would be dark blue, with lighter blue trim. The background would be a beige plexiglas with a redwood frame. The Applicant is requesting approval to internally light the sign with fluorescent tubes. Staff has given approval to install the sign without any lighting, which has been done. The property is located in the Village Specific Plan area, and as such, is subject to the Village development guidelines. The ,aroposed sign complies with the locationand size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. However, regarding the proposed .illumination of the proposed sign, the Village Specific Plan ,Section 6.5.1 Building Signs, states the following: "The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which is principally relates." "Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited." "Signs on glazed tile with indirect lighting are to be encouraged." MR/STAFFRPT.093 -1- BS-1 DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BACKGROUND• STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1989 SA 89-104 MONIQUE PIERRE; DBA CHEZ MONIQUE APPROVAL OF BACK -LIT CAN WALL SIGN IN VILLAGE AREA 78-121 LA FONDA, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LA FONDA AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE The Applicant is requesting approval of a new can wall sign to replace an existing damaged freestanding sign. Although Staff could approve this sign, we felt the Planning Commission should review it due to its design features and location in the Village area. The proposed sign would be four feet high by five feet wide, and be mounted on the front wall facing La Fonda. The lettering would be dark blue, with lighter blue trim. The background would be a beige plexiglas with a redwood frame. The Applicant is requesting approval to internally light the sign with fluorescent tubes. Staff has given approval to install the sign without any lighting, which has been done. The property is located in the Village Specific Plan area, and as such, is subject. to the Village development guidelines. The proposed sign complies with the locationand size requirements of the Sign Ordinance. However, regarding the proposed illumination of the prcposed sign, the Village Specific Plan Section 6.5.1 Building Signs, states the following: "The colors, materials, and lighting of every sign shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site to which is principally relates." "Back lit (box or can) signs are to be discouraged, directly illuminated signs shall be limited to individual letters. Exposed bulb or garish neon lighting is prohibited." "Signs on glazed tile with indirect lighting are to be encouraged." MR/STAFFRPT.093 -1- Z'he proposed sign is, therefore, in conflict with the Village ��pecific Plan guidelines with regard to illumination methods. The Applicant is installing new exterior lighting which can allow indirect lighting to be provided to this sign. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should review the request and determine acceptability based on the Village Specific Plan guidelines. attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Sign Plan Exhibits MR/STAFFRPT.093 -2- CASE No. SA 8 9 — 1 uo" 4 LOCA-riON MAP ORTH SCALE: NTT g C) 7f/ z f \ 'm � N - � a a \ k ƒ z S n � � A a ... � C w 0 7 / � �Ikk a - J 2 ' ¢ k -5 0 0 . BS-2 DATE: ITEM: APPLICANT: "LOCATION: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 14, 1989 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING CONCEPT FOR THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT (SP 84-004) NORTHSTAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AREA SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND JEFFERSON STREET. The Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 84-004 require that a master landscape plan and design guidelines be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. :�TTRMTTT11L The Applicant has submitted a Landscape Master Plan dcr_ument which covers the entire project and includes the following major categories: 1. Landscape concept 2. Master Plan 3. Public roads 4. Perimeter landscape S. Main entrances 6. Neighborhood entrances 7. Private roads 8. Golf course landscape 9. Residential landscape 10. Phasing li. Approved and prohibited plant list The Pyramids project°s concept, as described by the Plan, will be that "the landscape dominates the overall environment and is the ultimate expression of place. The Pyramids is a private community set in an oasis, secured by walls of vegetation at its perimeter." The plan is, conceptually, quite complete in its description of concepts intended for the various areas. MR/STAFFRPT.094 -1- Pa LATE: ITEM: APPLICANT: LOCATION: BACKGROUND: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOV]EMBER 14, 1989 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING CONCEPT FOR THE PYRAMIDS PROJECT (SP 84-004) NORTH:€STAR CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AREA SOUTH OF 48TH AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND JEFFERSON STREET. The Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 84-004 require that a master landscape plan and design guidelines be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. SUBMITTAL: The Applicant has submitted a Landscape Master Plan document which covers the entire project and includes the following major categories: 1. Landscape concept 2. Master Plan 3. Public roads 4. Perimeter landscape 5. Main entrances 6. Neighborhood entrances 7. Private roads 8. Golf course landscape 9. Residential landscape 10. Phasing 11. Approved and prohibited plant list The Pyramids project's concept, as described by the Plan, will be that "the landscape dominates the overall environment and is the ultimate expression of place. The Pyramids is a private community set in an oasis, secured by walls of vegetation at its perimeter." The plan is, conceptually, quite complete in its description of concepts intended for the various areas. YR/STAFFRPT.094 -1- ANALYSIS: ,Staff has reviewed the Plan and believes that it will provide :for an extensively :landscaped project. However, Staff would offer the following comments: 1. Public street medians on the perimeter of the project will need to be designed in compliance with City guidelines which are to be prepared shortly. 2. The Specific Plan suggests the use of wrought iron openings in the perimeter walls to allow views into the project. V:Iile this may not be beneficial or desired by the Applicant in areas adjacent to residences, it would provide unique, sweeping views into the bermed golf course along Washington Street without compromising the desire to "establish a dense vegetation wall along the property line to enclose the project." The high landscaped golf course berm would still provide the goal. 3. The Specific Plan conditions require an average 20-foot setback for perimeter walls along 48th and 50th Avenues, Washington Street, and Jefferson Street. The Plan, along 48th and 50th Avenues, shows that this setback will vary between 10-15 feet. This will need to be modified to average 20 feet. Along Washington Street and Jefferson Street, the Plan only indicates that the setback "varies". Again, this setback will need to average 20 feet,. 4. Fence heights and street and sidewalk widths shown on the Plan may not be shown correctly. Any incorrect widths and heights shown in the Plan shall not supersede any standards established by the City. 5. As evidenced recently, landscape treatment along perimeters with adjacent projects must be detailed and carefully reviewed by the City prior to their installation. Therefore, preliminary and final planting and grading plans must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to their installation, emphasizing minimal impact on adjacent property. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should review the Plan and determine acceptability, taking into account Staff's comments. Should you feel they are acceptable, your recommendation to City - Council should include Staff comments noted above in the analysis section. attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval for SP 84-004 2. Landscape Master Plan MR/STAFFRPT.094 -2- Pk iulV)ae CCNH rrICNS - JOSS IA -ES (Mv ZSE t 20,p_1,984 I e Applicant !O aU cuVly with Exhibit "A", the Specific Plan document for Specific Plan No. 84-004, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take, precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the specific plan. 7ricw to the issmx)ce of a permit for establ.islsl ent of any use contemplated by this apprcval, the Applicant shall first obtain any required vming and lard divi.sion a�za.s in acccr&nce with the requirements of the nmicipa.l Land Use and Land Division Crdinarx.es. ApSw l of this ,Sjw.i.fic Plan shall be limited to a maximum time period of three (3) years by wi'jch t.,i e. tun ct (or parcel) maps shall be approved and re cc,xded, and a-.st:ruction in Phase I shall have begun.. Time octensicns totaling not mare than U-mee (3) additional years, s;uIxdtted in writing prior to the expiration of any i ffrov d, may be approved by the Planning Ccrmii.ssion. oils/GkS-Io The Applicant shall. ccaply with the latest Uai.form Building Code, as adopted by the City of La 0uinta. rAie apprWriat:e seistni,c design criteria will depend u?aon the type and use of the propcsed stnnb=e and the underlying geologic ecnciit:iens. t3��aloc►xConye4lcxi .. Prier to the ap4xzvval, of final tract maps, the issuance of xoan_img approvals, or the issuance of pexm3 ts, the Applicant shall Prepare a hydrological analysis for approval by the City rbgiiyeer which will indicate the method and design to, protect the proposed de m-kpment from the 100-year flood. 7his plan shall be consistent with the pkzrcts �s of any similar plans of the Coachella Valley %ter District then In effect for f1=1 luotecticn. Prior to approval of any permits, the Applicant shall prepare a water conservation plan. wh;ich will include: a. Methods to minimize the <=s mption of on --site water usage, including water saving fixiznres, draught -tolerant and native larxlscapinq, and program to minimize lari5 cape irrigation.. b. Methods for minimizing the effects of increased en -site runoff and increased gr. milwater recharge,, including the ccnstxuctien of on -site collection and ga-c =tete_r retention basins. c. Methods for mirdnizing the amount of gr x-& ester pumped out for on; -site irrigation, including the use of reclaimed water. �. If ixried remains are encc mtPrsd during d-neloprent, a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted mm eriiately and appropriate mitigation measures sha.11 be taken. APPRCWD C=rrICNa •-, 'T * NgwMBER 20, 1984 8. The: Applicant shall satisfactorily mitigate arciaaelogical concerns identified in prevIausly c,=Iacted site s.uveys prior to initiation of grading. A qualified archaeologist Shall certify as to the adecriacy of mitigation measures prior to ismsaance of any grading (or ;related) permits. Air= lity 9. n-x! Applicant sha U utilize hlwsand and dust control measures in accordance with the: Mcn icipal (Xde and the Uniform Dui-.Iding Code and subject to the appra of tl* City a-qi.rac:?er. Particular care shall be exerciped during periods of extreme wind activity. 0. At: the time of saatxnittal of ter tative tract maps or plans for any zoning approvals the k-Vlicant sto l damastrate that adequate prwi sion has been made for non - M.atox%native rearz of transportation within the project site as a means of reducing dope eJence on private autamobiles. This may include golf caxt path system,, bicycle and pe6eas~t ri.an systems, and other similar systems crmsisteat with the specific plan. 1. Specific project designs shall a manage the use of public transit by 1rr.7riding for burs shelt-exi as required by the Ccummity Developerent Director and consistent with the requixwents of local transit districts and the specific plan. 2. The Applicant shall encourage and support the use of Sunline van/bus service, /Dial--A--aide/ jitneys betwve-ea the project site, local airports (e.g., Palm Springs, Thermal),, and other xegional land uses. - raffic and Circulation 3. Avenue 48, Averue 50, Washul gton Street and Jefferson Street, c ontigucuas to the project, shall be developed in accord with their general plan designations and the Ia Quinta mUfti_ci al design and stxucb al standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or zoning approval in conjunction with phased iValex O atation of the specific plan. These public roads shall be improved to a half-vidt h tradition. 4. In order to facilitate mitigation of cumulative traffic bTacts of this and other area projects, the City shall establish a traffic iWrovement needs monitoring program. This program will undertake biannual traffic count studies to determine if warrants are met for major roadway improvements and traffic signalizatic n. upon determination of needs, the City may initiate projects to meet those needs. Funding of this program may be by fee programs that &ssess nm cicvp-t nt and/or users on a pro-rata or fair -share basis, formation n of assessment districts, acquisition of State or Federal road funds, or other means that fairly allocate costs to those generating the need. The Applicant shall agree to pay the designated pro-rata share that the City may establish to fund off -site roadway impyomrents and traffic signal.izat:ion on an was warranted" basis. - 2 - 'PRpVi:D CMUTION'S - THE CCNSISOC SATES ,V�Fx-ER 20, 19:84.= >. The Applicant shall develop al-1 roads internal to the project in accordance with the design staixbrt3s specifiFs3 in the specific plan and the structural standards in effect at the time of tentative tract or zoning approval area in conjunction with the iniplff.vntation of the specific plan. All roadways within the spFc,ific plan area shall rena.i.n private. a. The px .y lot* road 11 be widened to a mi.ninza pavement width of 36 feet unless the Appliunt deacanstsates that adequate provision has been trade for sufficient off-street, parking to aca mcdate all needs, including guests, so that on -street pai:king is not required. b. All other raids -giall be widened to a minimum pavement width of 32 feet unless the Applicant de-n:n5trates that adequate provision has been made for sufficient off-street gaming to ar.�odate all needs, including guests, so that on -strut: paining is not required. c. Applicant shalt be responsible to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Ebginec-.r tit grass drainage swales are an acceptable alte_snative to typical a rb and gutter. A card (or similar) operated, resident -accessible gate shall be provided near Adams Street. and Avenue 48. A amuied gate shall be provided near Dune Palms Road and Avenue 48. The exact to ati_ons shall be subject to final approval by the Ce. nainity D:r�:ve.IrA t Department. The constrtu� of Avenue 48 between %&uxgi:cxn and Jefferson Streets shall, occ= pxaor to beginning Phase xI of the project. This constxuction shall provide for a pavement width of 24-28 feet, but other inVrovements, including curb, gutter sidewalk, etc., may be deferred until. times staecifi.ed in the phasing plan. The %.sh:uxgt= Strnet4lisenWixax Drive traffic signal at the project entry shall be and 5lied to accmlx late a four -moray intersection. This shall be done entirely at the Applicant's exrense and no credit shall be allowed for the i.nfrastzuctrrre fee program since these irrproveaxnts benefit the Applicant's project mcclusively, excc-!Ft that credit shall be given for any oust in excess of $25,000. The Applicant shall install a raised center median island, including landscaping and irrigation, as pant of road i provements where required by mz=ipal road standards. The Avenue 50 f:iW:age im.provenxmt may be deferred, at the Applicant's discretion, to Phase III of the project. The location and access to all eanstructian facilities shall be subject to review and approval of the Comunity Development Department. M The Applicant shalt agree to participate in the bprove ent of Adams Street between Avem a 48 and Highway ill. The amount of participation shall be determine by the City on a pro -rats or fair -share basis. The method of participation shall be clet fined by the City and may include an assessment district, developer fees, or name similar funding mechanism. The timing of participation shall be dew by the City based on need. _ -3- aAI.\.I..Ara1.A.\J - 11x As3xJ1'9�' 7JriOER 20, 1984 {. Prior to ixaildinq port apgacral, building setbacks, engineering design, on *rotation of builxU ags, and noise barriers shall be utilized to reclace noise ijrpr�cts fa.an nearby e:cisting and future rcadways to within State sta A-Lr-ds. �. Prier to zoning or tentative tract map arrovals, the Applicant wi11 decaonstrate that: rpsi denta al stziicbxces satt.isfy the Statae's indoor criterion. We eked to raise levels in excess of State star)ju�ds, Appal icant shall install special design featares s- ]%. as ftibl.e--lazed win Sows, mechanical ventilation, special xroof vex1ting, incriMSed insulation, weatherstripping, or combinations of these re Fuxes 9 999 Ralu-irwents for the installation of solar water heaters shall be determined by the City on a uniform city -wires basis for new construction at a latter date. The developer shall cc eply with the requirearnts current at the time of ccxstruction. All tentative ne ps and deveRVL1,r at plans shall be designed to erasure oi=pliance with the State laws regarding solar accessibility. To the extent possible, all struutures shall be sited, oriented and designed so as to minimize the energy rseeds for cooling. The rraxirr> = allowable amnber of residential. units skull be 1500. 7he maxim= mmber of guest cottages shall be 80. In considering requests for zonlryl and/or tenb:tttive txact apprcvals for d veleSrent phases, re uct--Lons in the numbax of allaa kale units may be made on an "as warranted" basis to assure caTliaau lce with appl:LcAbl:e regulations and the .intent of this specific plan. a. The residential density is established at a gross density of 2.2 duelling units per acre with a net density not to eyed six (6) dwelling traits per acre. Desi rIn approval for various structwa w and buildings within the project :,hall be subject to the fallowing: a. Final site plans, floor plans and exterior elevations for the main crlubhouse, tennis s and swim club buildings, guest cottage carplex and mint mane buildings shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Cmmissi on and City Coc=il. b. Final site plans, floor plans and exterior elevations for residential structures shall be subject to review and approval in the manner specified by applicable zoning and subdivision regulations in effect at the time. co Fyesign guide':Lines and related oovenants and restrictions established for the project controlling use, site development, building architecture, landscaping, lighting and related design factors shall be sW=t ted for iw ew and appiroval by the Planning Cmrassicn and City Council. - 4 - 'PiZC7VfD CCTt�1TZC - '�'fi� ASSOCIATES 9. Building height shall be subject to height limitations specified in the specific plan, ex-.ept treat no building exceeding one story in height shall be allowed within 75 feet of any perimeter pxxperty line. 0. Per°irx-ter security walls and fex ces shall be subject to the following standards: a. Sef-1>3cks for peri vter walls from the rights -of --way lines for Avenue 48, A-vr.rrae 50, Washiryftm Street and Jefferson Street shall be an average of taentyy (20) feet. b. Port:.ic ns of the pi xiueter #aaUs shall consider the use of wxaaght iron (or sinilar open fe-naing) to provide views from the street into the project. c. Fea c-imq located on interior prcperty lines may be placed on the pxaperty Line. d. All fericang designs, including location and materials, shall be subject to City review and gpproval. 1. Gradilig shall be subject to the following standards, in addition to those PrOV31-1 for in the Uniform Building Code and other,7Wlicable municipal .r • - a. Effort small be made to minimize • unnecessary grading and to preserve and utilize existing land farms to the largest, extent possible. c, . .r ....;. . .r . ..... c. A mister grading and drai.rnage plan shall be submitted for review and approval pack to any deg x-1 t activity on the site. 's. A master landscape plan, including landscaping of perimeter setbacks and ruilhts-of-way areas, shall be submitted for City review and approval. a. Desert or native plant species and draaght resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into landscaping plans to a large extent. 3. Applicant shall dedicate to the City a ten (10) acre site for park and recreation purposes. The site shall be located on Avenue 50 at the most westerly portion of the subject property thereon. Dedication shall occur in conjunction with record& tarn of the first final map within the specific plan area. The Applicant may pxavide park and re=eation facilities or related contributions in an alternate manner consistent with the intent of this conditions, subject to review and approcr by the City Council. ablic Services and Utilities 4. Fire pxotect.i,on shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the La Quanta Mmi,cipal. Code in effect at the time of develx pTent. - 5 - pP"E-) CC7W,OrTICNS - Zip rMM ASRXIAMSS DVI R 20, _1�984..M.,�...�� a•- The Applicant shall, Prior to issuance of building permits, contribute as prgmymeat of fire mitigation fees $100, 000 to assist the City in its nerds for a new fire station in the area. This contrabutlon shall be used as a credit for fire fac.i l 7Lt.i,es fees until those fees exceed the ammt of the credit. The Appl.ic&nt may provide fire mitigation in an alterjlate manner cxar-ffiistent with t %e intent of this ccndition, subject to iw- i.ew and aam cval by the City Ccxau-i..l. If the above ccritribution is used towaxic a land pu csP, izoject jp nosing and payment of fire mitigaticn fees shall be stifficient to support a payrrent schedule for said land. »,: No cul-der-sacs still be i.or,ges than 550 feet unless provided with alternate ternate fine pmtect:.i-aZ as may be approved by the Fire Marshal. "Crass -mete" is not an ac atable ewxgency access s xface. c. Prude rW.tired minim= fire -flow and fire hydrants pursuant to standards in effect at time of develc rumt. �. The Applicant Stk . ocuply with the rejLd is of the Coachella Valley Water District. a. The water system shall be installed in acnrd with District requirements. the District will need additional facilities, which may include wells, resftwixs,, and booster pmVirg stations, to provide for the arderly expam%im of its system. the Applicant will be required to ,e and ,dedicat;.e to the District any land needed for these fac latiess. b. The sanitary regulat icxs' n s. ' for sanitation wer systan shall, be installed in accord with Distrust he area shall be annexed to M pZovetmrit District No. 55 service. The Applicant shall caxply with the requirements of the serial Irrigation District. (N=: the District has- not ccamented on this project to crate, but has noted in cm is on prior projects that existing substation facilities are not, or will not in the near future be, adequate to service proposed deve'Lopwnts. ) a. Provision shall be made to underground ut Utiss to the extent feasible. l3enerally, all facilities except high voltage lines of 66 KV and above shall be placed underground. b. 1he fisting 92 KV line shall not be relocated to perimeter public I.Vadways without prior review and approval by the City. It is int coded that other available alternatives be evaluated prior to said relocation. The Applicant shall pay a per—.f t school developr ent fee as by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreements as approved by the la ¢unta City Council and in effect at the time of the issuance of building permits. - 6 - P � ? XIDET.i NS - TTE C49WE ASSMTAT S dtYlt _2 0, 1984 vcellane cus App1..LCaJ"t tuAerstands that the City was isxmrPOrated in 1982 and has :not yet enar-1:ed a coWlete policy az exactions on new develcpment to provide atmieipal i VrtNe merits and facilities neeW as a result of the cumlative irnpac�t of such new devel cI nt; that the C-ity .is in the process of preparing and enacting such a policy, which will .ilcl'-Ide W-d-fozm fees to be imposed upcn new axis .- uction to fi;uzd the, lxablic jq--�Lvvnts and facilities: fire statia°i, pabl.ic safety facility, city hall,, p&dc and recreation facilities, schools, drainage facilities, major t1 aXAX hfarrs, bridges and traffic signalizaticn; and, that the City expects tr0 e v)ct said fees policy on or before December 31, 1984. Appli.rmt agrees to pair said fee or fees in the amount and at the t-ixw. e»acted and f`.rcxn time to time arrer)W by the City. To the extent that Applicant constzuct specific f_ari.l..i.tles irxquded within the fee structure, it shall receive appropriate credit, as deternd.neci by the C-.ty Council. If said fee shall include financing of permanent or teirpor.-dry scimi facilities, Condition No. 37 (school develogtent fee; shall be deleted. Prier to the issuance of g rig, pexznits or the app,.,aval of tentative txac;t maps or other :cxxui.red zoning aR=Uvals, the Applicant shall sutmit a phasing schedule and map for the ent3xe project, which shall ; nC ucie tM phasing of off --site infra<s=txucaire, to the Cam=jty Developnent Director for review and approval. The Applicant shall provide for ,mitigation of the ivpact on the Coachella Valley Fringe: -hoed Lizard by ocapl yinq with reT ixements of the mitigation agreement as appmred by the City Cotacil, and in effect at the time of developnent. Upon ifproal of 'this specific plan, Specific Plan No. 127-E shall became null and void and be of no fLmth,€r effect. 