Loading...
2007 08 28 PC ~4Jp~ Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Ouinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Ouinta, California AUGUST 28. 2007 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11 :00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2007-035 Beginning Minute Motion 2007-014 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 24, 2007. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda. a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak. to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing. may appear and be heard in support of. or in opposition to. the approval of the project!s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project!s) in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at. or prior to the public hearing. A. Item................ Applicant......... Location. .. . .. ... . . Request ........... Action........ .,..... B. Item................ Applicant......... Location........... Request ........... Action...... ........ SIGN APPLICATION 2007-1158 Coronel Enterprises, Inc. 51-105 Avenida Villa Consideration of an Amendment. to an existing Sign Program for the Durango Building to allow an increase in sign agenda, change in sign color and to allow for gator foam lettering. Minute Motion 2007- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007- 104 East of Madison, LLC Southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52, within The Madison Club. Consideration to subdivide 14.5 acres into 19 numbered lots and one lettered lot ("The Madison Club Villas"); approval of special product types; and architectural and landscaping plans to construct the villa units. Resolution 2007-_, Resolution 2007-_, and Resolution 2007- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion of Landscaping Policies in regards to water features and turf usage. B. Discussion of a Multi-use Trail on Madison Avenue south of Avenue 60. C. Review, of City Council meeting of August 7,2007 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on September 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Ouinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Ouinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, August 28, 2007, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Ouinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, August 24, 2007. August 24, 2007 ~~~~t;cutive Secretary Ouinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777~7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA . July 24, 2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Alderson who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle, and Chairman Ed Alderson. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to excuse Commissioner Quill. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planners Wallace, Nesbit, Stan Sawa, and Andrew Mogensen, Assistant Planners Yvonne Franco and Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A, It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to direct staff to bring Item B under Commissioner Items back at the next Commission meeting in order to allow Commissioner Quill to participate in the discussion. Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of July 10, 2007. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Site Development Permit 2007-887; a request of Eisenhower Medical Center for consideration of development plans for an 85,655 square foot three-story medical building (Phase I) located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive within the Centre Pointe project. o FILENAME \p G:\WPDQCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.docO Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 1 . Commissioner Daniels informed the Commission that he sits on the Board of the JFK Hospital and does receive a stipend but does not believe this is a conflict in his review of this project. 2. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston stated that the Environmental Assessment looked at the traffic count for the uses presented tonight. The time to make a challenge to those approvals has past and the issues tonight are related to architecture and landscaping. The issues related to the letter received from the City of Indian Wells are not relevant to the item before the Commission. Planning Director Les Johnson stated he had spoken with the City of Indian Wells prior to this meeting and staff will be meeting with them regarding the traffic issues raised in the letter. 3. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Engle asked if Washington Street would be widened. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated a deceleration lane is planned, but there were no plans to widen the street. Commissioner Engle asked for clarification on the access points. Staff stated there were two access points on Seeley Drive and none on Washington Street. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked the location of the covered parking, if they had met their quota for parking spaces, and is the covered parking in the right location. In the heat of the day the parking will be on the west side and there are very few covered parking stalls on the west. In addition, there does not appear to be enough employee covered parking. Staff stated it could be provided if it was the determination of the Commission. Commissioner Daniels asked if the decomposed granite path currently along Washington Street was intended to remain or would it be removed and paved. Planning Director Les Johnson stated it was his understanding that the meandering sidewalk will be installed. Commissioner Daniels asked how the signs would be approved and lastly, will there be a signal installed at Seeley Drive. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated the traffic analysis for this project' shows the signal at Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue must be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, but it is required of the master developer. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7_24-07.doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 5. . Chairman Alderson asked if the storm water is to be dispatched to the Whitewater Channel. Principal Engineer Wimmer asked that the applicant answer this question. He noted the applicant has options and staff is not certain which option they will take. Chairman Alderson asked if the lawn in the front of the entry area was artificial turf. Staff asked that the applicant needs to answer this question. Chairman Alderson asked about the large landscape area along Seeley Drive that. is anticipated for a future development. He asked if the area couldn't have a better use than landscaping. Staff stated it was discussed !It the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee meeting and it was determined to be unnecessary. 