'iZlds specific plan approval shall not be effective until and unless 0WVe of Zcne Case No. 84-014 is effective. - 7 - Melvin E. Kersey, Jr., ASLA Donald L. Powell, P.E. Rfatchew S. Stovall, ASLA ,James R. Mke, ASLA October 26, 19S9 MEL KERSEY ASSOCIA'I'ES, INC. Land Planning ■ Engineering ■ Landscape Architecture ■ Urban Design Mr JerryHerman City of La Quimta Punning and Development Department �8-105 Calle EStado La Quinta, CA 9,2253 OCT aft rggl OR RE: Addendum to Pyramids Landscape Master Plan RIANN►M8 DEVELOPMENT DEAR} Dear Mr. Herman, Attached you will find ten copies of anaddendum to the Landscape Master Plan for the Pyramids. as revised by Mel Kersey Associates. Inc. and Eric Johnson. Desert Landscape Consultant The revised Landscape Master Plan was submitted by Carolyn Smith of North Star. Inc. on November 14, 1989. Please route the addendum through the appropriate channels for review and approval. If you have any questions please contact myself or Carolyn. Thank you for your time amd consideration. Sincerely, �g6' 'I�"'gOIK Matthew S. Stovall. ASLA Principal Landscape Architect cc: D. Beaver T. Burger J. Doggett R. Byrnes M. Kersey C. Smith 785 Crossover Lane-B, Suite 228 ■ Memphis, TN 38117 ■ 901-685-8696 ■ FAX 901-685-8197 REGIONAL LANDSCAPE INFORMATION Envircnmental and geological information of the Coachella Valle from Palm�S ri nc3_s_ _to the Salton, area. The area is an area of the Sonoran 'Desert that includes Tuscon at a 2000 foot elevation, Phoenix at 1200 foot elevation, Coachella Valley with elevations ranging from 250 feet below sea level to 1600 feet. The project is just above sea level and due to the lower elevation, the Coachella Valley is distinctly different. Rainfall is a mare 3.7 inch average (75 year average). Winter seasons with brief frosts can be severe enough to damage tropical or sub -tropical plants. Spring arrives in February and continues into May. Winds blow 25 to 50 MPH during March and April. Winds from westerly storms can be even higher. Windbreaks and walls are useful in providing protection. Summers are hot in the 90 degree to 110 degree - 120 degree range, and most often occur with low humidity. Fa11 arrives in October, the most ideal planting period for the year. Project soils are predominantly sand, silt sand with high moisture need clue to drainage and high temperatures. Salinity is often a problem in tight soils due to lack of rainfall to leach out salts. Organic additives, such as gypsum play important roles in making soils more productive. There is a currrent trend towards an economical use of water due to the increased urbanization of the valley. A need to develop an understanding of climate, soils, water quality and plants which can create a quality of life quite different from other regions of the United States is becoming apparent. The desert is not hospitable to plants from the east, south and mid -west or even many plants from the coastal areas of California. Landscaping must include an understanding ofthese elements in design, selection, and installation. Eric A. Johnson ADDENDUM TO LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AS REVISED BY MEL KERSEY ASSOCIATES, INC. OCTOBER, 1989 APPROVED PLANT LIST - PAGE 16 - PAGE 18 TREES Botanical Name Common Name Acacia salcinica Willow acacia Cercidium praecox Sonoran palo verde Brachychiton populneus Bottle tree Grevillea robusta Silk oak tree Pinus eldarica Mondale pine Pinus pinea Italian stone pine Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Prunus vesuvious 'Krauteri' Flowering plum Eucalyptus micr-otheca Oli leak gum Quercus suber Cork oak Quer-cus Virginia Virginia oak Geijera parviflora Australian willow SHRUBS Juniperus species Junipers Cortaderia selloana Pampas grass Simmondsia chinensis Jojoba Salvia greggii Red Salvia Pithecellobium flexicanle Texas ebony Ligustrum Privet Ruellia peninsularis Blue rueilia GROUND COVER Dalea greggii Prostrate indigo bush >Baccharis 'Centennial' Prostrate baccharis Myoporum parvifolium Prostrate myoporum Deletions on lists -- tenderness to frost, not adaptable, not readily available. In addition we should include other desert plant material that can be blended with suggested list. These include: Cacti/succulents Carnegia gigantas - saquaro Fouqueria splendeus -- Ocotillo Ferocactus sp. - Barrell cactus Opuntia sp. - Prickly pear Yucca sp. - Yucca Aloe sp. - Aloe H esperaloe parviflora - red yucca PIROIA113ITED PLANT LIST - (DELETIONS Botanical Name TREES - PAGE 19 Brachychiton populneus Cupresspeypariss Grevillea robusta L.igustrum sp. Pinus sp. Prunus sp. SHRUBS - PAGE 19 Juniperus sp. Cortaderia Pennisetum setaceum "Rubra" Common Name Bottle Tree Cypress Silk oak tree Privet Pine trees Flowering Plum, Cherry Trees Junipers Pampas Grass Fountain Grass Melvin P'. Kersc ' y, Jr., ASLA Donald L. Pov'ril, PE. MV tthrw S. Stovall, ASLA jamcs R. 117kc, ASLA M KERSEY ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Planning ® Engineering m Landscape Architecture m Urban Design ,J, L. rm i-p-n['e r,ari I �ar, J �J 1 NE to 1,a n&i ape �.'Ilaster Plan V W L I � 1' 111 wil! fiii,'A ten collies of art addlendum to the Landscape plaster Plan z t ;I,, py,,- cl,_ ] eA-1,sc- -ic W cl bv ln� and Fi anson Desert The re, viced l,andsc-,we Ma --,ter Plan was submitted by Carcilvil 1-t J ­r ab � N iiictii Si,av I L! 1- 0111 NO' VvIllt Cf � 1 1 ')V) Plea:;(, route, uie adJcjAm)r-1 th rfmh the 11ppropt'late channels for review and approval Ivii lhanI �, flu for vour 6 L ;JUi:7- I . "Iro S I (-f. L I ` T! V�4!1 Al- I j I A t 11 (J t,APc L L 785 Crossover Lane-B, SLilte 228 a Mrmphis, TN 38117 a 901-685-8696 m FAX 901-683-8197 W-W C Sol t eu VULC ;WOMIFID PLAMI - DELRION,') Bit I" S4ROPS - PAU 19 —i NE Yso. WWO 1 ! ZI seLum ws�aoew-,.i Pub, wi 4mvion 11ame Butt 10 Tre�--' Ovurew Silk cap rtee Pr i neL P 1 ne C F i me t � nq un, uher-v Frew i u n : oe r,_' Pamms ur us,:� Foun Ca in Gr as.,, MEMORANDUM BS-3 CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: _"� HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF IN -LIEU FEES TO COMPLY WITH PARK REQUIREMENT FOR TRACT 23268 APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT Attached is the Applicant's proposal to pay in -lieu fees for Tentative Tract 23268, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, midway between Washington Street and Adams Street. Note that the proposed fee excludes eight .lots being used for retention. This is acceptable, provided the Applicant understands that when those lots are built upon, the fee based on household size and land value at that time will need to be paid. The Planning Commission should review the request and, if acceptable, by Minute Motion, recommend to the City Council approval of this in -lieu fee. attachments: 1. Letter and in -lieu fee calculation from Applicant MR/MEMOPC . 0 31 TO: MEMORANDUM BS-3 CITY OF LA QUINTA I- CNCRABI'E CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PL,a_NNING CCIVIMI SS CON FROM: THE PraAydN:CNG AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEM3ER 14, 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 'IN -LIEU FEES TO COMPLY WITH PARK REQUIREMENT FOR TRACT 23268 APPLICANT: VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT Attached is the Applicant's proposal to pay in -lieu fees for Tentative 'Tract 23268, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, midway between Washington Street and Adams Street. Nate that the proposed fee excludes eight lots being used for retention. This is acceptable, provided the Applicant understands that when those lots are built upon, the fee based on household size and Land value at that time will need to be paid. The Planning Corarriission should review the request and, if acceptable, by Minute Lotion, recommend to the City Council ax,rproval of this in -lieu fee. attachments: 1. Vetter and in -lieu fee calculation from Applicant MR/MEMOPC.031 November 6, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning DirectoT City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle ]Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: In regards to Tentative Tract No. 23268, Park Land Dedication, 'we would like to request that we pay fees in lieu of dedication of hand for a city park within our subdivision. TAT/nm Sincerely, Thomas A. Thornburgh 42-600 COOK ST. / SUITE 160 I PALM DESERT, CA 92260 / (619) 568 NOV 6 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA November b, 1489 PLANNING & DEVE' UMENT DEPT. PJr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Ferman: In regards to Tentative Tract No. 23268, Park Land Dedication, we would like to request that we pay fees in lieu of dedication of land for a city park within our subdivision. Sincerely, Thomas A. Thornburgh TAT/nm 1,4D D E VFI le,m, 0.A I i; N 42-600 COOK ST. / SUITE 160 / PALM DESERT, CA 922601(619) 568-4, PARKLAND DED1CAT1ON FORMULA AND DATA SHEET Date November 6, 1989 Owner Name Valley Land Development Company :Parcel/Tract Map No. 23268 .?assessor's Parcel No. No. Lots/Units Proposed 191. _ _-- - - Type Dwelling units S.F.R. aousehold Sire (see Planning & Developn,ent. Dept.} Average Appraised Current. Market value of Undeveloped Land (AAMV} :nand Acreage (Gross) 48.5 Market value/Acre (MV) $501,000.00 _ FORMULA FOR DEDICATION No. Dwelling Household 1,000 Acres To Be Units K size Persons K 3 - Dedicated. 191 X 3.01 574.91 7401 m 1.72 :acres To Be Dedicated For Public Parkland -0- Acreage To Be Charged For In -Lieu Fees 1.72 Total Acres 1.7-2 ZN-LIEU FEE CALCULATIONS No. Dwelling Household 1000c 'Park Units X Size Persons X 3 = Acres X MV/AC 191 X 3 01 574.91 X .57491 X 1.72 X o50,000-00 Total In --Lieu gee v �$6,000.00 Planning & Development Director Approval Fee is due prig or to recordation of Tract Map. Checks should be made payable to City of La Quinta. Staple check to form and return to: City of La Quints,, 78-105 Calle Estade, P. 0. Box 1504, La Quinta, CA 92253. E,J/FORM.004 F,0 'd c6t,-._ '03 't131 (INU-1 A3'7UO WO?JJ LT9S1129S 01 20:-T 68, 90 r)GN FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOVEM:BER 14, 1989 REVIEW OF ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL SITES The Planning Commission, under Government Code Section 39004, must review proposed school sites (attached). The Commission must make a recommendation within 30 days after receipt of notice. The recommendation should state any concerns regarding the acquisition of the site(s). GEINERAL PLAN: The General Plan .identifies the following two policies relating to school facilities: POLICY 5.5.1 - ENCOURAGE DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO PREPARE LONG RANGE PLANS FOR SCHOOL NEEDS OF LA QUINTA RESIDENTS. POLICY 5.5.2 - CONTINUE TO SUPPORT USE OF SCHOOL MITIGATION FEES AND OTHER METHODS TO FUND CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOLS FOR LA QUINTA RESIDENTS. The General Plan does not identify school sites. MR/MEMOPC.028 -1- BS•-4 ANALYSIS: 1. The City has provided preliminary comments to the school district (attached). These comments involve the site plan layout and other improvements. 2. The City does not process any planning approvals nor issue any building permits for school construction. This is the function of the State Architect. 3. The Commission's responsibility is to review the site for acceptability regarding proper location. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion, recoi-nimend to the Desert Sands Unified School District that the La Quinta elementary school No. 2 and the fourth high school sites are acceptable, and that the sites should be acquired. MR/MEMOPC.02£ -2- ��FIED 2 _ O BERMUDA DUNES r- y RANCHO MIRAGE o INDIAN WEALS �n DeseJ,C-t sands Unified school District �- C( PALM DESERT - LA OUINTA a 82-879 Highway 111 • Indio, California 92201-5678 • (619) 347-8631 • FAX# 342-1265 "IQ INDIO y October 27, 1989 Mr. Jerry Herman City of La Quinta Planning Department 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Planning Commission Approval of the Proposed Site for the Fourth High School Dear Jerry: The Desert Sands Unified School District has extensively reviewed two possible locations of a 40-50 acre site for a fourth high school in the La Quinta area. The preferred and alternate site options are as follows: 1. The southeast corner of Dune Palms Road and Avenue 46 to Adams Street. 2. The northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Miles Avenue. The alternate site is located on the corner of a heavy traffic intersection. The preferred site is considered most desirable due to its location near the Whitewater Channel and industrial zoned area, therefore, reducing impacts to residential areas and reduced traffic hazard potential. A traffic study for the preferred site is being conducted by a traffic engi- neering firm, Herman Kimmel & Associates, and will evaluate impacts and provide mitigation measures. We respectfully request Planning Commission approval of the preferred site on Dune Palms Road and Avenue 46, being most suitable for a fourth high school. Sincerely, Richard M. Beck, Director Facilities Planning & Development RMB:ME:sdb I L/06%$9 17�57 ? 002 11 SC1100). SITES sell enginevi'ITIE. stl.lr':it°s an4", ln%.:stlgattions conducted pursuant to this, tion may lx? .a3 -1 ,.,,jtlltt'r expenditure. (Added t�5' S;flt-�'�t; ;,6 1•12, tiff_ April 29, 1977, oil�!rati%e April 30, 1977, Arxlely(ikd by r 242. § 12. eff. ,iWy 7. 1977). HNtorieai Note u.; 331' timPll,lm�n1 k111�rr il! r�l. rn Ihv Derivation: qjr,t t;Cntenrr, "`t°f'tiun +t i. ,n i;' tlu• u,iejrtl by 14-txth.111i6. v. 557, 4 2. ,ysfiilialej r•ttYt it,t ' wrr(lrtlr :i! W n{, lr .be (,S1jrnat(4j VIA, 39003. f'ijtinit._iT,g j!' rrconstruction of paarticular mwhool _ The reccnstrljction of .any school on all or a portion of a site ' vblch has been used for public school purposes uninterruptedly since Dior to IS% may be flna;lr_ed through the State School Building Aid 0 Earthquake ?;,construction and Replacement Bond Low of 1972 Veft- Ater 19 (cotmrr,encing v✓;1h Section 17400) of Part 10 of Division of Title 1), if the legal `,jr. a to such site or a �rtion thereof is held ;either by- (a) a city school district, or (b) a charter city, and a city school d;st.rIet has obtained or is in the process of obtaining a least, of not less than 50 year. on such site or portion thereof from the char- ter city. r� (Stats.1976, r.. 1010, s 2, operative April 30, 1977.) Historical Mote Derivation: Filue-CI95i1. 1 1:rtk,:,3 e. 713, p. 1290, a; 1, rennhlArre+t $ 1*rikL.3 �Orp1P,P1y 1;rti�3.y..2, adda,1 �• ,lut _11t73, uud amended by K1ata.a'Ji$, i�. ;>b7. � 3. 39004, InveWgation %nd report of planning commission be- fore acgtdsition To promote the safety of pupils and comprehensive community Planning the governing, board of each school district before acquiring titl,� to property for a new :school site or for art addition to a present school site, shall give the planning corrlmission having jurisdiction no- tice in writing of the proposed acquisition, The planning commission shall investigate the pi =1rr::­,e d site and within 30 Clays after receipt of the notice shall submit tit the ;;overning board n written report of the investigation and its recommendations concerning acquisition of the site. The governing board shall not i equire title to the property until the report of the planning commis On has been received. It the re- port does not favor the a+._quisitiOn of the property for a school site, or for an addition to a presett-itst;hool site, the governing hoard of the 433 11/e6/89 17158 M I SCHOOL FACILITIES Pt. 23 school distriet. small not acquire title to the property until 30 days aft - the commissioWs report is received. (St.aUs.197b, c. 1010, § 2, ope-eat,ivie, April 30, 1977-) / Historical Note ®erivatlool tuluc.C.1959, A 15004 (State, firltaol C. § (I'UP2, added I)+' P>tata.1039, 1939, c, 2, it. 1071, § 15Ut)'1) , c. 476, f1. M-15), g '-2. Educe-C.194 , 1 18403 (htsts.1943, e. 71, p, (170, amrn0d by Stats.1054, v, 8s7, P- I. 4 26). Gross References i)trtrt-t. planning. see Government ('ode § Will W et seq. Gotrr.rning hoards, ere! $ta 78, $,5010 et xf•q.. 72130 et sea, Power®, nee §§ 3.5)(;d) et srQ., :;10)) of sea„ i'..'00 rt -sea., 8](I00 et seq. I.ocsl planning. filer Government Cotkc t 65100 et seu. Planning agency, itwextigalion arid repurt as to coufurmtty to general Plan, See 0OV- erninelit Cotle § 6*5402. Regional planning distrirtx, see (;overnment Code 1 (ireM) et seq. Itogillatlon of Loral Reellcie4 by cotrtltieif tnid eities, provinioas prevaillug over this .z section, see Government rode 1 5"5. €eltool nitev, ;tower to select and acquire, see §J 25270, 72300. (th Library References Schools and School Districts f$:-68. C.J.S. Schools and School Districts if 247, 24& . w Notes of Decisions , Acquisition of title 2 t'enstraction and application i laveatfgatlon 3 Lecation 4 Review 5 06filitracties Bad application 6c}loal ;liltriet whirl, did not tine vou- detaned imtl.l for purpose of building new school huildtuKs ware not required to cum - ply with I:dur-C-1f1 { 44 18403, 18404 rulteaied; now tills xection and § :,Vxxr,) relating to cuutietituatiun of new %rhuui Rites,. lfaywnrd t'tlion 114:11 Nel,dwl lti.t, of Alameda v. M;Wrid t lttti.i 41 ('at.ltlitr. 2Gq, _A ('.A.2d 100. Cninphout of property owner for injunc- 1lv,: fihll llt'iAhirwory r.•Iirf, are},two; lit ..rt abide aclectiUL of junior rtiilege wo Ii13111+• by board of trtlnrt•VS of jntiiur ruder;® di,• trim, wag inauffivirul to 811— Ihur hwgrd had tint fnllou'ril pras,•ribed pl•oredures for 3elP(f:q't i.f xife ur 11wet ir. Srlet•tiow wil'4 ilrhiirnrj' or ill'HUiuus. Arihwr r, ?)i •i,t,side.(arixhad .1r. CiMere toil, (llft,3) 31 C,Ahlar. 17 _'P• t'..1.:0 lino. l'ilytlt* t'It1r,CPA twuld 711,1 rniilntilil, a. !tun nLmki t w'hool diHtrit•t aml i•oniW f.,r wgRtent kJ, •t]Rrillg that lnddic iiitvrc`•t and necessity required ewnstmetioa of School building and acquisitiaa send appro- priation of a site upon wnigb the buildIM wen to be erected within dwritted tenet•: of land. People v. Oker (1958) 11124 PAO ",t3. 159 C.A2d 45& In taxpayer's action to enjoin ochodl district from acquiring ilia propert7 ready cotklemned, complaint Maned am• ory of uoneompliance with $a,aeX if 1 n403, 18404 [ now this section azd1 31i0(Zs], by the district in soud4main6 urultcrty wax demurrable where froth t#W and appellate courts knew as a fees, .,. in the rccurtlx of the prior Svi!: tint hail"T ed ducunients ronclusi—ly mistratiolt that tl,e uilegatiotls weretea- � tmv, W!lf,ou v. Los Altos 86901 Diet* 8snta Mint Cuufrty (1957) :its P-211 $71 149 t'.A.2d 76M. a �olioot district which S00911t to ma's ronliy tender (`CP 1 1242 lreLwaled,', CVP % 1245.0101 llrovlditig that tam ttnirrtl fnr public use must be I"b the wt•ittut r which will be Most cutnNl trite, greali+!tt iMOC goud and least t.lt•• iujur�•, Weir eIiu "n>y,.ut of the in .•purge of the uao for which the xouglit. ,Afoatebello Unified BI Dirt. of 1,014 :ingrtlex Cuunty V. 1 ( 11143) 1,11 P.2d 38 f. Sri CA.2d 3A 434 TA- e,P QIAM 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 September 15, 1989 Mr. Richard Beck, Director Facilities Planning & Development Desert Sands Unified School District 82-879 Highway 111 Indio, CA 92201 SUBJECT: COM14ENTS ON :ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE Dear Mr. Beck: The City of La Quinta has the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. Off -site improvements will need to be considered. 2. A bike path has been identified along the storm water channel. 3. Address the lighting of the football/track field as it might impact the single family units to the east. 4. More on -site parking is needed, also parking closer to the ball field. 5. Might want to locate the football field westerly adjacent to the wash, less impact on residential units. 6. Refer to the engineering comments dated September 5, 1989 (attached). Should you have any questions or additional information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, tJERR FRMAN PLAN NG & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JH:bja BJ/LTRJH.013 - 1 - MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 r rr � TO: Jerry Herman, Planning Director FROM: Frank Reynolds, Director of Public Works/City Enginee C4 DATE: September 5, 1989 SUBJECT: Desert Sands High School Sites Following are our comments on the above subject: 1. Street and Drainage plans subject to approval of the City Engineer. 2. Street improvements per General Plan. 3. Site # 1 drainage has to go to Whitewater. Site # 2 drainage has to be retained on site unless some arrangement can be made with the City of Indio. 4. Site # 1 involves Indio in the northeast quadrant of Westward Ho and Dune Palms. Site # 2 involves Indio on al: quadrants of Miles and Jefferson except the northwest. 5. At the present time Adams is a paper street and Westward He does not extend west of it. 6. The district should have a traffic study prepared to identify impacts and mitigation measures on existing streets and intersections that provide access to the proposed school sites. The study should include but not bi limited to 1-he following: a) identify impact of school generated traffic on existin, and proposed streets and intersections b) identify mitigation measures c) address alternate route during Whitewater flood stage d) address potential need for automated traffic warning device on Dune Palms and Jefferson north and south of the Whitewater to forewarn of flood hazard e) address pedestrial/bicycle access to site 7. A low water crossing of the Whitewater at both Dune Palms and Adams will be required. 8. Some additional provision for stadium parking will have to be addressed. LU 2c 0 SITE ,•,� 2 MILES AVE ' o N ' ' a : O cm N N OL a � AVENUE 46 a W SITE z � � 1 o WHITEWATER CHANNEL • 0 a Ire i- �t / MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Department FROM: Frank Reynolds, Director of Public Works DATE: July 31, 1989 SUBJECT: La Quinta Elementary School No. 3 The Conceptual Plan presented provides no indication as to how this site will be accessed. However, this department will recommend against allowing any vehicular access to Eisenhower Drive for the following reasons: a) This parcel's frontage along Eisenhower is all within the approach to the bridge structure crossing the Evacuation channel. b) This fact will make access dangerous because of sight distance, vehicular storage for turning movements, difficulty in acceleration/deceleration on the slope. This is particularly true for school busses. c) Pedestrian access would be a problem for some of the same reasons, unless the Eisenhower -Tampico intersection is signal -zed or has permanent crossing guards. Therefore, it appears that major access will have to come from the extension of Avenida Bermudas. This will require full right-of-way dedication and construction, which means that some off -site acquisition will be involved. All street and drainage improvements are to be in accordance with the City's General Plan Circulation Element and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 12. :l P J J Y r. Z Q Z v q� W LU 1 Cs 1 0 m �� H Z O J i1100] tlp! WM1Y^ li IN yNyr�..__ 5311tlOM` �"^�11 1 i iYf\ { J I A_—E cvp Q,c -m >jE R NON r m N 0 T6 '� •° Q a I w c- o m o- 3i 3 m2� m�0ui;p ap mEO mam U.; = mu` rn � 11 res IL H c a n=®= y aV m® m y o c W ma'? 65 O� oEc`oO�v nmac oay�v I tt6 to�O N m m m CI •� m C Z m C C O 3mN�a ` °1 t cc 'zS Ham m N mm N U 7 ` N N O1 C �� m 50 a cc mj .N. a V a j 3 EO 7 N Q U 'i a.= § m oom°Caaimi v�c��mc0lniiE7��m I u�m° °rn2Em�OaNUmmvM FCC Ell ip�N U C U CND C C• w� gifvui.1zpe -c7nm� Oto LL Z ® W �C C tl) �tOtm ® mtG U N m CG c •- m+ CQ 0 c i 0 aammC A; C o c c rp1 ELA xe • � � a r O C_ Z Z m > m C m rm p Z Z � Z O ------------- AVENIDA BERMUDAS BS-5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA fu: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PARC .LA QUINTA AND PYRAMIDS PROJECT INTERFACE Attached is a letter from Barcon Development Development, developer of Parc La Quinta, and one homeowner regarding landscaping concerns between their north boundary and the recent Pyramids landscaping. This is given to you for your review. attachments: 1. Letter from Barcon Development 2. Letter from Laine Rinker MR/MEMOPC.030 BS-5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA r;90: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 14., 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING PARC LA QUINTA AND PYRAMIDS PROJECT INTERFACE Attached is a letter from Barcon Development Development, developer of Parc La Quinta, and one homeowner regarding landscaping concerns between their north boundary and the recent Pyramids landscaping. This is given to you for your review. attachments: 1. 2. Letter from Barcon Development Letter from Laine Rinker MR/MEMOPC.030 a , , November 6, 1-989 ** HAND DELIVERED ** Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78--105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Pyramids landscape and fence along Parc La Quinta northern wall Dear Mr. Herman: As a supplement to various conversations with your office regarding the landscaping and fence placed by the Pyramids along the northern wall of Parc La Quinta, and in anticipation of the La Quinta City Council meeting November 7, 1989, this correspondence will serve to formally support the position of various Parc La Quinta homeowners that the landscaping and fence as currently positioned. create both an aesthetic and real nuisance to the homeowners along the Parc La Quinta northern wall. Putt simply, the :Landscaping unreasonably detracts not only from the views previously enjoyed by those homeowners, but ":Looms" over their rear yards, and the types of plantings (eucalyptus trees and bougainvillea) will shed and cause unreasonable litter in the Parc La Quinta yards. In addition, the fence itself is unsightly, provides no security benefit, and could have been positioned elsewhere in a less obtrusive location. What also bothers us regarding the fence is that we understand no such fence is shown on plans previously submitted by North Star to the City. In fact„ construction of the fence is expressly contrary to representations made to us by North Star. At meetings with North Star, including a meeting at their offices on August 16,, 1989, North Star confirmed previous information that they would not be erecting any fence along the Parc La Quinta north border„ Imagine our surprise when we discovered, at the same time as our purchasers, in and about the last week. of September, that not only was a 41-625 Eclectic, Suite H-1, Palm Desert, CA 92260, (619) 773-9024, Fax (619) 773-9065 Jerry Herman City of La Quinta November 6, 1989 Page .2 landscape buffer being constructed in a manner detrimental to the Pare La Quanta homes, but that a fence was also being constructed along the top of the berm. There is, of course, a question as to whether the berm is per plan, and a further question as to the functionality of the drainage canal constructed between the berm and Pare La Quinta northern wall. The berm appears higher than shown on the! original grading plan. As for the drainage canal„ we believe it will serve to collect water and dirt (from the berme against the wall_, placing stress on the wall with resulting damage. While we have put the Pyramids on notice regarding wall damage, we believe the City should review the sufficiency and use of the drainage area before further stress to the wall occurs. Consistent with our objection to the landscaping and fence constructed by the Pyramids, we ask the following questions 1) Is the fence required for security given the six foot garden wall constructed at Pare La Quinta? If not, then the fence should be removed. If yes, then exactly what additional security does the fence provide? Is barbed wire planned for the top of the fence? In any event, if the fence is necessary, why not move the fence to the lower north side of the berm, so it will not be visible from the Pare La Quinta rear yards. 2) If a landscape buffer was necessary and desirable for the Pyramids, why not require the types of plantings (rather than eucalyptus trees and bougainvillea) that will not shed and litter the Pare La Quinta yards? And, regardless of the type of vegetation planted, could not that vegetation also be moved to the lower northern side of the berm so that it is not visually "on top of" the Pare La Quinta wall and does not so impressively loom over the Pare La Quinta rear yards? Any, height achieved by the eucalyptus trees in their current location is exaggerated by the closeness of those trees to the wall, particularly given that those trees were planted on top of a high berm. And, in years to come, we believe the trees will be so large as to cause concern as to whether City of La Quinta November 6, 1989 Page 3 the trees will fall in Parc La Quinta yards, given that the trees are planted on the slope of the berm. The net effect of the fence and plantings on top of the berm is -to give the Pyramids, in effect, the equivalent of at least a ten (10) to twelve (12) foot high wall relative to the :Parc La Quinta grade. How can such a high barrier be permitted? Doesn't the City code specify maximum fence heights above grade, and wasn't the applicable grade established at Parc La Quinta? If the Pyramids desired the particular fence type and vegetation, then the berms should not have been constructed. Of course, Barcon Development, as a real estate developer, supports in general the right of property owners to develop their property in the most desirable manner. Nevertheless, we accept the fact that any development must be reviewed in the planning process and that various conditions and restrictions are often placed on what is developed on a particular property in order to ensure not only a quality development for the community, but a development that is compatible with its neighbors. Certainly, the planning process has extracted a large price from our original intended plans at Parc La Quinta. Nevertheless, the construction of the berm with the fence, eucalyptus and bougainvillea on top is absolutely incompatible with the already constructed homes at Parc La Quinta, along the northern Parc La Quinta wall. Therefore, we again voice our support for the position of the Parc La Quinta homeowners that the Pyramids be required to develop their southern border in a manner compatible with Parc La Quinta. Very truly yours, BARCON DEVELOPMENT, a California Limited Partnership Irwin. L. Golds general partner ILG/bw cc: Parc La Quinta Phase 1 purchasers I: don't. think it is fair and I also think this is .a hE=aIth hazard. I r)a.id a premium for the Iat. I expected thF',/ WOUICi ha%ee some kinr_i of wall but I never dreamed it would be to this x % t t. . .[ dc.-in' t care i.f there is a wall a little higher than our Wa1 ]. . ::?L-it L do object to havij--r_i a ditch in my back yard and a 0 finot_ ,val:l of landsi-ape. 1::-ncJlosed are some pictures we took to give you an idea what is i,joi.nq on. t: could go on .and on aibnut all the problems this brings. :I: ho[YE=- ./ou will take the time to :look at this and see if then-e isn't. !=Mmething that can be done to correct: this problem. Thank,-:i for your help. EP.incE:?re1.y, L�_EirTe Rinker SS MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA E CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DEANE HOMES BUILDING HEIGHTS ADJACENT TO WASHINGTON STREET The Conditions of Approval for Tract 23971, located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue restrict lots within 150 feet of Washington Street to one --story residences. the Applicant is requesting a modification to the condition to allow "homes not visible to Washington Street" which may include split level or two-story homes. Attached is a letter explaining their justification for such a request. Additionally, photographs and line of sight plans have been submitted. 'The Planning Commission should review the request and provide direction to the Applicant. attachments: 1. Letter from Applicant 2. Partial Conditions of Approval 3. Line of Sight Studies 11,V1R/MEMOPC . 0 3 2 Mr. John Walling, Chairman La Quinta Planning Commission PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 July 24, 1989 ATTACHMENT RE: Deane Homes Tract 23971; Washington Street at Miles Avenue Dear Mr. Walling; The purpose of this letter is to request that we be put on your August 7, 1989 Study Session Agenda. We wish to discuss the policy condition that only single story homes may be built on our lots backing up to Washington Street. Let me hasten to add that we have agreed to that condition of our subdivision approval and are prepared to implement it. The question we wish to pose at the study session, however, _s could the condition be changed to provide that "only single story homes may be built along Wahsington Street or homes not visible from Wahsington Street." We recognize that Washington Street is the "image corridor" to La Quinta and that a precedent has been set with other developers that only single story homes may be built. On the other hand, 7 understand the condition has not been raised for further discussion and consideration by the other developers either. For further consideration, I have enclosed Sight Line Studies which indicate that with unusually large rear yards and a slightly increased elevation of our perimeter berm and wall a two story house would not be visible from Washington Street. As you may see on the Sight Line Study, the roofs of the single story houses are presently visible from Washington. Street. Our interest in considering this matter lies in the fact that she "neighborhood" backing up to Washington Stree, all are proposing to develop, lacks variety because one entire side of the street is lined with single story houses whereas the rest of our community has the variety afforded by single story, split level and two story houses. To maintain the variety we are willing to expend the funds required to raise the Washington Street berm and create large rear yards as shown on the Sight Line Study if you are willing to consider the change in the comple3ion to allow single story homes or homes not visible to Washington Street are permitted. Sincerely, Robert E. Hardesty RH:mr ATTACHMENT 2 C. 27. Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning ;Division o Coachella Valley Water District. o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 29. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requireinfrastructure of Fee inthe effectCatyadopted Infra the time Of issuance of building permits. wsnsl 30. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for approval a drawing showing the location of any units higher than one story located along Miles Avenue frontage. No dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Washington Street shall be higher than one story. 31. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: MR/CONAPRVL.046 -7- SS MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: NOVEMBER. 14, 1989 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF WASHINGTON STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AND `1'ENTATIVE TRACT 21555 Attached are copies of Planning Commission and City Council minutes, reports, and Washington Street Specific Plan. The matter will be discussed during the Study Session. MR/MEMOPC.029 . A, 'N M I N U T E S BY PL ZBM ODMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUMA UkTE. C1�tc� A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California February 25, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. U11 TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Carmission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m he then led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requesters the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling and Chairran Thornburgh Absent: Co missioner De Gasperin Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Ccumissioner Walling to excuse Commissioner De Gasperin. Unanimously Adopted. Also present were Crmtini.ty Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Jim Kawamura, Engineer (BSI, Inc.), and Secretary Dorna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the hearing item as follows: A. Specific Plan No. 86-007, "Washington Street Corridor Study", a request for approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, Including Improvements, Alig_urnnt and Streetscape; City Initiated (Continued). He tl-en called for the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner informed the Planning Co -mission that since their last meeting, Staff and Jim Kawamura of BSI (City Consultant) met wit five residents of the Singing Palms area to discuss the proposed access and frontage road design for that area. It was agreed at this meeting that a second access with right -turn only would be provided at Singing Palms Drive and that a deceleration area would also be provided at t-,. s entrance. They. was also concurrence that the traffic signal be at Highland Palms Drive and the frontage road ranain at the 32' width for two-way traffic. 'the resider present expressed a strong desire to have the traffic signal installed immediately in view of the serious accidents that had occurred over the pas few days. however, Jim Kawamura reiterated what he stated at the public hearing. He advised than that if the signal is installed prior to the fror road, the City would have to make substantial changes to it at the time the road was constructed resulting in the City essentially having to pay for tY signal twice. Ms. Bonner advised the Planning CmYnission that Mr. Kaw mura would provide an amended exhibit for the changes suggested at the Singing Palms area. Ms. Bonner stated that at their previous public hearing on this matter, the Planning cmmission requested that a policy be included within the Washingt Street Specific Plan to restrict access onto Washington Street in areas whE there are lots fronting directly onto Washington Street. Namely, in the a: of Sagebrush Avenue and between Avenida La Fonda and Avenida Nuestra. TherE fore, she advised that Staff reco:mends the inclusion of the following to t plan: "No new direct access onto Washington Street from adjoining single-family lots shall be encouraged. New development on these frontage lots shall be reviewed by the City on a case -by -case basis." Ms. Bonner stated that based on the findings in the Staff Report dated February 11, 1986, Staff recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007 in accordance with Exhibit "A", the plan text, as amended. '-his concluded her report. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMIISSION February 25, 1986 Page 2. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Gerald Dupree, 78-430 Cameo Dunes, La Quinta (Singing Palms area), spokesman for the residents who were present at the February 19 meeting, stated his agreerent with the 32' wide frontage road and the amendment to the plan adding a right -turn ingress at Singing Palms. He also requested that the City upgrade the priority of this project. He advised the Planning Comniss. tY-at he did not return to all of the persons who signed the original petiti( he presented to them at the first hearing with the results of the 2/19 met - Michael Hudson, 51-044 Washington Street, La Quinta (Calle Tampico area), expressed his concern about possible street widening requirements. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the publ. hearing at 7:10 p.m. The Planning Commission discussed a number of topics regarding this matter recommending them as changes to Specific Plan No. 86-007 primarily as additions for clarification. The following is a brief synopsis of -topics discussed: P4rpose of the Specific Plan: To improve the public's understanding of the pvrpose of this specific plan, a statement should be added in the introduct emphasizing that this is a conceptual plan which establishes the basic obje tives and design parameters for the roadway improvements, alignment and streetscape. After adoption of this guide for future improvements, the nex step is the preparation of precise plans detailing specific design and engineering standards necessary to begin the actual implementation of the specific plan. At this next level detail, engineering plans will establish the precise alignment of Washington Street, the specific improvement design for the roadway and the standards for parkway improvements. At such time that the City Council reviews and approves these precise plans, the exact locations and dimensions of the additional land required for right -of -,way dedication will be specified, and a program will be institLted to acquire the needed property in an equitable and timely manner. A�uisition of Right -of -Way: The Planning Commission recommends addition of a statement expressing the City's basic objectives regarding the acquisi of additional right-of-way. These objectives are as follows: to minimize t the extent possible the acquisition of additional land for the right-of-way to allow for adjustments in the right-of-way width or design, when possible in order to minimize potential conflicts with existing development, while still maintaining the integrity of the plan's objectives; and, when possibl to obtain portions rather than entire parcels in order to minimize costs. Realignment and Frontage Road - Slpgiing Palm Area: The Commission unanimously recommends approval of realigrmernt and street cross section, wi the addition of a right -turn ingress at Singing Palms Drive as shown on the amended exhibit presented by Jim Kawamura of BSI at this meeting. In addit the Planning Commission re=m*x ds that the priority of this project be rai Tire Planning Commission also unanimously supports the increase in the front mad width from 28 to 32 feet, as recommended by the City Engineer. This i consistent with current City Policy for two, -,way streets having parking on o side only and provides for the minima 24-foot clear travelway for energenc vehicle access. * Street Lighting: The Commission unanimously reco awxIs installation of street lighting along the center median as shown on Figure 7, Alternative No. 1 of the text. The basis for this recommendation is the reduced cost of installation and the minimizing of impact of the lights on adjacent residences. The Commission also concurs with the proposed light standard spacing. MINM::S - PLANNING CCR�iLSSION February 25, 1986 Page 3. * Sidewalks and Bikeways: The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that a pedestrian walkway be installed along one side and an off-street bike path be installed on the opposite side of Washington Street, with widths as similar to that shown on Figure 7, Alternative No. 2 of the text. The basi of this recommendation was that an off-street bike path is needed in light of the anticipated traffic levels and speeds, and to provide a safe way for children bicycling to the schools or. Avenue 50. The overall reco;mendatior is also based on the desire to minimize the amount of paving or hard surfac in the parkway areas. * Landscaping Plan: Although the Planning Cammission munanimously agreed in concept to the proposed planting recommendations, they reouested that a stz ment describing the overall design theme be added to the plan. They recam that this section be adopted as a guideline, and that more specific sta-Aas be developed at a later date. The Planning Commission supported the estai lishment of a theme emphasizing canopy -type trees rather than palm trees. This will establish an appearance which will be different, yet complement t theme followed on Eisenhower Drive with a single row of palms in each parka In addition, the consistent use of a limited number of tree types along thi four -mile -long street in the City will establish a cohesive appearance whi] still providing enough of variety to provide visual interest. The use of canopy -type trees will also provide shade for pedestrians and bicyclists a] Washington Street. * S_gnage: The Commission recommends that a statement be added regarding the establishment of general standards for City signage along Washington which will compliment the overall appearance of the corridor while also effective directing traffic, including providing direction to public facilities. * City Entry Monument: The Planning Cannission recommends adoption of Exhibi m'C". The use of horizontal and vertical design elements, in addition to tr varying heights of the trees provides an interesting and attractive apoeare The Commission recommends that the City logo be prominently displayed as a part of this entry monument. * Cost Estimates: The Planning Commission recommends that an explanation of the basis for the land and improvement costs be added to the text. * Noise Barriers: There was unanimous agreement that a section be added pertaining to the construction of noise barriers along the length of Washir Street to minimize traffic noise impacts on nearby residents. In addition, priority should be given to providing mitigation for residential areas currently suffering severe noise impacts. * Access to Washington Street: The Planning Commission recommends the inclus of a policy stating that new direct access onto Washington Street from adjc ing simile --family lots shall be avoided. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt to approve Specific Plan No. 86-007 in accordance with Exhibit "A", as amend& Unanimously Adapted with a 4-0 vote; Commissioner De Casperin absent. 4. axis NT CALENw A. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, detemmininc that the proposed Coachella Valley Water District reservoir is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. unanimously Adopted with Commissioner De Gasperin absent. B. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of February 11, 1986. The minutes of the regular meeting of February 11, 1986, were approved as sabmi Unanimously Adopted with Commissioner De Gasperin absent. MINUTES - PLANNING CaV4ISSION February 25, 1986 Page 4. There was a short discussion at this time regarding Staff's recomiendation to place single-family dwelling plot plan requests on the Consent Calendar. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to do so unless there Was a problem situation, in which event, the plot plan request would be presented as a Business item for further discuss: 5. BUSMSS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as follows: A. TRACT 19458 - A request for a first Extension of Time on Isla Mediterranea, an 894-unit, 152-acre tract located on the northeast corner of the Washington Strr Avenue 48 alignment; M. B. Johnson, Applicant (Continued). He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Bonner advised the Commission that Staff net with the Applicant, Mervin Johnson, and his engineer, Robert Vatcher of V'IN, this past week to discuss the conditions of approval attached to this request. &he then reviewed the changes agreed to by Staff and the Applicant. A copy of the changes were presented to the Commission before this meeting. Ms. Bonner advised that the Applicant and his engineer were present for anj questions the C=ussion might have. This concluded the Staff Report. Cmaisman Thornburgh called upon the Applicant for any carments. Robert Vatcher, Applicant's engineer, vLN Consolidated, 74-947 Highway 111, Palm Desert, reported that they were in agreement with time changes in the conditions of approval as identified by Ms. Bonner, and thanked Staff for working with them to resolve the concerns of the Applicant. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion, 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by commissioner Walling to recommend approval of the First Extension of Tine for TE-ntative Tract Map No. 19458 to February 7, 1987, based upon the findings L-i the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Unanimously Adopter with Commissioner De GaspP.rin absent. T'.he next two items of business were introduced by Chairman Thornyugh as follows: B. Plot Plan No. 86-263, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the north side of Horseshoe Road, 370' east of Roadrunner Lane; Rick Johnson Construction, Applicant. C. Plat Plan No. 86-264, a request to construct a single-family on the east side of Avenida Madero, 100' south of Calle Arrcba; Rick Morris/Manual Abarca, Applicants. He then called for the Staff Reports. 1. Director Stevens stated that both plot plans were consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, are compatible with area development and present no adverse impact on the environment. He further advised that Plot Plan No. 86-263 is located in the Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat area and payment of the miti- gation fee will mitigate the impact of this proposal an the species. Staf: recommends approval of both plot plan requests. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion 2. Ccrndssioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to approve Plot Plans Nos. 86-263 and 86-264 based on the findings in the Staff Reports in accordance with Exhibits A through E attached to Plot Plan 86-263 and Exhibits A, B and C attached to Plot Plan 86-264, and subject b conditions of approval attached to both requests. unanimously Adopted wit] Cmmissicmer De Gasperin absent. MINUTES - PIANAZVG COMMISSION February 25, 1986 Page 5. Director Stevens addressed a non -agenda matter, explaining to the Planning Commission that the Applicant for Tentative Tract Map No. 20717 (Sunrise Caaapaany), which they had approved several months ago, has approached Staff expressing their desire to make some additional changes in the proposed architecture which would effect approximately 76 of the units in that tract. The variation that the Applicant desires is a mixture of the two models presently on site. It is Staffs judgment that the changes are not substan- tial and it is their intention to approve the request unless the Commission has some concerns. The Commission agreed with Staffs reccrw endation to approve the Applicant's request. Director Stevens also advised the Commission that Tentative Tract Map No. 21381 would be referred back to them, as the Applicant has discovered some errors in acreage calcu- laticns. It is presently scheduled for City Council hearing on March 4, at which time, Staff will request a continuance to their next regular meeting of March 18, so that the Planning Commission can review the changes at their meeting of March 11, 1986. After a brief discussion on the status of other projects, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. • � - i is There being no further items of agenda to cane before the Planning czmission, Commissioner Waling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 111 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quints, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, CA, was adjourned at 8:50 p.m., February 25, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 calle Estado, La Quinta, California. L+ 4 �Q h' fl�;��, iU BY�e�l%y. MINUTES z' DATE -\A-Aa 4 PIR,IN1NG Ca*USSICN - CITY OF LA QUINTA - A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California February 11, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission Ming to order at 7:00 p.m - he then led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman 'Thornburgh requested the Roll Call; the Secretary called the Poll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: Commissioner De Gasperin Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to excuse Commissioner De Gasperin. Unanumbusly Adopted. Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Plamr Sandra L. Bonner, and Secretary Donna M. Velotta. 3. HEARINGS Chsi-roan Thornburgh introduced the first item of hearing as follows: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 21381, a request to divide a 42.6-acre ?ortion of the "PGA Tiest" project into 24 lots to accommodate 118 attached condominium units; Sunrise Company, Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Community Development Director Stevens addressed this matter by explaining that this tract is a 42.6 acre portion of PGA West and is a proposal to create 24 lots to accatmodate 118 attached condominium units. The site is located generally west of PGA Boulevard, off Arnold Palmer entrance drivewa He felt the the Commission was familiar with the basic conditions and cir- cumstances at the PGA West project. This proposal is for 118 units which are a mixture of the units referred to as the "Classics". They are large duplexes ranging in size from 3500 to 4300 square feet in size and are pricy from $500,000 to $600,000, The Applicant is proposing to construct 54 of t] "Classics" units. The other type of unit proposed for this tract is known the "Legends". These will be fourplex buildings, although there are a coup: of exceptions in this area where there would be some duplex and some triple: units. The "Legends" units are generally 2300 to 3000 square feet in size and are pried from $275,000 to $350,000. In our previous reviews of the PGA West project, we have had the opportunity to see the floor plans and bo the "Classics" and the "Legends" units can be seen in the model complex on site. The exterior of the units are referred to as contemporary and Mediterranean. This plan is generally consistent with the overall specific plan and is a fairly logical expansion of the previous development approval. Director Stevens advised that Staff has reviewed the plan relative to the Land Use Ordinance, the Specific Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance and are recommending that the tract be approved subject to the findings and candid in the Staff Report. Addressing the conditions of approval, Director Stevens stated that he had a few minor changes to discuss with the Commission. The first change is in Condition 14.c., which relates to a tagorary cul-de-sac primarily to facil tate fire department access during the interim period when some of the stre are not fully constructed into the loop system. To add clarity to the cond tion, we would recommend that the word "Temporary" be inserted as the first word of Condition No. 14.c. The next change relates to Condition No. 15. He reminded the Commission that within the overall specific plan there is a traffic monitoring condition where we would determine, based on the growth pattern that occurs, an appropriate time for a traffic signal. This condi- tion was really written before the City had fully developed its Infrastruct program and he felt that there was some question as to exactly how this con tion should be written and applied. Because this is a relatively small tra Director Stevens suggested that the condition be deleted from this particul, tract and work on making it more appropriate as we get additional developee within the project. M24UTES - PIA WING CCMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 2. The next minor change is in Condition No. 17.e. Basically, this is just scree basic minor language changes for clarity. It relates to adequate fire protection prior to the arrival of combustible materials on the site. Staff suggests that the condition be changed to read as follows: "17.e. Prior to arrival of combustible materials on the construction site, adequate fire protection facilities, temporary or permanent, must be operating to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal." He noted that it may be that the actual lines and hydrants :nay not be in yet; that is why we use the word temporary, as it may be there will be a tank or some other storage mechanism that would take care of this on a short term basis. Generally, we have allowed the Fire Marshal to approve alternates, but we just wanted to make it a little clearer relative to that particular circumstance. The other issue that was discussed at the Study Session was regarding the noise condition and it was agreed to leave that condition intact. Director Stevens stated that these are the only changes and Staff reccyrmends that the Commission approve the tract subject to the conditions with those minor revisions. This ended the Staff Report. The Commission had no questions of Staff, therefore, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comments at 7:10 p.m. Zim Pesney, Vice President, Sunrise Company, 75-005 Country Club Drive, Paln Desert, CA., Applicant's representative, stated that the minor concerns contained in the conditions have been satisfied. He further commented that as they were beginning to develop the second phase, he was very pleased with the cooperation they have received from the City and is sure it will continue No one else appeared on this matter. Therefore, Chair an Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. After a short discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by C ammissioner Walling, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21381 based on the findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval, as mended. Unanimously Adapted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: B. Specific Plan No. 86-007, "washington Street corridor Study", a request for approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, including improvements, alignment and streetscape; City Initiated. He then called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens advised that this is a project that has been discussed for a considerable period of time and that has been aggressively worked on during the past four or five months. The Washington Street plan has been to both the Commission and the Council for preliminary comments in anticipation of preparing the current document which we are calling a hearing draft. The purpose of this meeting and any subsequent mmeetinq the Commission has, if they choose to comti r me this item, and of course the Council hearing on this matter, is basically to hear public irmput relative to the plan and modify, adjust or otherwise consider the plan in light of that public comment. The basic objectives that we are trying to operate under in the development of the plan were to assess both the short range and the lamg range reeds and deficiencies along Washington Street and to make specific recommendations on the ultimate development of the corridor. The City considers Washington its most important entrance street and Director Stevens stated he believes that is why we have chosen to take this type of emmphasis with that corridor street Other objectives we attempted to follow in developing this plan was to deter - nine the design of the right -of --way improvenahts to make slice they were appropriate to handle future traffic levels. We wanted to provide for traffic safety by solving existing safety hazards and by establishing reasonable design criteria for future developments. We also wanted to deal with scmme landscaping issues, resolving the problems in the Singing Palms area where some properties have access directly onto Washington, etc. We ,%awns -• PLANNING CCM IISSION February 11, 1986 Page 3. also wanted to try to establish a unified design theme for the corridor, which would include landscaping and lighting, street furniture, street sa.gns, etc., so that instead of having a scattered, pieccm-eal approach from one end of Washington to the other it would really create an identity along that corridor. 'There is also the need to estimate the cost of the corridor improvements, for the pLunpose of prioritizing those iaprovements, and providing us with assistance in developing a work program to actually implement or construct Washington. Recalling earlier discussions, Council has indicated their desire (approximately a year ago) to construct this corridor to a minimum four -lane condition at least between Highway 111 and Avenue 52. That was the initial impetus for getting this program under way. In looking at the study, everyone will have to be concerned with the cost and whether we can reasonably accomplish the goal of getting it done within the next six months to a year, but he believes we are still carmitted to at least trying to make that happen. 'rhe other purpose of the plan was also, we have a number of developments that have been approved along Washington and most of those approvals have relatively generalized conditions stating that they shall comply with the Washington Street Specific Plan or with the standards that came within the General Plan which was developed subse- quent to those development approvals. We wanted to get as specific as we could along the corridor to facilitate that design problem for those approved developments. Director Stevens stated that we have attempted, through the course of the specific plan, to give you as many illustrations as possible and enough guidance that you can reasonably understand what we are trying to accomplish. Another thing that the Cormission must realize that this is rot an improvement plan or a design plan of sufficient detail to actually construe It is an alignment study and establishes the centerline. It estimates where right-of-way adjustments need to be made. Each of these need to be refined further when the preparation of street improvement plans are done and when financing mechanisms are developed. The report only generally speaks about financing. one of the things that needs to be made clear is that the Plan is not a solution to the financing problem. That will require additional analysis and additional hearings as we get to the point of implementing the plan. The cover memo to the Commission that Staff prepared basically reaches a number of conclusions as to the study and how it relates to our intended goals. Staff has also prepared the appropriate findings that would allow the Ctmmission to approve the specific plan should you desire to do so at the conclusion of this hearing. Director Stevens stated that he felt the key as to whether the Commission is prepared to adopt the plan tonight is what is the nature or issues developed from the public input tonight and does that require subsequent adjustments in the proposed plan as it currently stands. If there are changes, you would probably want to continue the hearing and allow Staff to fine tune the plan based on the comments made. If you find that the majority of the coxmnents made find the plan in good shaper You May decide to go ahead and adopt the plan. That is a judgment for the Commission to make at the elusion of this hearing. Director Stevens stated that this r presents the general background of the plan. He then turned the meeting over to Principal Planner Bonner for discussion of further concepts of the plan. Referring to the wall renderings, Principal Planner Bonner explained that Washington Street is the Hain gateway into the City and is indicated as the major image corridor on our General Plan. Tine primary areas where there are current problems for which we need solutions are the general area south of Highway Ill (Singing Pa]ms/Hi:ghlm-d Palms area) where right now we have a condition where we have approximately 20 houses that have driveways backing out onto Washington Street. This is a problem to the residents with regard to safety and it is also a hazard to the people driving on Washington Street. our consultant looked for solutions eliminating this problem which are repre- sented by the exhibits displayed on the wall. Generally, what is proposed is to have a frontage road in the Singing Palms and Highland Palms area. This would be a two-way, 32' wide street that would allow two travel lanes, an 8' parking lane, a 12' parkway area that would have a wall to serve as a noise barrier and then a 120' wide public roadway or street for Washington that can ultimately be widened to six lanes. l+hnat this will do is put the signalized intersection at the southerly (Highland Palmas) '_.-ntersection and the northerly intersection (singing Palms) would be closed off to prevent access into the development. Ms. Bonner advised that Staff has had a responnc from a representative of the homeowners in this area and they have requested that the Planning Camaission and City Council consider a modification of thi.' plan suggesting that a right -turn only be allowed into the development. MINUTES - PLANNING CCD24TSSION February 11, 1985 Page 4. Ms. Bonner went on the explain that in order to accommodate this redesign of the roadway to the east, it will be necessary to acquire additional right-of-way from the property owners along the east side of Washington Street. This additional acquisition could be approximately 90' or so. The projects that will be affected are some portions of an undeveloped land division that is part of the Simon Motors development; to the south, tie George Marzicola property which is proposed for a regional shopping center; and further south, is Mervin Johnson's project Isla Medi.terranea project. Beyond that point to the south, the road returns to its ultimate right-of-way. The second area that is involved in a realignment for traffi safety involves the area south of Eisenhower Drive. Generally, right now the road bows out hard the west. The engineer is recamending that the road be realigned towards the east so that it would be straightened. She referred to a wall rendering which indicated the realigned Washington Stree and the land which would became surplus and used for landscaping and the installation of a noise barrier in this area. In this case, again some right-of-way area will be purchased from the property owners and the surplt property would be developed as parkway along the west side of the street. Ms. Bonner stated that Staff has received numerous calls and office visits ran persons concerned about the noise barriers. The widening or realign- ment of Washington Street just immediately south of Highway 111 and again just south of Eisenhower Drive is allowing additional space for the con- struction of a noise barrier. There seems to be an interest from property owners along Washington Street that noise barriers be made a part of this Washington Street Specific Plan on the basis that ultimately it will be a six -lane highway which will result in substantial noise. She referred the Ctffmission to a letter from Howard Tons, President of Montero Estates, in which they requested that the noise barrier be made a part of the specific plan. The same request has been received from a property owner in the area of Tampico and Washington. We currently have a situation with the iSontero Estates development and directly to the east (Sagebrush, Bottlebrush and Saguaro) and then south again on the east side of Washington where we have existing subdivisions and as they develop, the complaints about noise and the number of people being affected will be increasing. Therefore, it woul be appropriate to consider strengthening the statement in the plan regardir this matter. Rega da ng bridges, Ms. Bonner advised that the one on the 4-ihitewater Channe is currently a half -bridge and a000rding to the plan will be widened to all for six lanes. The other existing bridge is located in an unincorporated area that is going to be annexed into Indian Wells, and therefore, the Cit} could be required to fund the img=vemeent of this bridge. Staff has been talking to Indian Wells and hopefully, they will contrihmmte to a portion of the widening of this bridge. The second bridge within the City is located over the La Q=ta Evacuation Channel v*uch is between Avenue 50 and Tampic and again, the design called out for in the plan is construct a bridge that will allow for six travel lam. This bridge has an additional effect an t design of the roadway in that area. C>bviously, we have half the bridge tlx (the northbound lanes) and the roadway must line up with this bridge. Vdmat looks to be a frontage road north of Avenue 50 to the west is actually the southbound lanes of Washington Street and the ultimate right-of-way. Then is not much flexibility here of how to shift the road. There is a desire of property owners on both sides of the street to shift the road the other way, but there is only so much you can shift either way because we have hal the improvement on the east side and half on the west side. Therefore, who the consultant is proposing in this area closely follows what the oommty specific plan was for Washington Street which they adopted in 1966. Vdhat they are doing is offsetting the road, taking more right -of -gray from the west side of Washington Street than a]cng the east. In this case, our consultant is proposing that the City acquire 50 feet of additional right- of-way along the west side of Washington, south of Avenue 50 down to Avenue and then 10-foot of right-of-way along the east side of Washington Street, essentially all the way from Avenue 48 down to Avenue 52. This is to provi the necessary 120 feet for a six -lane road. With regard to cul-de-sacs, Principal Planner explained that what we are trying to do is limit the number of accesses with regard to cross traffic and try to maximize the distance between intersections so as traffic increa we will be able to install traffic signals. We are carrying this concept downward on Washington Street and are looking at the area again immediately north of Avenue 50 (Bottlebrush, Sagebrush and Saguaro). Vie are proposing YJMMM - PLANNING 0CMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 5. that two of those three streets be cul-de-saced. This would provide a little more integrity for the neighborhood, cut the through traffic and eliminate the number of intersections. We are also proposing a number of cul-de-sacs at Tampico and Washington, south of Avenue 50 - this would include Paloma and Calle Quito - thereby eliminating four more intersection and would change the primary entrance into the subdivision to Calle Tampico Ms. Bonner addressed costs involved in this project. She stated that the costs included in the main document, excluding costs for inflation of land, is approximately $33-million dollars for improvements. This includes stree improvements, bridge improvements and utility improvements. Of these costs approximately one -quarter are for that area north of Fred Waring Drive to Interstate 10. Another quarter of this $33-,million is related to improve- ments for extensions to the utilities. Again, as develoFnent occurs and developers extend lines in order to construct their projects,, these costs may be reduced over time. Ms. Bonner advised that the consultant has provi us with more information regarding land costs at the request of Commiss one Walling, Using the figure of $10 per square foot, the consultant assessed the cost of the area from Highway 111 south to Avenue 52. Therefore, to acquire the additional right-of-way proposed by this plan, the cost would b $7.6-million dollars for land costs alone. In summary, the costs, excludin the area outside the City and reasonably excluding utilities is approximate $23-million dollars. The consultant has recommended mitigation measures, h has included the cost and also has prioritized, which will be one of the factors as far as balancing out what the cost is, what our anticipated or means of funding are and the need for certain improvements. Ms. Bonner then explained some of the wall renderings which included entry monument designs for the area at Highway 111 and Washingtor. Street. This concluded her report. Director Stevens advised that the above presented an overview of the issues and the design concept and haw the plan generally proposes to deal with tho One thing he wanted to emphasize is that we have talked about Washington be 120-foot wide, six -lane street, we are making provision within that right - way width to have the ability to accommodate six -lanes of travel in the fat should the ultimate traffic dictate -that. Our traffic studies say that wit occur. It is not, however, our intention to initially develop the roadway to automatically go to six lanes. What will be done is basically have a four -lane striping arrangement and use the excess right-of-way for bikes, bus stops, vehicle lanes, etc., and hope that the projections are wrong abo six lanes, but we will at least have the physical ability to accommodate th if the projections are right. This concluded Staff's presentation. There was a brief discussion period between Staff and the anmmission regard the number of approved projects along the Washington Street corridor and ha their participation in this plan would affect the oust to the City. Direct Stevens stated that the mound of participation will be highly contingent upon the timing of our construction relative to %omen same of those develop- ments occur. Chairman 'Thornburgh opened the hearing to public comment at 7:50 p.m. The following persons appeared an this matters ° Gerald Dupree, 78-430 Cameo Dunes Place, La Quinta - Presented the Comamissl with a 90-signature petition regarding traffic signalization in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area. He also presented copies of ingress/egress desi suggested for that area and explained each to the Commission. ° Steve Gaylord, 46-555 Washington Street, La Quinta - Had concerns with previous speaker's recommendation to cut frontage road down to 20' (he live in one of the 18 homes fronting Washington). Felt the noise wall should st in this area, as these hones front Washington Street and the hones in the Montero area have their back yard on Washington. He stated the majority of the 18 hones are occupied with families with young children and the City is talking six -lanes in future which frightened him. ° Sybil Jaffey, 46-410 Cameo Palms, La Quinta - Felt a signal at Singing Palm and Washington was warranted now, not later. Has concerns with the traffic figures and demographic figures in the plan. Suggested the City look at th possibility of an overpass at Washington and Highway 111. M]NUTE3 - PT kVIING CCDI'USSICN February 11, 1986 Page 6. ° Marie Redding, 78-450 Crestview Terrace, La Quinta - Resident here for 20 years. Felt the plan good, but felt a traffic signal is warranted now at either the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area and Washington. ° Don Williams, 46-675 Washington, La Quinta - Agreed with vhr. Dupree's concept of a one-ey entrance at the Singing Palms, but did not agree with his suggestion to narrow the frontage road to 201. He questioned the propo! height of the wall to front their hones along Washington (Director Stevens responded to this). He questioned if there was to be a southbound turn fro Siron Drive onto Washington (median cut). The City's consultant, Jim Kawam replied that it was not proposed, but could be provided. Mr. Williams state he did not want a median cut at Simon Drive. ° Feverend Conrad Nala of Coachella representing Mr. Javier Munoz, 59-570 Washington Street, La Quinta - Reverend Nala stated Mr. Munoz was concerned with the amount of property the City would be taking along his hone which fronts Washington. (His property is on the east side of Washington, just north of Tampico.) Mr. Munoz is also concerned that he will have to pay fc these improvements on Washington. One other concern was the closing of son of the streets in the area with regard to access to Washington. Director Stevens explained that the proposal is to close Calle Palona and Calls Cbisj at both ends which would mean they would cul-de-sac at Washington Street. As far as the amount of property that would be taken from Mr. Munoz°s lot, Director Stevens advised that it would approximately 5' to 8' and would more than likely not be for the entire frontage. It would be just enough proper, to make the cul-de-sac large enough for a fire truck to ti-n around. He ads that there is even the possibility that the cul--de-sac could be provided wit existing right-of-way already there. ° Gloria Lepke, 46-700 Cameo Palms, La Quinta - Felt a traffic signal is warm now. Felt the plan is great. She questioned whether or not there is preset any projects coning into the Washington/Highuuy 111 area that would be parr pating in the financial aspect of the plan. Director Stevens advised that City does not currently have any applications for this area, but have disco a project with Mr. George Marzicola who owns the majority of the property directly across the street from Simon Motors. Mrs. Lepke said her reason D asking this question was to see if some of the cost was going to be assesses to their taxes. Director Stevens advised that we do not ]mow the answer to that yet. He advised that he felt it fair to say that the property owners along Washington will have to realistically expect some form of an assessmet district to help; not to pay for thee entire improvement, but to basically make the project work. Director Stevens advised that everything he is sayi tonight must be taken in a very general context, as we are committed to man formal hearings where we can give you real mmibers at such time when we get the details of the financing mechanism worked out. 'This will probably be fs to six months away yet. ° Georges Marzicola, 73-745 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert - owner of the property acro; from Simon Motors south and also front Highly 111. He praised the Washi street specific Plan and stated all persons involved should be omplimented He advised that he is concerned with regard to adequate signalization. He stated that his firm has done an overpass study for the Washington/Highway area and they believe it to be futuristic. He advised those present who 11 in the area that they do plan to participate in the improvants involved i this plan. ° Robert Vatcher, VTN Engineers, 74-947.Highway 111, Indian Wells - Explained they are the engixxwxs involved with M. B. Johnson's "Isla Medite ranea" project. He stated that they wish to go on record as having vital interest in these proceedinngs. At this stage of these proceedings there is not em- information to realize the i.rnpaet of the amount of property that will be ne to make the Washington Street improvements that will have to be taken from Mr. Johnson's project. on tonight's agenda, we have a request for a time extension for the °Isla Mediterranea" project for which we have requested a continuation in order to work closer with Staff and their representatives i determining these impacts. He advised the CoTmission and Staff that a good portion of the final engineering has been accomplished pursuant to the orig approval of the tentative nap, so from this point forward, any impacts can greatly multiplied especially w1um coupled with adherence to the newly adop General Plan requirements. He further advised the Commission that they hav aLready set up a meeting with Staff in this regard. MINCM - PLAMING CCR41SSION February 11, 1986 Page 7. There being no further public cc m ents, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh called a ten-minute break at this time. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh called upon the City's consultant, Jim Kawamura of BSI, Inc., to respond to the concerns presented by the residents who had spoken. Mr. Kawamura thanked those who presented their statements and concerns and advised that during the process of the study, they looked at a number of alternatives. He advised that they did look at the possibility of the frontage road in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms area being a narrow, 20' one -may lane as opposed to the 32' alternative. He stated that they also saw the need for prioritizing the improveTents to dete--mine which were more urgently needed. He referred the Commission to the list on Page 40 of the report which shored the improvements in the Singing Palms area as third highest. The first on the list is the widening and signalization of Avenue 50 and Washington and the second highest would be improvements to Highway 1: and Washington Street. He advised that they did look at a nuTTber of altern tives and the need to balance the needs of the cc mmmnity with respect to safety, circulation, parking, etc., with the costs for those types of impra ments. Referring to the street design draw--ngs presented by Mr. Dupree earlier in the meeting, Mr. Kawamura complimented Mr. Dupree on than and stated that wA really appreciate the efforts that were put into the exhibits as they prese clearly what the public is proposing. The designs exhibited a one-way stre for the frontage road in the Singing Palms/Highland Palms subdivision and Mr. Kawamura stated that there would be problems with this concept especial to the 18 hones fronting on Washington Street. Someone living on the corn at the beginning of the one-way street might feel it all right to enter the street (going the wrong way) because he is just going to the first driveway And those living at the end of the one -Tay street would have to drive all t way around the subdivision to enter the street to get to their home. He further advised that there is an aesthetic as well as an envi=rffnental cony with regard to the 20', one-way street versus the 321, two-way street, and is that they triad to find a greater separation between the traffic on Wash and those hones that would be fronting Wasington. It is an ,additional 12' buffer provided by the street. This is the environmental or noise concern. The aesthetic concern relates to the provision of a sound wall of some type in the landscaped area. With the 20' wide road, this wall would be 12' cla to the residents along there utdch would have a more significant impact on those people. For all the above reasons, which specifically impact those 1 homes fronting Washingtcn, they felt the one-way street was not a good idea and that their should be at least a twos -way circulation system. on the issue presented regarding the possiblily of having a right -turn only entrance onto Singing Palms, Mr. Kawamura stated they felt this was an idea that dial have as many merits as it did disadvantages. The major problem wi providing that type of situation is safety. We felt it would be of much mo benefit to those persons living in that area to focus the traffic activity one location, namely Highland Palms as opposed to Singing Palms, The Singi Palms intersection is relatively close to Highway 111 and the Highway 111 a Washington Street intersection is one in which they anticipate will have ma traffic problems in future, even with the improvements being proposed. The fore, to have an additional point of conflict, wren though we are talking a a southbo nd, right -turn movement early, it would not necessarily work to th advantage of the residents in that area. Another reason they did not think this would not be reasonable is that they wanted to take another look at th hares in the area, that they are quite attractive and deserve more protect i. so therefore felt they should be provided with a "gated" type of community. By providing another turn, you would go back to the traditional cat of tract. The plan shows this "gated" type of community concept without actua being gated. Discussing the concept of an overpass at Highway 111 and Washington Street, Mr. Kawamura stated that visually they are pretty awful lookisng structures and have quite an impact. He stated that they are mostly used in very urba areas where there is a very intense type of development and there are no of alternatives. He stated that he felt the City of La Quirta would never hav MINUTES - PLNNNLiG CESSION February 11, 1986 Page 8. this type of situation with respect to traffic and felt that the people would never allow it to get to that type of situation where a grade separat. is necessary. There are major cost factors involved as well as a lot of otl problems with the construction of an overpass. Director Stevens asked Mr. Kawamura about lots to the south of Tampico alone Washington that are currently undeveloped and what the plan is for that ara Mr. Kawamura replied that in that area they felt it would basically be the acquisition of the necessary right -of --may for Washington Street. As to haw those properties would be developed would be something that would have to be handled almost on an individual, property by property, basis. Director Stevens stated he felt maybe we should place a standard in the plan as to how the access to Washington Street in that area south of Tampico shot be handled. Mr. Kawamura addressed the concern mentioned of when the signalization woulc be provided at the Highland Palms intersection. He advised that if it were done immediately it would probably cast approximately $60,000 - $70,000 and the oven other improvements along Washington were done, it would have to be redone. Addressing the noise barriers, Mr. Kawammira stated he felt that they would have to be dome under a specific noise study to determine what the heights of the walls should be, etc. Generally, with what is being proposed, he dic not feel we were talking about a 7' wall or anything like that. Mr. Kawamura stated he wished to remphasize the point that this Washington Street Specific Plan is not a precise alignment study, but merely a planniux type of effort to try to decide in general terns and in conceptual form what Washington Street would look like in future and how we should plan for that facility and whether or not we can plan some improvements over what is out theme currently and what would happen if we did not go through this effort. The next step, after getting an approval of the kept of this plan, would be to look at specific engineering types of studies, precise alignments, etc to determine basically how much land we are talking about. At that point, these can be some adjustments regarding vtot are going to be the specific takes on property. If its 51, it makes a difference betwzen condeiming a piece of property altogether or salvaging enough land to ;Take it deveiopablc then obviously there are adjustments that could be made on design speeds, e1 that could provide for that. ChsLiranan Thornburgh suggested that Mr. Dupree and his representatives get a meeting set up with Staff for further discussion and clarification of their suggestions and to hear Staff's argtmiarts in relation thereto. After a brief discussion, ChainT+an 91-Lornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a notion, seconded by Ommissioner Moran, to continue the public hearing regarding Specific Plan No. 86-007 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 25, 1986. Unanimously Adopted with Commissioner De (;asperin absent. 4. CONSEVr CALE II.1AR A. Commissioner Brandt made a mrution, secmxled by Cmmissioner Maran, to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of January 28, 1986. The minutes of the regular meeting of January 28, 1986, were approved as submi.ta Unanimously Adopted with Carmissioner De Gasperin absent. 5. BUSINESS Chai_=m Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as follows; A. TRACT 19458 - A request for a first Extension of Time on Isla Mediterranea, an 894-unit, 152-acre tract located on the northeast corner of the Washington Street/Avenue 48 alignment; M. B. Johnson, Applicant (Continued). He called for the Staff Report. MIN= - PLANNING CaM ISSION February 11, 1986 Page 9. 1. Director Stevens stated that Staff recommends a continuance of the matter to the next regular meeting of February 25, 1986. There being no discussion, Chairman '_fiornburgh called for a motion. 2. Camissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to .w,.. �`•:q continue the matter regarding Tract 19458 to the next regular meeting of the Planning Cammission on February 25, 1986. Unanimously Adopted with Commnssioner De Gaspesin absent. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two items of business as follows: B. Plot Plan No. 86-261, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southeast corner of Calle Ensenada and Avenida Obregon; Bob Boggs, Applicant. C. Plot Plan No. 86-262, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Navarro, 100' south of Calle Nogales; Larry Rogers, Applicant. He cared for the Staff Reports 1. Regarding Plot Plan No. 86-261, Bob Boggs, Applicant, Director Stevens advised that pursuant to discussion at the Study Session, Staff met with Mr. Boggs today and are satisfied that there is a minimum of 1200-square- feet provided in the structure. Tharefore, C x1itian No. 12 can be deleted, ItLLe Applicant has agreed to construct the garage to a 20' x 24' clear dirnnsion, but objects to shifting the structure 6' to the oast to allow additional distance from the corner radius of Avenida Cbregon and Calle Ensenada. Director Stevens stated that he felt if we left out the "6 "' rotation in Condition No. 14, we could worry about the exact number of feet with the Applicant. Director Stevens stated that the Applicant has also objected to Condition No. 16 regarding a requirement of interior access fry the garage into the dwelling. The Commission agreed to waive Condition 7%. 16 as submitted, but changed it to read as follows: "16. The rear patio area shall be covered so as to provide sheltered arms: from the rear of the garage to the dining coon area." Regarding Plot Plan No. 86-262, Larry Rogers, Applicant, Director Stevens stated there are a few minor terns, but nothing that caild not be worked cut with the Applicant. These being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion: 2. Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, sanded by Commissioner Walling, to approve Plat Plan No. 86-261 and Plot Plan No. 86-262 based on findings in the Staff Reports in accordance with Exhibits A, B and. C for each plan, and subject to conditions of approval attached to each plot plan, as amenlec Qwiimously Adopted with Commissioner De Gasperin absent. 6. ADJOURNMFW There being no further items of agenda to cane before the Planning Commission, Chairman 'Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 25, 1986, at 7:00 pan., in the La Quints city Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA, LYm-Tamnusly Adapted with Commissioner De Casperin absent. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, CA, was adjourned at 9:40 p.m., February 11, 1986, in the La Quints City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. 323 M I N U T E S CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. March 4, 11986 7:30 p.m. . CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pena called the La Quinta City Council meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. Absent: None. Also Present: City Manager Usher, City Attorney Longtin, Community Development Director Stevens, Community Safety Coordinator Hirdler and Deputy City Manager Jennings. i. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Jacques Abels, La Quinta's representative to the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District, District 4, introduced the new Ceneral Manager of the District, Dave Skeffington, and new staff members Laura Forsall, Aquatics Supervisor and Scott Morgan, Program and Recreation Supervisor. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 1. The City Manager explained that the City had received a communication from the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce, regarding progress on current activities and a request for supplemental funds. Mr. Earl Ellson, Chamber President, addressed the Council and reported on Chamber progress towards increasing community support and activities, a full-scale Chambe office, information services for La Quinta, City booster activities and improved communication and business aspects within the City. Mr. Ellson explained that he would be providing further information relating to Chamber activities within the next two weeks, and requested continuation of this item to the March 18, 1986, Council meeting. Moved by Council Member Wolf, seconded by Council Member Cox, to continue to March 18, 1986. Unanimously adopted. �. COMMENT BY COUNCIL MEMBERS A. Council Member Wolff reminded everyone about the upcoming La Quinta Arts Festival to h at the esert be ill ch have,overn200tvolunteerDworkerslfrom the colff stated mmunity Festival will year. Fe Council Member Wolff asked the City Attorney a question about a statement read at the last Council meeting inby Audrey violation0ofrthekBrownwherein andMs. wasinotsky postingstated that the City Council notices of public meetings of the Council. :N['TES City Council ch 4, 1986 4 Two . The City Manager responded, and explained that the allegations related to severs meetings of the Downtown Planning Advisory Committee which had been held for th purposes of working on the downtown plan . Mr. Usher explained that at the tia these meetings were initially begun, with Planning staff and committee members, some of these meetings were not duly noticed. Mr. Usher stated that Staff did realize that these meetings were required to be duly noticed, since they were a committee and were unable to make any binding decisions. Mr. Usher explained that he did have a communication with the District Attorney by telephone, and wa informed thateven committees were subject to the Brown Act, after which point thi Staff did duly notice all further meetings. yr. Usher further explained that thl District Attorneys office opinion was that no intentional or substantive violation of the Brown Act had been made. Mr. Wolff then stated that he believed the Council to have been very careful in observing the Brown Act, and felt that Ms. Ostrowsky's comments were misleading. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt the Consent Calendar, as corrected. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. A. Minutes of the City Council meeting held February 18, 1986, were approved as corrected. B. Minutes of an adjourned City Council meeting held February 21, 1986, were approved as corrected. C. Minutes of an adjourned City Council meeting held February 24, 1986, were approved as submitted. D. RESOLUTION NO. 86-13. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, APPROVING DEMANDS. E. A claim for property damage and bodily injury, Audrey E. Devite (deceased), et al vs. City of La Quinta, was rejected. F. A claim for wrongful death, Sherry A. Townsend and Isaiah Tahtinen vs. City of La Quinta, was rejected. G. Request for a First Extension of Time, Tentative Tract Map No. 19458, Isla Mediterranea, was approved. . HEARINGS The Mayor introduced a public hearing regarding Tentative Tract No. 21381, a request to divide a 42.6 acre portion of the "PGA West" project into 24 lots to accomodate 118 attached condominium units; Sunrise Company, Applicant, and asked the Community Development Director to present the Staff report. Mr. Stevens reported that the Planning Commission conducted a hearing and acted on this Tract on February 11, 1986. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action, the Applicant submitted a number of revisions to the Tract, which affected the number of units, and the size and location of the parcels affected by the application. As a result of these substantive changes, Staff recommended that the Council., by motion, continue this matter to March 18, 1986, and refer these revisions back to the Planninl Comm ssicn for their review and consideration on March 11, 1986. 321 MiNli rES - City Council March 4, 1986 Page Three. Moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to contin the public hearing regarding Tentative Tract No. 21381 to March 18, 1986, and ref the matter back to the Planning Commission for review and consideration at their March 11, 1986, meeting. Unanimously adopted. B. The Mayor introduced a public hearing regarding Specific Plan No. 86-007, "Washin Street Corridor Study", a request for approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, including improvements, alignment and streetscape, and asked the Communit, Development Director to present the report from the Planning Commission. Mr. Stevens reported that the Washington Street Specific Plan was a project which had been discussed with Council at several study sessions, and that it represente, a master plan for the entire Washington Street corridor through the City, and for the area north of the City. Mr. Stevens reported that the Planning Commission ha conducted public hearings on February 11 and 25, 1986, and was forwarding the Pla- to the Council for favorable action. Mr. Stevens then asked Sandra Bonner, Princ Planner, to present the Staff report Ms. Bonner presented a brief overview of the Plan and highlights of the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding changes to the Plan, as listed in Attachmei and consisting of such changes as a statement of purpose added to the Specific P1. acquisition of right-of-way; realignment and frontage road - Singing Palms area; street lighting; sidewalks/bikeways; landscaping plan; signage; City entry sign; cost estimates; and noise barriers. The Community Development Director answered Council questions regarding the Speci Man, and discussion ensued regarding timelines for future construction of Washin Street, traffic safety in the Singing Palms area, and signalization in the Singin; Palms area. In this regard, it was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Co, Member Cox, to direct Staff to find some alleviation to the problems of residents the Singing Palms area relating to ingress and egress to their residential area, that resolution of this problem be implemented within six (6) months. Council Member Bohnenberger suggested a revision to Council Member Wolff's motion that Staff come back to Council within two months with alternatives, their approx mate cost and methods of financing those alternatives, at which time the Council would set a deadline to have the work completed. Discussion ensued regarding tiro needed for staff to provide the alternatives, and the Community Development Direc stated that he would try and get this work done in 6-8 weeks, and Council Member Wolff agreed to the amendment to the motion. Council: Member Wolff then decided to return to his original motion, whereby Staff would have to present the Council with a problem solution within two months, and have the solution implemented within six months. Council Members Allen and Bohnenberger spoke against this motion because they felt it was too restrictive, and indicated support for the alternative motion suggested by Council Member Bohnenberger. Mayor Pena stated that he felt both motions were very similar, but that Council Member Wolff's original motion might not allow staff enough time to prepare a well thought-out plan and solution. Council Members Cox and Wolff indicated support for Mr. wolf fIs motion. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Member Cox and Council Member Wolff. NOES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger and Mayor Pena. ABSTAIN: None. Council Member Bohnenberger then moved, seconded by Council Member Allen, that St+ present alternatives within two months, along with cost and financing methods, at time Council will set a deadline for completion of the chosen solution. Mayor Pei then called for another roll call vote, as follows: NUTES - City Council fFour. ';;#�A 4, 1986 Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. Mayor Pena opened the hearing to public comment. The following persons addressed the City Council. 1. Gerald Dupree, 78-430 Cameo Dunes Place, presented a petition signed by the majority of citizens in the Singing Palmis area, requesting a traffic signal to be located at the Highland Palms/Washington Street intersection. Mr. Dupree pointed out that the Planning Commission, in their recommendations, had urged advanced priority for a signal at this location. 2. Marie Reading, 78-450 Crestview Terrace, requested a stop sign be placed at the intersection of Singing Palms Drive and Washington Street, as a temporary measure. 3. Steve Gaylord, 46-555 Washington Street, spoke against a traffic signal at Highland Palms and Washington Street, which he felt would impact traffic making it impossible for residents along Washington Street to egress from their homes. 4. Don Williams, 46-675 Washington Street, spoke against a traffic signal at Highland Palms/Washington Street, and expressed concerns regarding assessment distract financing to pay for Washington Street improvements. Mr. Williams felt the assessment should be made City-wide, since all residents of the City would benefit from the Washington Street improvements and widening. 5. George Marzicola, owner of property at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, expressed concerns with safety, and urged implementation ASA of a solution to the problem, and supported the motion made for a traffic signa Mr. Marzicola also suggested that a frontage road be planned all the way to Washington Street. Mr. Marzicola expressed willingness to pay for his fair share of these improvements, as assessed. There being no further public comment, Mayor Pena closed the public hearing. Following Council discussion of the Washington Street Specific Plan No. 86-007, it was moved by Council Member Wolff, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 86-14, as follows, including the amendments as proposed by the Planning Commission. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 86--14. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, (WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN) FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY It was also clarified that the motion was to include a suggestion by Council Member Wolff to emphasize the area south of Highway 111 and to reevaluate the frontage roa option to Von's and Plaza La Quinta. Mayor Pena announced that the Council would adjourn for a five-minute break at 8:48 p.m. Mayor Pena reconvened the meeting at 8:55 P.M. 8. BUSINESS SESSION A. The City Manager read the title of a proposed Ordinance, as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 91. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, &?SENDING THE OFFIC ZONING MAP FOE THE CITY, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 85-019. 4UTES •- City Coux1cil rch 4, 1986 ;e Five. 311, Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to waive fui reading and adopt Ordinance No. 91. Roll Call Vote: AYES: Council Members Allen, Bohnenberger, Cox, Wolff and Mayor Pena. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. The Deputy City Manager presented a report regarding a Staff request for one additional personnel position in the Finance Department, and requested Counc: approve a proposed Resolution which would appropriate $5,820.00 to fund this position through the end of FY 1985-86, and approve the request for the Account Clerk position, effective March 10, 1986. It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to approve the request for one Account Clerk position in the Finance Department, effective March 10, 1986; direct Staff to prepare a proposed Resolution amen Resolution 85-68 for adoption at the March 18th Council meeting; and adopt Resolution No. 86-15. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 86-15. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C] OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROPRIATING FL TRANSFERRING $5,820.00 TO ACC. NO. 01-4150-101-000, FINANCE, SALARIES-REGULAF FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED SURPLUS, GENERAL FUND. C. The City Manager presented a report regarding the Coachella Valley Joint Powe Insurance Authority liability insurance program, and recommended Council take actions to formally enter the CVAG J.P.I.A. program. It was moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Bohnenberger, to select a $25,000 self -insured retention (SIR) in the CVJPIA liability insurance program, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Notice of In committing the City to participate in the program for a period of three (3) y beginning May 1, 1986, agreeing to pay the development fee of $1,000, and agreeing to pay the sum of $10,000 as damages in the event the notice is rescinded and the City does not enter the program on the date specified. Unanimously adopted. It was further moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Memb Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 86-16, as follows. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 86-16. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARSICIPATION IN THE LIABILITY PROGRAM OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY. D. The Community Safety Coordinator presented a report relative to the fire engi lease, and explained that the lease grants the County use of the City's fire engine to provide fire protection to the City. Mr. Hirdler stated that the term of the lease was for one year, renewing automatically, with County having responsibility for liability claims up to $5,000,000. Mr. Hirdler recommended approval of the agreement. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve a lease agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta for use of the City's Van Pelt fire engine. Unanimously adopted. TES - City Council hn 4, 1986 ''fix. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Council Mernber Cox, seconded by Council Member Wolff, to adjourn to an Executive Session for the purpose of discussion personnel matters. Unanimously adopted. The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, 1986, at City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quint&, California. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA � B. TO: The Honorable -Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: March 4, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN APPLICANT: City Initiated REQUEST: Approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street including roadway improvements, alignment and streetscape. On February 11, 1986, and February 25, 1986, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed adoption of the Washington Street Specific Plan. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Commissioner De Gasperin absent) to recommend adoption of the plan, subject to the amendments contained in Attachment No. 1 to this report. Nine people spoke at the February 11, 1986 meeting, seven of whom are residents of the Singing Palms area. The concerns raised by these residents regarded traffic signalization, the desire for a two-way frontage road as proposed, the provision of a second access at Singing Palms Drive, the construction of a noise barrier, and the means the City intends to use for funding of the improvements. One resident of the Calle Tampico area, east of Washington Street, expressed concern about the effect on additional street dedication requirements on his existing home. Mervin Johnson and George Marzicola discussed the impacts of the plan with respect to their proposed projects. At the February 25, 1986 hearing, two people spoke. Jerry Dupree, a spokesman for the residents of the Singing Palms area stated his agreement with the 32-foot-wide frontage road and the amendment to the plan adding a right -turn ingress at Singing Palms Drive. He also requested that the City upgrade the priority of this project. One resident of the Calle Tampico area, east of Washington Street, expressed his concern about possible street widening requirements. Recommended Amendments to the Specific Plan The Planning Commission recommends a number of changes to the plan which are primarily additions for clarification. These changes are listed in Attachment No. 1 attached to this report and are briefly discussed below. STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL March 4, '_986 Page 2. Purpose of the Specific Plan. To improve public's understanding of the purpose of this specific plan, a statement should be added in the introduction emphasizing that this is a conceptual plan which establishes the basic objectives and design parameters for the road- way improvements, alignment and streetscape. After adoption of this guide for future improvements, the next step is the preparation of precise plans detailing specific design and engineering standards necessary to begin the actual implementation of the specific plan. At this next level detail, engineering plans will establish the precise alignment of Washington Street, the specific improvement designs for the roadway and the standards for parkway improvements. At such time that the city Council reviews and approves these "precise plans", the exact locations and dimensions of the additional land required for right-of-way dedication will be specified, and a program will. be instituted to acquire the needed property in an equitable and timely manner. Acquisition of Right -of -Water. The Planning Commission recommends addition of a statement expressing the City's basic objectives regarding the acquisition of additional right-of-way. These objectives are as follows: to minimize to the extent reasonable the acquisition of additional land for the right-of-way; to allow for adjustments in the right-of-way width or design, when possible, in order to minimize potential conflicts with existing development, while still maintaining the integrity of the plan's objectives; and, when possible, to obtain portions rather than entire parcels in order to minimize costs. Realignment and Frontage Road - Singing Palms Area. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of realignment and street cross section, with the addition of a right -turn ingress at Singing Palms Drive as shown on Attachment No. 2 of this report. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends that the priority of this project be raised. The Planning Commission unanimously supported the increase in the frontage road width from 28 to 32 feet, as recommended by the City Engineer. This is consistent with current City policy for two-way streets having parking on one side only and provides for the minimum 24-foot clear travelway for emergency vehicle access. Street Lighting. The Commission unanimously recommended installa- tion of street lighting along the center median as shown on Figure 7, Alternative No. 1 of the text. The basis for this recommendation is the reduced cost of installation and the minimizing of impact of the lights on adjacent residences. The Commission also concurred with the proposed light standard spacing. STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1986 Page 3. Sidewalks/Bikeways. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that a pedestrian walkway be installed along one side and an off- street bike path be installed on the opposite side of Washington Street with the widths as similar to that shown on Figure 7, Alternative No. 2 of the text. The basis of this recommendation was that an off-street bike path is needed in light of the antici- pated traffic levels and speeds, and to provide a safe way for children bicyclinci to the schools on Avenue 50. The overall recommendation was also based on the desire to minimize the amount of paving or hard surfaces .in the parkway areas. Landscaping Plan. Although the Planning Commission unanimously agreed in concept to the proposed planting recommendations, they requested that a statement describing the overall design theme be added to the plan. They recommend that this section be adopted as a guideline, and that more specific standards be developed at a later date. The Planning Commission supported the establishment of a theme emphasizing canopy -type trees rather than palm trees. This will establish an appearance which will be different, yet compliment the theme: followed on Eisenhower Drive with a single row of palms in each parkway. in addition, the consistent use of a limited number of tree types along this four -mile -long street in the City will establish a cohesive appearance while still providing enough of variety to pro- vide visual interest. The use of canopy -type trees will also provide shade for pedestrians and bicyclists along Washington Street. Signage. The Commission recommended that a statement be added regarding the establishment of general standards for City signage along Washington which will compliment the overall appearance of the corridor while also effectively directing traffic, including providing direction to public facilities. City Entry Sign. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of Exhibit "C" (a copy of the aprpoved exhibit will be included in the final text). The use of horizontal and vertical design elements, in addition to the varying heights of the trees provides an interesting and attractive appearance. The Commission recommends that the City logo be prominently displayed as a part of this entry monument. Cost Estimates. The Planning Commission recommends that an explana- tion of the basis for the land and improvement costs be added to the text. Noise Barriers. There was unanimous agreement that a section be added pertaining to the construction of noise barriers along the length of Washington Street to minimize traffic noise impacts on nearby residents. In addition, priority should be given to providing STAFF REPORT - CITY COUNCIL March 4, 1986 Page 4. mitigation for residential areas currently suffering severe noise impacts. Direct Access to Washington Street. The Planning Commission recommends the inclusion of a policy stating that new direct access onto Washington Street from adjoining single-family lots shall be avoided. PREPARED BY: Sandra L. Bonner Principal Planner SLB:dmv APPROVED BY• Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director Atchs: 1. Atch. No. 1, Recommended Amendments 2. Atch. No. 2, Figure 11, Amended 3. Staff Report, February 25, 1986 4E. Staff Report, February 11, 1986 5. Resolution for Adoption PLEASE BRING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT AND APPENDIX WITH YOU. THESE HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED TO YOU. ,�„utitu v�' •� T K-J. I_'" ', •.,, 1. ��, Lv�J,a• � � .��I'„'�6 CITY ,i� ATTACHMENT "I" AMENDMENTS TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Add to the Introduction the following general statement: The Washington Street Specific Plan is intended to be a conceptual plan which establishes the basic objectives and general design parameters for the future improvement of the corridor area. 2. Add to the section on future roadway improvements: The City's objectives for the acquisition of necessary right-of-way are the following: * To minimize, to the extent reasonable, the acquisition of property for the street right-of-way. * To allow for adjustments in the right-of-way width and/or design when possible in order to minimize conflicts with existing development, while still maintaining the integrity of the plan's objectives; and * When possible, to acquire portions rather than entire parcels in order to minimize land acquisition costs. 3. Add to the section on future roadway improvements regarding access the following: * New direct access onto Washington Street from adjoining single-family lots shall be avoided. Alternative access plans for affected existing single-family lots shall be developed by the City. 4. Add a subsection regarding noise mitigation: * Noise barriers shall be installed where warranted along the entire length of Washington Street to ensure compliance with the La Quinta General Plan's adopted noise standards. Priority shall be given to alleviating the noise problems for existing developments currently severely impacted by traffic noise. Based upon an acoustical study to be pre- pared by the City, the design of noise barriers shall be incorporated into the Washington -Street parkway standards. New developments shall install noise barriers in accordance with the City's approved plan. 5. Amend the Section regarding future improvements to the Highway III to Eisenhower Drive area in accordance with Figure 11, as amended (Attachment No. 2), adding a right -turn ingress with deceleration lane at Singing Palms Drive. Amend the proposed mitigation list by upgrading the priority of No. 4. 6. Adopt the street lighting plan as recommended in the text in accordance with Exhibit F� 9. 7 1 A 8-Earn4 t rve No. I ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ATTACHMENT "I" (Cont'd) 7. Adopt the walkway/bicycle path plan as follows: * A six -foot -wide pedestrian path along one side and an eight -foot -wide, two-way bicycle path on the opposite side shall be installed in the Washington Street parkway areas. Where feasible, the paths shall be meandering. Minor adjustments to these standards due to site con- straints or conflicts with existing improvements may be approved by the City. 8. Adopt the landscaping plan as amended by the inclusion of a state- ment establishing the general overall design theme and a section adding groundcover materials to the parkway planting materials list. 9. Add a statement in the streetscape section as follows: * The City shall develop and implement a plan establishing design theme and specifications for public signage along Washington Street, including directional signage. 10. Adopt the proposed entry monument design concept as shown on Exhibit "C", a copy of which will be included in the text. 11. Add to the mitigation measures section the following explanation of cost estimates: * The estimated costs of land acquisition and construction of improvements are based on the following assumptions: a. Improvements to Washington Street are anticipated to occur over the next fifteen -year period. b. Using current costs as a basis, a six percent per year inflation factor has been added for the fifteen -year period. Construction of the improvements or acquisition of the land at the start of the fifteen -year period will be at a lower cost than improvements done in later years. c. The cost of the City installing the improvements is generally higher than they would be if a private developer is performing the work due to additional requirements placed upon the City by State law. d. The land acquisition costsare only general estimates. Actual costs will vary upon the means necessary to acquire the right-of-way, the necessity to acquire an entire parcel rather than only a portion, as well as other factors. TYPICAL SECTION oIcf) f 3 REALIGNED WA4tjlNQTON STREET NEW FRONTAGE j ROAD LU ILI RESTRICT ACCESS BY ONE-WAY ENTRANCE ONLY \J^ f�„ VIA SEPARATE RIGHT j4 TURN ONLY LANE \ \ PIAC / :✓ _ -�' PACE _.s WASHINOTON STREET .. _ rr,:e � —DEN SNJD.$ PLACE SIGNALIZE, t i r DR:vE FRONTAGE — ;a ROAD _ f • Z tidDIP"0 j Z Figure 11 WASHINGTON STREETREALIGNMEWt 0 SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111 -33- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ,MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 25, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 86-007; "WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR STUDY" APPLICANT: City Initiated REQUEST: Approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, Including Improvements, Alignment and Streetscape On February 11, 1986, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Washington Street Specific Plan. Consideration of the plan was continued to the February 25, 1986 meeting to allow the Planning Commission additional time to reflect on the information and concerns raised at the hearing, and to provide Staff an opportunity to meet with the representatives for the Singing Palms area. Nine people spoke at the meeting, seven of whom live in the Singing Palms area. Their representative presented a petition requesting signalization of Singing Palms or Highland Palms Drives, and an alternative plan with a 20-foot-wide, one-way, frontage road. Concerns raised by these seven people were the following: installa- tion of a signal, the desire for a two-way frontage road, provision of a second access, construction of a noise barrier, and the mechanism for payment of the improvements. One resident with a house fronting on Washington Street in the vicinity cf Calle Tampico expressed concern about the additional 10-foot dedication which would conflict with his existing improve- ments, and the proposed ways to pay for the improvements. Mervin Johnson and George Marzicola appeared to discuss the impacts with respect to their proposed projects. Singing Palms Area On February 19, residents of thi frontage road de right -turn only will also provid 1986, Staff s subdivision sign. It was would be prov e for a decel and Jim Kawamura to discuss the agreed that a ided at Singing eration area at Of BSI met with five proposed access and second access with Palms Drive; the design this entrance. There STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 1986 Page 2. was also a concurrence that the traffic signal be at Highland Palms Drive and the frontage road remain at 32-feet-wide for two-way traffic. Although the residents expressed a strong desire to have the traffic signal installed immediately, Jim Kawamura of BSI, reiterated what he stated at the hearing; if the signal is installed prior to the frontage road, the City would have to make substantial changes to the signal at the time of frontage road construction which would result in 'the City essentially paying twice for the signal. Direct Access to Washington Street It was noted at the hearing that there are lots fronting directly onto Washington Street in the area of Sagebrush Avenue and between Avenida La Fonda and Avenida Nuestra. The Planning Commission requested that a policy be included within this plan to restrict access, thereby avoiding the creation of a problem similar to that existing in the Singing Palms area. Staff recommends the inclusion of the following policy: "No new direct access onto Washington Street from adjoining single-family lots shall be encouraged. New development on these frontage lots shall be reviewed by the City on a case by case basis." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings contained in the Staff Report dated 2/11/86, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007 in accordance with Exhibit "A", the plan text, as amended. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: �, C3 Sandra . Bonner Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Prai.ncipal Planner Community Development Director SLB:dmv PLEASE BRING MATERIALS YOU RECEIVED FOR 2/11/86 COMMISSION MEE".LING REGARDING THIS MATTER. e MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 11, 1986 SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007; "WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR STUDY" APPLICANT: City Initiated REQUEST: Approval of a Specific Plan for Washington Street, Including Improvements, Alignment and Streetscape BACKGROUND Purpose of the SPecifis Plan The specific plan is a means to interpret and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. Focusing on only a portion of the General Plan, it is a more detailed document providing definitive design criteria for the future improvement of the entire street corridor area. The specific objectives of the Washington Street Specific Plan are as follows; * Assess short-range and long-range needs and deficiencies along Washington Street and to make specific recommendations on the ultimate development of the corridor. * Determine the design of the right-of-way improvements necessary to adequately handle the anticipated future traffic levels. * Provide for traffic safety by proposing solutions to existing safety hazards and by establishing design criteria for future developments. * Establish a unified design theme for the entire corridor area through guidelines for landscaping, lighting, and other design features. * Estimate costs of corridor improvements to enable the City Council to prioritize improvements and develop a long-term work program. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMfMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 2. * Provide the private sector with specific criteria for development along the Washington Street Corridor. Washington Street Specific Plan The attached specific plan submitted for your review and approval has been revised to incorporate the previous comments and requests for additional information made by the City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff. Specific information which has been added to or expanded on includes the following: * The addition of an exhibit showing the overall alignment of the entire length of Washington Street within La Quinta. * Additional information and detailed drawings on proposed changes to access and circulation for the area between Highway 111 and Highland Palms Drive. * Additional information, including exhibits, for parkway development alternatives. * Expansion of the cost information to include land and unit costs. * Additional information on the types of potential funding sources available. The preliminary draft specific plan was transmitted to the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County Roads Department for their review and comment. As of the date of this writing, no responses have been received. Since the Washington Street Specific Plan is self-explanatory, this staff report will not address specific items within the plan. The following conclusions and findings are based upon the information contained within the specific plan document. CONCLUSIONS 1. Washington Street serves as the "gateway" into the central core of the City and has been designated as a "primary image corridor" in the General Plan. 2. The street is currently a two-lane roadway for the most part with only limited areas of ultimate half -width street improvements existing. 3. The projected traffic levels of 32,000 average daily vehicles south of Avenue 50 to a high of 55,000 vehicles south of I-10 require Washington Street to have a minimum of six travel lanes. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 3. 4. The current design standards for Washington Street and key cross streets need to be modified to include variable rights -of -•way and geometrics at: major intersections. 5. A higher design standard is necessary for the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 in order to maintain an acceptable level of service. 6. Washington Street: should be realigned south of Highway 111 in order to avoid the existing single-family residential frontage between Singing Palms Drive to Highland Palms Drive. 7. The existing bridges at the Whitewater Channel and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel must be widened to provide additional travel lanes. B. Washington Street south of Eisenhower Drive should be realigned to eliminate an unnecessary curve and to provide a buffer between existing residential development and the roadway. 9. A number of minor cross streets, particularly south of Eisenhower Drive, are not necessary for access and may be closed via cul-de-sacs. 10. Utility companies are aware of the future needs of the City of La Quinta and are prepared to provide necessary services. 11. Guidelines are needed to provide a unifying theme and visual enhancement to the Washington Street Corridor. 12. Expansion of Washington Street to a six -lane facility was addressed within the Master Environmental Assessment prepared for the La Quinta General Plan. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the adopted General Plan. FINDINGS 1. The Washington Street Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Implementation of the specific plan is necessary to provide for adequate capacity and levels of service to accommodate antici- pated future traffic levels on Washington Street. 3. The specific plan complies with Section 65451 of the Government Code in that it provides information on the proposed location, distribution, and extent of land uses, major components of public and private transportation, utilities, and other essential facilities. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 1986 Page 4. 4. The specific plan establishes necessary standards and criteria for new development along the corridor. 5. The realignment of portions of Washington Street will improve traffic safety for the City as a whole. 6. Establishing cul-de-sacs on unnecessary minor cross streets along Washington Street will serve to increase Washington Street's carrying capacity, improve safety by limiting cross traffic, and help to preserve neighborhood integrity. 7. Adoption of the Washington Street specific plan will provide a needed program for implementation measures, including regula- tions, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to carry out the specific plan. 8. The specific plan is consistent with the Master Environmental Assessment adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan, Impacts will be reduced to the extent feasible by incorporation of the mitigation measures into the specific plan approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, recommends approval of Specific Corridor Study", in accordance text. PREPARED BY: Sandra L. Bonner Principal Planner SLB:dmv the Community Development Department Plan No. 86-007, "Washington Street with Exhibit "A", the specific plan APPROVED BY: Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director RESOLUTION NO. 86- 1. B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007 (WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN) FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of Specific Plan No. 86-007 pursuant to Government Code Section 65500 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law and has transmitted the same to the City Council in compliance with Section 65502 of said law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held at least one public hearing on Specific Plan No. 86-007, as required by Section 65503 of the California Planning and Zoning Law; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan, as amended, is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 plan; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan will provide necessary guidelines to help ensure the orderly and timely completion of improvements to Washington Street, including improvements to the roadway, parkways and public utilities; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the Specific Plan is necessary to provide for adequate capacity and levels of service to accommodate anticipated future traffic levels on Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the realignment: of portions of Washington Street will improve traffic safety for the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the project will provide for the orderly expansion and extension of utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety; and WHEREAS, although the implementation of the Specific Plan could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the incorpora- tion of mitigation mesures into the plan, in accordance with the La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, will mitigate these impacts to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, cumulative and unavoidable impacts were previously addressed within the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the La Quinta General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta does hereby adopt Specific Plan No. 86-007, "Washington Street Corridor Study", as amended, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth at length. RESOLUTION NO. 86- APPROVED and ADOPTED this following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY day of 1986, by the MAYOR APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: -2- CITY MANAGER February 11, 1986 Honorable John J. Pena, Mayor CITY 07 LA QUINTA P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Pena and Members of the City Council: I, Gerald W. Dupree, represent the petitioners in the Shangri La area south of Highway 111 and west of Washington Street. The pu7pose of this petition is to request the City of La Quinta to install a traf-fic signal on Washington Street at either Singing Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic on Washington Street, it is extremely difficult and hazardous to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. This situation is becoming critical and with the proposed developments in progress and to be constructed in La Quinta in the future, our dilemna can only worsen, especially with Washington Street being a direct route to Interstate 10. Thank you for your attention in this matter. ResIpectfully submitted, Gerald W. Dupree 78-430 Cameo Dunes lace La Quinta, CA 92253 cc: Planning Commission We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway 111 and west of Washington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the City of La Quinta to install a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singing Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic on Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. NAME ADDRESS DATE r / - 03 -4 `T T� ,�� �l 6 L � E 1✓ l� f� /� /J �` � �S Q , i r/ r/l kA dar'6�' Cry We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway 111 and west of Washington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the ui.ty of La Quinta to install a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singing Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic oii'Jashington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. NAME ADDRESS DATE PA��,S �E --"o v d44,a� 00 1190-21 L2 C)AM / -- .?,/ —f 178-3q5 PALM GaQ.Q�DNJ t LACC-- ���Sc Lt L We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway 111 and ..est of Washington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the CiLy of La Quinta to install. a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singing Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic oti Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. N NAPE ADDRESS DATE zu. )Jot , 79- 39/ (A � 70 �30 ��r��.�Ps P/—zs =5D GOOFI\3 sAn� TO - /-�r o VO , [.tie undersigned property owners in `he area south of Highway t;L and west of t%obliington Street which is commonly referri d to as Shangri La, do heret)y Petition tits ('ire,• of La Quinti to install. a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singing i-ilms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound tr,ffii on Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area wito Washington Street. ADDRESS DA . Usk 4a7f ri � A►J o i �1`'Z�-�' We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway 111 and west of Wa�nington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the City of La Quinta to install a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singing Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic on Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. ti NAME 7, ADDRESS r �� _ 03 M�- . A�MiEft / ),461 N M-7"6d% -„K„ DATE Y�7s�6 �.�-- ems_ (s� We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway 111 and west of Way hington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the City of La Quinta to install a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singins Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic on Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. NAME Ma. �-1-1- i M1 . tl M el ADDRESS i �.i.._�I �•MR- _ DATE 1 23_ 4 (e) We, the undersigned property owners in the area south of Highway ill and west of Washington Street which is commonly referred to as Shangri La, do hereby petition the City of La Quinta to install. a traffic signal on Washington Street at either Singilig Palms Drive or Highland Palms Drive. Because of the heavy northbound/southbound traffic on Washington Street, it is extremely hazardous for vehicles to safely exit our area onto Washington Street. NAME ADDRESS 1%1V I)j DATE IM ? -9196 -f--R'C' MUM 1 I March 4. 1986 Honorable Mayor John Pena and Council Members P.O. Box 1504 78-105 Calle Es'tado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 We respectively submit the following comments with respect to the proposed Washington Street development and specifically with reference to the "Singing Pales Corridor" contained therein. Reference is made to Mr. Gerald Dupree's presentation as the representative of people in the Singing Palms Drive Area to the City's Planning Commission on this subject. We acknowledge Mr. Dupree's possible expertise in the area of city planning based upon his prior work experiences however, it is to be noted that the representative organization for home owners in the conedmed area is our association. Mr. Dupree is not a member of our organization, is not entitled to a vote in its proaeedinge, and so far as we can determine was not authorized to speak for anyone but himself. Although the plan appears basically sound, it leaves questions of great concern to us unanswered. Principal among thin is, "who pays for what?" The widening of Washington Street is being necessitated by recreational developments and their associated activities. Accordingly, we feel the project costs should be borne by the developers, owners, and operators of those facilities. We reject the proposition that home owners in this area should be assessed by virtue of the projectIs resultant enhancement of residential property values. Actually, the opposite is true, as the realestate market is stagnant locally except for prestige homes such as those at PGA West, and promises to remain so in the forseeable future. Consequently, more often then not, the sale price of a house would have to be discounted by the amount of the as Yet unpaid assessment in order t3 sell -t. Consequently, an assessment to us, is totally unacceptable. , To close Singing palms Drive at Washington Street is unacceptable. Restricting access and egress to Singing Palms Drive from Washington Street to right turns only is undesirable, particularly for those who live in the North half of the "Shangra La" area. The majority of vehicles entering and exiting "Shangra La" do so via Singing Palms Drive. The distance from Highway 111 to Singing Palms :Drive is, we believe, within the minimal distance prescribed between traffic control lights. We would like to see consideration given to a traffic control light there in addition to the one at Highland Palms and Washington, as already requested on a petition signed by approximately ninety people who are affefited. Page 2 The plan does not appear to clearly establish priorities and/or sequences of events. We would like assurance that appropriate funding for the project is available so that a newly completed road is not torn up shortly after construction to put in underground utilities or sewer lines; or in the alternative, the project does not drag on for an unnecessarily long period of time because of poor prior financial planni We understand that some consideration is being given to incorporating a bicy6le path on Washington Street. We submit this is a frivolous waste of money, as we consider that children on bicycles have no business on a six lane highway. Also are we correct that the Groves Project has given some money for the improvement of Washington Street? Concerned Citzens March 4, 1986 Honorable Mayor John Pena and Council Members P.O. Box 1504 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, Ca. 92253 We respectively submit the following comments with respect to the proposed Washington Street development and specifically with reference to the "Singing Palms Corridor" contained therein. Reference is made to Mr. Gerald Dupree's presentation as the representative nI—t3 n of people in the Singing Palms Drive Area to the Cityis Planni� on this subject. We acknowledge Mr. Dupree's possible expertise in the area Of city planning based upon his prior work experience: however, it is to be noted that the representative organization for home owners in the concerned area is our association. Mr. Dupree is not a member of our organization is not entitled to a vote in its proceedings, and so far as we can determine was not authorized to speak for anyone but himself. Although the plan appears basically sound, it leaves questions of great concern to us unanswered. Principal among thfa is, " o pays for what?" The widening of Washington Street is being necessitsted by recreational developments and their associated activities. Accordingly, we feel the project costs should be borne by the developers, owners, and operators of those facilities. We reject the pro o 'on that home owners shaa-ld be assessed by vie of —the — -- this area residential pr projects resultant enhancement of -- r t . c ua y, a opposite �s true tate xcept for prestige homes such as those atrPGA eWestt and promises to remain so in the forseeable future. then not, the sale price of a house would have to be discountedbythe eamount of the as yet unpaid assessment in order to sell it. Consequently, an assessment, t is to unacceptable. To claske Singing Palms DriveatWashington Street is unacceptable. access an egress to IngIng pa m Restricting only is undesirable on right turns particularly for those who o live in the North half of the "Sera La" area. The majority of vehicles entering and exiting" do so via Singing Palms Drive. The distance from Highway 111 to in��gra Last Drive is, we believe, within the minimal distance prescribed betweeng g Palms control lights. We would like to see consideration light there in addition to the traffic :i,�qu� .Bne-a Highland Falmsgandnsntraffic control signed by approxuna g o I as already y n bety people who are affefted, Page 2 The plan does not appear to clearly establish priorities and/or sequences of events. We Mould like assurance that appropriate fun for the project is avaz able so that a newly completed road is not torn up shortly after construction to put in underground utilities or sewer lines; or in the alternative, the project does not drag on for an unnecessarily long period of time because of poor prior financial plar We understand that some consideration is being given to incorporating a bicycle path on Washington Street. We submit this is a rivolous waste of money, as sae consi er that children on bicycles have no business on a six lan-e-ir ay; Also are we correct that the Groves Project has given some money for the improvement of Washington Street? Concerned Citzens (7' iluAxm!.-j MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta California August 12, 1986 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and called upon Community Development Director Larry Stevens to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; Director Stevens called the roll. Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also Present was Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens. 3. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing item as follows: A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21640, A request to divide 198.4 acres within the PGA West project into 17 lots for land sale purposes only; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens described the proposed request and its location, advising that this is not a proposal to develop any of the site, except the golf course sites which are already developed. He advised that the Commission and Staff would see tract maps on each of these parcels for development purposes. Sunrise Company has already submitted an application to develop the majority of these parcels to Staff. Director Stevens informed the Commission that 22 acres of this property is located outside the PGA West boundaries and are zoned A-1-10. Staff has imposed conditions which would defer any approvals for development purposes on that acreage until such time as a Specific Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are processed. The Applicant has been consulting with Staff in that regard. Director Stevens advised that Landmark had recently purchased this 22 acre; from the Bureau of Land Reclamation after a long procedure with the Federal Government. Director Stevens reiterated discussion from the Study Session wherein the Commission felt that the portion of .Lot 18 upon which the maintenance facility stood should b4 a separate lot from the undeveloped or development portioi of Lot 18. It was felt that the undeveloped portion of Lot 18 should be added to Lot 16 or created as a separate parcel. Staff recommended that the Commission add a condition to their recommendation to so state this. Director Stevens stated that the only other issue was not really directly related to the tract map, but is the completion of landscaping improvements along 54th Avenue, primarily in front of the maintenance building and to the east of that site. He noted that additional landscaping is required in that the number and size of trees is not consistent with the remainder of 54th Avenue improvements Landmark has agreed to make these modifications. He advised the Commission that it is not necessary to impose that landscaping condition here, as we have other avenues to guarantee this is accomplished satisfactorily. Director Stevens concluded the Staff Report stating Staff is recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21640 subject to the conditions of approval, with the addition of a condition requiring that the maintenance facility be a separate lot with the remainder of the acreage to eithe be separate or added to Lot 16. After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at approximately 7:15 p.m. John Curtis, Landmark Land Company representative, 7999 52nd Avenue, La Quinta, spoke in favor of the request. There being no further public comments or written corres- pondence pertaining to this matter, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at approximately 7:16 p.m. The Commission had no further comments; therefore, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21640 subject to the conditions of approval with the following revisions: - 2 - - Delete reference to Lot 24 in Condition No. 15. - Add Condition No. 16 as follows: 1116. Lot 18 shall be revised to establish the Golf Course Maintenance Facility as a separate lot from that portion proposed for future residential development. The residential development lot may be part of Lot 16 or be a new, separate lot." The motion was unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three (3) items of hearing, to be heard concurrently, as follows: B. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #1, A request to amend Specific Plan No. 86-007, the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan, relating to access requirements; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. C. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-021, A request to rezone approximately 40.3 gross acres from R-3*, R-2-8000, and R-1, to R-1; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. D. `IENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555, A request to subdivide approxi- mately 40.3 gross acres into 151 single-family lots; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. He called for the Staff Reports. 1. Director Stevens reviewed the specific plan request stating that the Applicant's request is to amend the cul-de-sac locations specified within the adopted Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan relative to the existing Desert Club Manor Tract. The Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan currently designates Sagebrush and Saguaro as cul-de-sac streets with Bottlebrush remaining as an access to Washington Street with no median opening. The Applicant is requesting that the cul-de-sac locations be amended to Saguaro and Bottlebrush, and that the direct access be Sagebrush Avenue. Director Stevens then reviewed several alternatives noted in the Staff Report relative to access to easterly adjoining properties. He reviewed some discussion regarding signalization at both entrances to the project noting that should, in the future, traffic be sufficient to warrant a traffic signal, one would be considered at least at Sagebrush, where it is likely that the only median opening would occur. However, the preliminary reaction is that this is not likely to occur anytime in the near future. - 3 - Director Stevens concluded this report stating that Staff recommends approval of this specific plan amendment with the modifications to the exhibit on cul-de-sacs in that area and the addition of text to the plan that allows roadway access for new development proposals to be reviewed on a case -by -case basis, but to also be consid- ered for General Plan consistency. Moving on to the Change of Zone, Director Stevens advised that the Applicant's request is to place one zone on the property (R-1). Presently, there are three (3) zoning categories on the site (R-3*, R-2-8000, R-1). He stated that the requested R-1 Zone is generally consistent with the General Plan. Director Stevens then reviewed the current zoning designations and what types of development they would allow. He explained that the Commission could consider other zoning designations as well, such as the "SR" Zone (Special Residential) for this property. Concluding this report, Director Stevens stated that Staff has recommended approval of this Change of Zone request subject to Exhibit A of the Staff Report. With regard to the tentative tract map request, Director Stevens stated that the tract map is intended to implement the zoning and has been reviewed in light of Staff's recommendations on the specific plan amendment and the change of zone. This proposal is for 151 single-family lots on the site and there are two additional stcrmwater retention lots on the site also. He further described the proposal using the wall renderings. The Applicant has submitted five (5) different building plans proposed for the development ranging from 1270 sq.ft. to approximately 2170 sq.ft. in size. There are two-story units proposed with the highest being approximately 24-1/2 feet. Director Stevens reiterated concerns raised at the Study Session as follows: - private vs. public streets issue; Staff recommends public streets and the Applicant has requested that the streets be private. - building heights issue; Staff recommends no two-story units on any lot located within 75' of the perimeter of the tract boundary. Director Stevens discussed this issue extensively. - establishment of a greater rear yard requirement, since the majority of the Applicant's parcels exceed the current 10' requirement. - 4 - - interior fencing; the Applicant will be providing interior fencing. - how front yard landscaping for individual units would be handled. Concluding this report, Director Stevens stated that Staf: has recommended approval of the tentative tract map subject to the conditions of approval. There being no questions of Staff at this time, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at approximately 7:30 p.m. Speaking in favor of the project: Drew Wright, President - Drew Wright & Associates, P. 0. Box 1876, Indio, CA 92202 Speaking in opposition to the project: Bob Lotito (KWL Associates), 712 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA - representing Dr. Judd Marmor, owner of property abutting to the east. Dr. Judd Marmor, 655 Sarbonne Road, Los Angeles, CA Art Gault, 400 Elkhorn Trail, Palm Desert, CA - representing "The Grove" developers. Mr. Wright spoke in rebuttal to those in opposition. Chairman Thornburgh advised that the Commission had also received a letter of opposition from Montero Estates, which has been acknowledged and is on file. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at approxi- mately 7:50 p.m. As a result of the Planning Commission's discussion on these matters, the Applicant was requested to provide information regarding the following: - results of contact with Dr. Marmor, owner of the neighboring property to the east. - revise the site plan to show a reduction in the height of houses located along the project perimeter. - preliminary pad elevations along the perimeter. - 5 - - revise floor plans showing a more finished design schematic. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling to :ontinue Specific Plan No. 86•-007, Amendment #1, Change of Zone No. 86-021, and Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, to their next regular meeting of August 26, 1986. Unanimously adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Thornburgh introduced the items of Consent Calendar, which consisted of three requests for approval to construct single-family dwellings and the Minutes from the regular meeting held July 22, 1986. There being no discussion, he called for a motion. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding to approve Plot Plans No. 86-352, 86-353, and 86-354, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C, subject to the conditions of approval attached to each request; and to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of July 22, 1986 as submitted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on August 26, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 8:40 p.m., August 12, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. --AF r RAYED --v"' r[61(m BYM I N U T E S DA_-� PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California August 26, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he then led the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; the Secretary called the roll. Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were Community Development & Redevelopment Administrator Lawrence L. Stevens, Planning Director Murrel Crump, and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. 'HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first three items of hearing, to be heard concurrently, as follows: A. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT #1, a request to amend Specific Plan No. 86-007, the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan, relating to access requirements; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. (CONTINUED) B. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-021, a request to rezone approximately 40.3 gross acres from R-3*, R-2-8000, and R-1, to R-1; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. (CONTINUED) C. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555, a request to subdivide approxi- mately 40.3 gross acres into 151 single-family lots; Drew Wright & Associates, Applicant. (CONTINUED) He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens briefly highlighted each of the items starting with the specific plan amendment. The Applicant has raised the issue of the appropriateness of cul-de-sacing three streets just south of his project (Saguaro, Sagebrush, Bottlebrush). The Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan calls for Bottlebrush to remain open to Washington Street as an access for the area, and Saugaro & Sagebrush to be cul-de-laced. The Applicant ha! requested that we cul-de-sac Saguaro & Bottlebrush and leave Sagebrush as the main access to Washington Street. Staff feels this is an appropriate change and is recom- mending approval of the specific plan request. Referring to the change of zone request, Director Stevens advised that the Applicant is requesting to change the three current zoning designations (R-1, R-3*, R-2-8000) tc R-1 for the entire parcel. This is being implemented to the Lower Density Residential designation of the General Plan and to facilitate the Applicant's tentative tract design. He advised the Commission that other options are available such as the Special Residential Zone, the R-1 Zone with a height limit, and they could also establish a minimum lot size. Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for the R-1 Zone. Regarding the tentative tract map request, Director Stevens advised the Commission it is a request to divide the approximately 40-acre site into 151 single-family lot: varying in size .from 7200 sq.ft. to a little over 13,000 sq.ft. He described the subdivision design with the aid of wall renderings. Director Stevens explained the two (2) major issues raised at the meeting two weeks ago, which were the reasons for the continuance to this meeting, regarding these matters. Briefly, they are: - access and primary access to abutting property to the east; and - building height limits. He advised the Commission that options of imposing more restrictive standards are through the design approval associated with the tract map or by, in approving the zoning, placing the 17' height limit we have imposed on much of the subdivided sections of the City. This con- cluded Staff's report. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Speaking for approval of the requests were: Drew Wright, President of Drew Wright & Associates, P. O. Box 1876, Indio, CA - 2 - - Dan Cavin, Senior Analyst, Goodkin Group, 3252 Holiday Court, La Jolla, CA (Appl's Repr.) - Wayne Gara.lnick, Attorney, 74--399 Highway 111, Palm Desert, CA (Appl's Repr.) Speaking in opposition of the requests were: - Bob Lotito, KWL Associates, 712 Eugene Road, Palm Springs, CA (Repr. for Dr. Judd Marmor) - Howard Tons, 49-450 Avenida Montero, La Quinta, CA (Repr. of 60 residents of Montero Estates) - Margaret Miele, 78-454 Calle Seama, La Quinta, CA (Montero Estates resident) - Jacques Abels, 49-990 Avenida Montero, La Quinta, CA (Montero Estates resident - presented Commission/Staff with a letter of opposition for the record) Drew Wright spoke in rebuttal to those in opposition. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. As a result of the Planning Commission discussion that followed, the consensus regarding the specific plan was to approve it as recommended by Staff; there was a 3-2 vote to deny the change of zone to R-1 and in lieu thereof recommended R-2++-14,000 for the property (Commissioner Brandt preferred the R-1 to remain on the property rather than the R-2, and Commissioner Steding preferred simply to deny the Applicant's request and did not want to recommend another zoning in its place); and to deny the tentative tract map adopting the appropriate Findings prepared by Director Stevens at this meeting. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to approve Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1, subject to recommended text changes in Exhibits "A" and "B". Unanimously adopted. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to deny (on a 3-2 vote) Change of Zone No. 86-021 requesting an R-1 Zone, but in lieu thereof, recommended R-2++-14,000 Zoning (Multiple Family Residential, 17' Height Limit, 14,000 Sq.Ft. Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) for the subject property. - 3 - Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to deny Tentative Tract Map 21555, adopting the appropriate Findings to support this denial. Unanimously adopted. Chairman Thornburgh called a recess at 8:25 p.m.; meeting recon- vened at 8:30 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: D. rCENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 21609, a request to subdivide approxi- mately 40 gross acres into 34 single-family residential lots, plus additional street and landscaping lots; Rufus Associates, Applicant. At this time, Commissioner Walling advised Chairman Thornburgi that he must step down, as he had a conflict of interest in regard to this matter. Commissioner Walling was excused from participating in the discussion regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21609. Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens described the project per information submitted in the Staff Report and by use of wall render- ings :submitted by the Applicant. He reiterated comments from the Study Session regarding height limits which was the only issue of concern in this matter. Therefore, based on the Findings, Staff recommends approval of this tentative tract, subject to conditions of approval. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Speaking for approval of the request were: - Gregg Linder, 53-178 Avenida Obregon, La Quinta, CA (Repr. of Rufus Associates) - Warren Bradshaw, P. 0. Box 299, La Quinta, CA (Repr. of Rufus Associates) There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. As a result of Planning Commission discussion that followed, the consensus was to revise Condition No. 14.(c designating Lot "O" as a common lot, and to revise Condition No. 18 to read as follows: 18. Buildings and related improvements on Lots #1, 2, 3, 4, and 29 shall, as part of the City's approval - 4 - process, be evaluated to assure that the building and site design, and particularly the building height, are appropriately designed to minimize adverse visual impacts along 50th Avenue. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21609 in accordance with Exhibit "A" and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Approved by a 4-0 vote with one abstention. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: E. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21846, A request to divide 105 acres into 22 lots to accommodate 308 residential condominium units within the PGA West Specific Plan project area; Sunrise Company, Applicant. Commissioner Walling rejoined the Planning Commission for further hearing discussions at this time. Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens described the project per information contained in the Staff Report noting that this request is another extension of the PGA West project. He reiterated discussion from the Study Session regarding changes in a few of the conditions of approval. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to the conditions of approval, as amended. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Speaking for approval of the project was: James L. Resney, V.P., Sunrise Company, 75-005 Country Club, Palm Desert, CA There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburg closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. As a result of the Planning Commission discussion that followed, the consensus was to have Staff review the language contained in Conditions 6 and 13 prior to the City Council hearing; to add the following to Condition #9: - 5 - " (NOTE: Hydrological analysis is complete and its :recommendations shall be considered with improvement plans.)" Further, to revise Condition #14(d) to read as follows: "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." Add the following at the end of Conditions 26 and 27: "(NOTE: Noise analysis is complete and its recommendations shall be considered in building and wall plans.)" And lastly, to change the reference in Condition 35 from Parcel Map No. 21055 to Tract No. 21640, and delete Condition #36. Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Conanissionei Moran, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21846 subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended. Unanimously adopted. At this time, Chairman Thornburgh stated that he must step down for the next item of hearing as he had a conflict of interest. He therefore turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Walling. Chairman Thornburgh was excused from discussion regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21880. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next item of hearing as follows: F. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21880, a request to divide 417 acres into 340 lots to provide for 324 single-family residential lots and an 18-hole golf course, with the remaining 314 acres of the 731-acre site remaining in a natural, mountainous, open space; Sunrise Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens described this project per information in the Staff Report and the use of wall renderings. He reiterated issues of concern brought out at the Study Session regarding some of the conditions. Therefore, he stated that Staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions of approval, as amended. Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Speaking in favor of the project were: James L. Resney, V.P., Sunrise Co., 75-005 Country Club, Palm Desert, CA Mike Smith (Engineer on the project), Office Manager of J. F. Davidson Associates, Palm Desert, CA. Letters are also on file in the Planning Department from nearby property owners who have some concern with the project. The letters received are from: Richard E. Bell, 180 Crown Point Drive, Carson City, Nevada; and Charles & Karen Sodikoff, Route 1, Box 134, Del Mar, CA. There being no further public comments, Vice Chairman walling closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. As a result of the Planning Commission discussion that followed, the consensus was to grant the Applicant a continuance to allow additional consideration of the location of the maintenance facility (fond. #18.(a)), and the need for and access to "B" Street. The Commissior also concurred to revise a number of the conditions as follows: Conditions 6 and 11(c): Review final language with City Engineer for intent. Delete Condition 14(a) regarding realigning "B" Street. Condition #17(c) to be revised as follows: "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." Condition #20 to be revised as follows: - 7 - "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 for extensive wall setback and landscaping to enhance views, but open fencing shall not be required." Condition #22 shall be revised as follows: 1122. ....of the Fire Marshal, who may approve alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards." Condition #22 shall be modified by adding the underlined: It a. ....no less than 25 feet from any building nor " more than.... Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to continue this Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 request to their next regular meeting of September 9, 1986. Approved on a 4-0 vote with one abstention. Chairman Thornburgh returned to his seat at this time; Vice Chairman Walling turned the meeting back to him. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item of hearing as follows: G. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-274, a request to construct three (3), two-story, retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 sq.ft. on a .846-acre site; John Feld, La Quinta Ltd., Partnership, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens described this project per information in the Staff Report and advised that this matter had been continued from a previous hearing because of issues concerning the need for more complete information on colors and materials and the Planning Commission's request that a revision be made to the site plan to provide more openness at the Bermudas/Montezuma corner. He reiterated issues raised at the Study Session regarding the Planning Commission's desire to review (on an informal basis) the landscape plan and their concern regarding Avenida Bermudas road improvements. Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff recommends approval of this request based on the revised plot plan. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10.35 p.m. Speaking in favor of the project was: John Feld, 2542 Denise Street, Orange, CA. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:37 p.m. The results of the Planning Commission discussion which followed was their consensus to approve this request subject to the conditions of approval, as amended: Mcdify Condition #6 by adding the following: "Applicant shall further upgrade the exterior building elevations through the use of additional plant-ons, building offsets, material and color variations and/or similar architectural features. Final building eleva- tions shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." Add a new condition to the section entitled "Building Design" as follows: "Applicant shall further revise the site design to provide additional setback, up to approximately 10 feet, at the Montezuma/Bermudas corner. Final site plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." Add subsection "n" to Condition #10 as follows: "Applicant shall cooperate with the City in providing transitional road improvements, as required by the City Engineer, for the intervening 100 feet between the subject property and other full -width improvements on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. The City shall be responsible to acquire any necessary right-of-way and shall arrange reasonable reimbursement for any off -site road improvements." Add the following at the end of Condition #19: "(Landscape plans shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for comment on an informal basis.)" Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner galling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to approve Plot Plan No. 86-274 based on the revised plot plan in conjunction with Exhibit A and Exhibits B and C and subject to the original Conditions of Approval, as amended. Unanimously adopted. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Plannini Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on September 9, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City mall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 10:45 p.m., August 26, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. - 10 - APPROVED lA INTA FBI G COMMIS 13Y M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 23, 1986 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman John Walling called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he called upon Commissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Walling requested the roll call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, and Vice Chairman Walling Absent: Chairman Thomas Thornburgh Also present were Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, Secretary Donna Velotta, and City Manager Ron Kiedrowski. 3. HEARINGS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the hearing items, which were heard concurrently, as follows: A. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023, a request for approval of a zone change from R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2.79 acres to allow for the establish- ment of a restaurant; Robert Cunard, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) B. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343, a request for approval to convert existing residential structures to a dinner house restaurant on a 2.79-acre site; Robert Cunard, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7122/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Vice Chairman Walling called for the Staff Report. 1. Planning Director Murrel Crump explained the two requests concurrently per information taken from the Staff Report, a copy of which is in the files maintained in the Planning Department. In conclusion, Director Crump advised the Commission that based upon the Findings in the Staff Report, it is recommended that the change of zone request be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval to the C-•P-S Zone as illustrated in Exhibit "A0l; and, that the plot plan request be approved in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C, subject to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Walling called for any questions by the Commission of Staff. Commissioner Brandt queried Director Crump regarding the use of existing cyclone fence and oleander hedge as being adequate for screening purposes in lieu of block wall screening. Director Crump responded that Staff anticipates the adjacent properties will be rezoned to commercial shortly, and is recommending, therefore, that other types of view obscuring fencing be permitted. Vice Chairman Walling questioned the use of shake roofing on the new construction. Director Crump responded that City codes do not require reroofing unless substantial additions are constructed; therefore, In this case, shake roofing can continue to be used. Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. The following persons spoke on these matters: 1. Robert Cunard (Applicant), 78-045 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal explaining that he intends to do something nice for the community in keeping with the "Village" concept theme. In response to Commissioner Brandt's question regarding the type of fencing being used, he explained that he plans to bring in some mature, low growing, citrus trees to plant around the perimeter as both a noise barrier and screening. Commissioner Moran quieried Mr. Cunard as to whether he planned to have outdoor dining, weather permitting. Mr. Cunard responded that they would like to do so in the future, explaining that the patio area does have room for approximately four tables. Vice Chairman Walling asked Mr. Cunard if there was enough room to expand the parking area in the future. - 2 - Mr. Cunard replied that there was room for expansion of the parking area showing the Commission the area by use of the wall rendering. 2. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal, but had some concerns. First, she explained that the first public hearing regarding these matters was continued without any discussion; therefore, there was no public comment input. This, then is the first open public hearing on these matters and no property owners were renotified of it. She felt the proposal will impact others in the area and they should be present to speak. Second, she felt the parking lot location should be changed. She noted that this meeting was the first time she found out where it would be located. Director Crump responded by advising Ms. Ostrowsky that the proposal for the parking area has been there since the application was made and has been highlighted since the first Staff Report. The case has always been open for public review. Commissioner Brandt queried whether Staff has received any written communications regarding these matters. Director Crump advised that there have been no written communications received. 3. Dr. George Fisher, 78-030 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the project and stated that he could not see where anyone in the area of the proposal has not known about it since its inception, as Mr. Cunard has been keeping everyone updated. Dr. 'Fisher advised that he lives across the street from the proposed project and feels it will not create much of an impact at all. In rebuttal, Mr. Cunard stated that since the concept of this proposal some two years ago, he has contacted his neighbors and discussed every part of this project. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Planning Commission discussion regarding these matters: Commissioner Moran questioned how future road improve- ments will be done and the monies acquired. - 3 - Director Crump advised that suggested conditions of approval provide for irrevocable offer to dedicate street right-of-way based on the ultimate specific plan. Conditions of approval also provide for a map exercise, at which point, improvement requirements could be speci- fied such as participation in a general assessment district. Vice Chairman 'lulling asked if there is an assessment district for the entire Village are under consideration. Director Crump responded that it is not defined, but there could be. Commissioner Moran asked if wood shake roofing is in violation of Condition No. 15(i). Director Crump replied that he would have to defer to the Fire Marshal as far as what retrofitting would be required. He stated that the Applicant might have to install fire sprinklers and other fire retardant systems that the code requires for this occupancy. Commissioner Moran stated she is glad to see this proposal getting off the ground and to see the City trying to keep the "flavor" of the area as it is. Commissioner Brandt agreed and stated she is excited about this proposal going forward. She also felt there has been adequate public notice given; throughout the Ceneral Plan process, commercial uses have been identi- fied for the area and having not received any written communications, she felt comfortable with the project tonight. Commissioner Steding stated she was in favor of the proposal. - 4 - Vice Chairman Walling stated that this is really the culmination of our reasoning for redesignating the Land Use Element for this area from the beginning. He felt this to be a great project and hopes it will set the pace for the remainder of the downtown area. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to recommend approval to the City Council for Change of Zone No. 86-023 to C-P-S for the lands described in the application and as illustrated on Exhibit A; and, to recommend approval to the City Council for Plot Plan No. 86-343 in accordance with the application Exhibits A, B and C, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Unanimously Adopted with a 4-0 vote ( Chairman Thornburgh being absent) . 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Chairman Walling introduced the Consent Calendar which con- sisted of the Minutes for the regular meeting of September 9, 1986. There being no discussion, he called for a motion. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for September 9, 1986, as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSiN,ESS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of Business as follows: A. Review of proposed conditions of approval regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 referred to the Planning Commission by City Council. He then called for the report from Staff. 1. Planning Director Crump reiterated City Council action at their meeting of September 16, 1986, advising the Commission that they have approved Specific Plan 86-007, Amendment #1, and Change of Zone 86-021, but continued the Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 requesting a report from the Planning Commission concerning review and finalization of recommended conditions of approval. He briefly explained the major points that the Council believed - 5 - needed further resolution through conditions of project approval. These major points included: - Perimeter building height limits - Grading and pad elevations - Interim access to Washington Street - Future signalization at Washington/Sagebrush - Access to easterly parcel (Dr. Marmor's property) - Floor plan/elevation designs - Perimeter wall and setback detailing Director Crump noted that the conditions need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and revised or added to to address these primary issues. This concluded Staff's report. Vice Chairman Walling reiterated that this is not a public hearing, but the Applicant in this matter ( Drew Wright) had informed the Commission that he had further informa- tion to present to the Commission. Drew Wright, President of Drew Wright & Associates, P. O. Box 1876, Indio, CA - presented the following information: a. Developing their half -width of Washington Street along their entire frontage and use it as a temporary frontage road; b. The pad heights will be built to the minimum prescribed standards; c. Dr. Marmor's property to the east will be provided with one access; however, Dr. Marmor prefers more; d. The floor plans have been revised to the minimum required; and, e. The lots along the perimeter should be specified for one or two-story units. Discussion regarding the information provided by Mr. Wright: Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if the entire median, along Washington Street, would be on the Applicant's property. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be determined by a survey. He noted that they are dedicating 65' and their half -width is only 601. Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if they plan to develop the entire median at this time ( both sides) . - 6 - Mr. Wright responded that they would be developing the median to the satisfaction of the City, which may require development of bath sides. Vice Chairman Walling asked Staff if this could become a potential problem and how it could be resolved. Director Crump responded that he felt it a matter of what interim improvement will function and he did not know if that has been thoroughly worked out. Vice Chairman Walling stated that what he understood Director Crump to say then is that if it is the Commission's intention to require this as a condition to develop that area, including the median, the City should go ahead with acquisition of that piece of land. Director Crump responded affirmatively. Vice Chairman Walling asked Director Crump if, at such time that this comes back for the final tract, the Commission will have review of it in terms of pad heights, etc. Director Crump responded that the Commission would not see a final tract map, it would just go to Council. The Commission may, however, request this information prior to the approval of the final map. Vice Chairman Walling queried the Commission whether they wished to address any other than the issues raised by the City Council. There being none, he opened discussion to the first issue which related to perimeter building height limits. Commissioner Steding stated she felt the recommendations should be consistent with those previously approved for "The Grove" project; she preferred to have Washington Street corridor kept clean of two-story structures; and permit multi -story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. Commissioner Moran felt that the Commission has made strong statements in the past on the Washington Street Corridor. Therefore, she had some mixed emotions regarding this matter, especially if the public was to look at the rear elevations of the homes along Washington. - 7 - Commissioner Brandt stated she was interested in the Applicant's comments making height limits applicable to lots as opposed to a 75' setback (or 200' setback) . She agreed with Commissioner Steding regarding allowing multi -story homes along the east and south perimeters. Commissioner Moran reiterated her earlier statement that the Washington Street corridor should not be fronted with multi -story homes. Vice Chairman Walling felt no multi -story should be built along Washington Street, as it is our Image Corridor. He suggested that a condition requiring review of those lots on a lot• -by -lot basis, when there is more information available. Commissioner Brandt asked Staff if a corner of the lot should be within the 75' setback, does that mean that no building on that lot can exceed two stories. Director Crump responded no, that the way it is structured is a lot could occur within 75' and that portion of the lot within the 75' could not have a building. Vice Chairman clarified that this means the setback is to the building rather than the lot. After substantial discussion, it was the Commission's consensus to revise Condition #19 to generally reflect the intent of the following: "Dwelling units in excess of 21' (one story) shall not be located within 75' from the tract boundary wall along Washington; dwelling units with heights of up to 28' ( two story) may be permitted along the north, east, and south boundaries subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." At this point, Director Crump advised the Commission some of these issues could be addressed, as stated earlier, to a generalized condition advising that prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for Commission review and recommendation, the following items, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission, therefore, to add a condition stating something similar to the following: "Prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission, the following items: - 8 - a. Dwelling unit floor plans, elevation designs in final form. b. Tract grading and final building pad elevations showing cross sections through the tract. c. individual dwelling unit setbacks along with lot fencing/wall enclosures and landscaping on indi- vidual lots. d. Tract boundary wall and landscape details. e. Revised map to provide for a minimum of one emergency access point along eastern tract boundary or through street access to eastern property arranged by private agreement. f. A final siting ,plan delineating all setbacks, unit mix and other applicable information." Vice Chairman Walling requested comments regarding the interim access to Washington Street. Commissioner Steding was in favor of the Applicant's proposai of creating a frontage road to Sagebrush. Commissioner Moran stated that they were told previously that this sliver of land was not going to be a problem. Now it looks like it will be a problem. City Manager Ron Kiedrowski spoke to the Commission stating the Council was concerned as to whether it is the City's responsibility to purchase this parcel, or is it this project's property owner and the adjoining property owner to somehow purchase that sliver to create the ultimate right-of-way. The Council did not come up with a solution, but wanted him to bring this concern back to the Planning Commission. He stated some of the options available are: 1. Require one or the other project to purchase it or to make sure it gets into public domain with the Planning Commission saying that they would pay their share and the other would get their share back as you would recondition the second one. 2. City acquires the parcel and that they pay their appropriate share on acquisition. City Manager Kiedrowski stated that the concern that the Council had is that if you go forward ignoring this sliver of land, then how does the design engineer of this - 9 - project, The Grove project, and the City Engineer for the rest, design this ultimate road without having control of the additional parcel. We want this to be part of the ultimate 130' with the landscaped median. Commissioner Steding asked if it was not the Washington Street Specific Plan which straightened the bow, thereby creating this parcel, and thereby causing the problem to have been created by the City. City Manager Kiedrowski replied that you could look at it in this way or you could look at it so that in order to develop those parcels, they would have to obtain that bow or they would never have direct access to the existing Washington Street. Commissioner Steding commented that the City, as the condemnor, would be able to buy the property at a lessor fee than the other property owners who would then have to dedicate the land back to the City. To summarize, Director Crump stated what we see here is a sliver of privately owned land and we could say that its public acquisition would benefit this property, The Grove property, and the general public in that it would allow the Washington Street Plan to be implemented. Commissioner Steding preferred that the City condemn and thus acquire the property at the lowest market value and then seek contribution from The Grove and Drew Wright at a minimum of one-third each. Commissioner Moran asked if we could do this to The Grove project, as it has already been approved and this was not an issue at that time. Director Crump advised that The Grove has a development agreement, so it may be a little more difficult. He advised that he did not know if the Commission could require another condition of The Grove. Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see a recommendation go forth saying that they want the City to exercise its eminent domain powers to condemn this sliver of property and to have the City participate in one-third of the acquisition cost and the remaining developers to participate in the remaining two-thirds to be divided proportionately as to the amount of land fronting their properties. There was a consensus for this recommendation. - 10 - The Commission additionally added that they did not want this acquisition credited toward the Infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding the signalization of Sagebrush: The Commission reiterated that previous developers have been required to provide signalization which was over and above Infrastructure Fees. Commissioner Moran questioned whether, when discussing the initial adoption of Infrastructure Fees, this signal was under consideration. Director Crump responded that this signal, if there is to be one, is a product of amending the Washington Street Specific Plan. Commissioner Steding queried if any development which may occur on Dr. Marmor's property would also participate in the cost of such signalization. Vice Chairman Wlalling stated he felt there should be an equitable participation over and above infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding access to Dr. Marmor's property to the east of this proposes! project: Commissioner Steding stated her basis premise is, and apparently the City Council generally agreed with her, that there is adequate public access. Particularly, if Sagebrush is extended around to create an internal loop into Dr. Marmor's property and back out again onto Sagebrush. Commissioner Moran stated the Commission did grant this Applicant the right -turn access to Washington and she felt not to allow development on Dr. Marmor's property access through that access way was not quite fair. But, not knowing what the agreement is between the Applicant and Dr. Marmor, it is difficult to make a decision. She went on to state she did not feel two accesses to the Marmor property were necessary. But, if Dr. Marmor is willing to pay a percentage of the upkeep, through a homeowners' association for private roads for one access, she felt they should grant him that. Director Crump addressed the Commission stating they could compromise between the two positions here by providing for a minimum situation, which is to be an emergency access and allowing for a private agreement to be reached that allows a full access between properties. So, the new condition would provide one emergency access and then, by agreement between owners, that the emergency access could be opened to a project -to -project access. The Commission agreed to Director Crump's statement. Commission discussion regarding perimeter wall and setback detailing: Vice Chairman Walling stated he felt the 20' setback for the wall should be changed to a 20' average so the Applicant could have more design flexibility. There was a consensus in this regard. After further discussion regarding this matter, the Commission agreed to request review of this matter and others mentioned previously prior to the final map rather than require a plot plan review. Commissioner Moran asked if there was going to be any sort of grade at the entrance to Sagebrush as far as the landscaping area was concerned. Director Crump advised that it was not discussed, but that the Commission could specify a maximum 33% grade for any berm occurring in the landscaped area. The Commission was agreeable to this suggestion. Vice Chairman Wailing called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to recommend to the City Council that they approve the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, prepared August 12, 1986, subject to the appropriate changes and additions made by the Planning Commission this date. Unanimously Adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next items of business to be heard concurrently as follows: B. Review of the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87; and, C. Review for General Plan consistency a proposed project by the Coachella Valley Water District to construct a force main to transport sewage through the City of La Quinta via Washington Street. - 12 - He them called for the report from Staff. 1. Director Crump addressed these matters per information provided in the Staff Reports. He advised the Commission that as far as a formal response, Staff recommends that the Commission, by a minute motion, determine that these matters are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. There being no questions or comments, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, that the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87, and their construction of a force main to transport sewage through the City of La Quinta via Washington Street are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the last item of business as follows: D. Consideration and adoption of Resolution No. P.C. 86-003 amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures con- cerning the order of business and the inclusion of a Public Comment section. Director Crump addressed the Commission explaining this is a resolution amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures by adding a Public Comment section, which thereby also amends the order of business. Commissioner Steding queried the remark that public comment is encouraged on items other than on the agenda. Does this include discouragement of public comment on things that are on the Business or Consent Calendar sections of the Agenda. Director Crump stated this would be at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested the public could use the comment time for matters other than public hearings. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Commissioner Steding asked if the Commission should limit the time allotted for the public comments. Director Crump suggested that the Chairman set time limits at the meeting. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. - 13 - Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 86-003. Unanimously adopted by a 4-0 roll call vote ( Chairman Thornburgh being absent). At this point, there was a brief discussion regarding items discussed at the Study Session regarding City-wide identification signs and the concept for an amphitheatre at Lake Cahuilla. These items were not a part of the Agenda for this meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 14, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta City Udall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:00 p.m., September 23, 1986, in the La Quinta City Nall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. - 14 -