6. Commissioner Barrows agreed with providing the additional seating in this area. She noted the landscaping and berms along Washington Street call for date palms and they are not shown on the plans. Staff stated the revised preliminary plans show them incorporated, but the plans presented do not. Commissioner Barrows asked the height of the Homewood Suites. Staff stated it isclose to 45 feet. I . ! 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if there would be any ambulance service. Staff stated for transportation purposes only, not emergency services. Commissioner Daniels asked the height of the building on the west side and what if the trees were relocated to the west side to shade the play area. Also, is there a fence or some way to have a barrier to keep children from going into the parking lot. Staff stated the majority cif the building is three stories and in this location the play area should be shaded most of the day. Commissioner Daniels stated the circulation for the second entry for deliveries seems to be pinched and it seems better truck movement could be provided by increasing the size of this area. 8. Chairman Alderson asked if the parking lot lights would be dimmed after hours. Staff stated the applicant would need to answer this. 9. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. . Ali Tourkaman, representing Eisenhower Medical Center, introduced the development team and asked that the following conditions be discussed. First Condition No. 17 for the signal; this should be the responsibility of the master developer. Same with G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 3 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 Condition No. 18, it should also be the responsibility of the master developer. Condition No. 19.e. last paragraph, should also be the responsibility of the master developer. Staff stated Seeley Drive would need to be modified to allow the ADA accessibility. Mr. Tourkaman stated that Condition 20.b needed to be modified to allow the left turn out onto Seeley Drive at the easterly drive. Mr. . Tourkaman stated Condition No. 41, second paragraph should be the responsibility of the master developer. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated the applicant has control how he desires to discharge the stormwater. It is up to the applicant to determine which option they want to do. Mr. Tourkaman stated the storm channel exists. Ms. Malak Modarressi, RBF Engineering, explained how the storm drain system was designed. Mr. Tourkaman asked that Condition No. 53 be clarified as to what is expected of them. 10. Planning Director Les Johnson clarified there is a round-about just east of their secondary access which would allow the ability to turn around to go west on Seeley Drive. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated this is the first time they have heard about the objection to the left turn and the applicant has had the conditions for some time. 11. Chairman Alderson asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Tourkaman stated approximately 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., with the exception of the emergency care center which maybe 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Chairman Alderson stated he hoped the urgent care hours would be extended. Mr. Tourkaman stated it would depend on the demands of the community. Mr. Tourkaman stated that in regard to the play area they would be concerned with children not being supervised at all times. The lobby is designed to accommodate large numbers. They would not want to have any play area, but would have no objection to having a rest area with benches or more parking near Seeley Drive. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked about the small amount of turf area near the entry as it seems it will be a maintenance problem. Mr. Tourkaman stated he had no objection to removing it. Commissioner Daniels asked about relocating the covered parking. Mr. Tourkaman stated they have no objection. Commissioner Daniels asked about the extended hours of operation. Mr. Tourkaman stated he is over the construction and would not want to address. something that is governed by the caregivers. Commissioner Daniels asked if the existing urgent care centers G:\ WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 would be relocated to this location. Mr. Tourkaman stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked about the truck entry area needing to be revised to allow better exiting for the delivery trucks. Mr. Tourkaman stated he agrees with his comments and will look into redesigning this area. 13. Chairman Alderson asked about the operation of the urgent care. Mr. Tourkaman explained the process. Chairman Alderson asked the height of the trees in the large landscaped area. Mr. Rob Parker, RGA Landscape Architects, explained the location of the trees in the large landscape area will be 24 feet and are designed to be retained for the future parking lot. He reviewed the trees proposed. In regard to the turf area, they have no objection to removing the turf but have recently received information regarding artificial turf that it could get hot enough to burn the skin so they are re-evaluating this area. 14. Commissioner Barrows asked how the landscaping can soften the building. Mr. Parker stated that in their initial meetings with staff they were asked to add planting along the southern portion of the property. The northern section is being done by the master developer and they are providing for a series of trees along Washington Street from the Channel north. They would be willing to add shrubs. Commissioner Barrows stated her concern is the view corridor from Washington Street and wants to make sure some open area between the buildings is maintained. She would suggest the trees not be planted in regular spacing, but broken up to maintain a view corridor. Mr. Parker noted the areas where the view corridors would be kept. In regard to the spacing of trees, he would agree but clarified that in some instances this is not possible. 1 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any disputes between EMC and the master developer as to whose responsibility some of the conditions should apply to. Mr. Tourkaman stated there is no dispute, but neither is there anything in their agreement with the master developer shifts these costs to them. Principal EngineerEd Wimmer clarified the condition does not pyt the responsibility of installing the signal on this developer, it just requires it to be installed before they open. It is ultimately the responsibility of the master developer. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any precautions put on the master developer to see that the obligation is met. Staff stated the agreement between the City and the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7.24-07.doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 master developer is that the signal would bee installed within 12 . months. An extension can be requested, but it is up to the City Cpuncil as to whether or not to grant the extension. 16. Chairman Alderson asked that Condition No. 19 be amended to apply only to the applicant's property. In regard to the left turn at the easterly access, he would not want to see it at this location. In regard to Condition No. 41 the condition could be revised to address the applicant's concern. In regard to Condition No. 53 (now Condition No. 54) it is a standard condition and should remain. Mr. Tourkaman asked if they could have the flag pole at 100 feet. Staff stated that would allow it to be over double the height of the building. 1 7. Commissioner Daniels asked if the proposed building along the eastern portion of the channel was designated for medical uses. Mr. Tourkaman stated it is currently planned as a surgery building, but discussions have been held with CVWD regarding relocation of the well site. The nature of the use of the proposed buildings will be dictated by the needs of the community. Commissioner Daniels noted that minimal parking is being installed and if you add more medical facility, you would need another 343 spaces and this could require a parking structure. Mr. Tourkaman stated not all of uses within the building would increase the parking. If additional parking is required, it will be added. 18. Chairman Alderson asked about the dimming of the parking lot lights. Mr. Tourkaman stated they had no objection to lowering the lights and/or dimming the lights as lorig as the public safety was addressed. 19. Commissioner Barrows asked if there was an existing ADA access from the hotel. Her concern is that the ADA pathway does not go anywhere. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the hotel also was required to provide the ADA accessibility. The wording could be changed on this condition to require the ADA access to the south side of Seeley Drive. 20. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any comments or questions of the public. There being no further questions and no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. Commissioner Daniels commended the applicant on the design of the building. In regard to Condition No. 17, the G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 signal is the responsibility of the master developer. Condition No. 18 the applicant will provide vehicle access for CVWD. Staff stated this condition would be modified to require the applicant to build the access with input and approval of CVWD at the phase appropriate to the applicant. Condition No.19 ADA access would only be provided to the applicant's property line. In regard to the left turn lane at the easterly access he would not want to encourage the left turn at this location. In regard to the channel lining, this is the responsibility of the master developer. Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer stated CVWD has requested the lining and staff would need to discuss this with CVWD. Commissioner Daniels stated he would want to. retain the condition but would hope it is a responsibility of the master developer. He would also want to see the turf removed, the truck turning radius increased to allow the trucks to turn around and exit on the eastern side. In regard to the letter from the City of Indian Wells he believes with the opening of Jefferson Street the traffic counts have changed and encouraged staff to have discussions with the City of Indian Wells. Lastly, that the covered parking be relocated to have more covered parking on the west side and over the employee parking spaces. 21 . Commissioner Barrows stated she concurred with Commissioner Daniels. In regard to the large landscaped area she would want it conditioned to provide some seating. The ADA access points could be incorporated into this area. Condition No. 52 should be revised to maintain some open view corridor by the placement of the large trees. 22. Chairman Alderson also asked that the lights be dimmed within two hours of closing. 23. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Engle/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-032 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-887, as recommended and amended: a. Condition No. 19: Shall be amended to reference the applicant's property only. b. Condition 52: The applicant shall maintain an open view corridor by staggering the trees. c. Condition added: The turf at the enVy area shall be removed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 d. Condition added: The applicant shall increase the delivery truck access and turn around area subject to staff approval. e. Condition added: The applicant shall prove some covered parking area to be relocated to the west side. f. Condition added: The applicant shall provide some seating areas in the large landscape. area near Seeley Drive. g. Condition added: The applicant shall dim the parking lot lighting within two hours of business closing. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. B. Site Development Permit 2007-889 and Sign Application 2007-1165; a request of Kerr Project Services for Applebee's Restaurant for consideration of development plans and a Sign Program for a 5,914 square foot restaurant located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive within the Centre Pointe project. 1 . Commissioner Engle stated he had a potential conflict of interest and excused himself. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained Commissioner Engle would be allowed to participate in the discussion of the Site Development Permit but could not participate in any discussion regarding the Sign Application. Commissioner Engle excused himself and left the dais. 2. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report on the Sign Application. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report regarding the Sign Application, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department 3. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the sign off of Miles Avenue would be an off-site sign. Staff stated this business is a part of the overall Specific Plan and therefore allowed. 4. Chairman Alderson asked the location of the monument sign. Staff identified the location near Miles Avenue. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 5. Commissioner Daniels asked if the sign would be lit. Staff stated it would be internally illuminated. Discussion followed regarding the location of the sign. 6. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Ms. Deborah Kerr, representing Applebees, stated they know the directional sign does not make sense as proposed, but they wanted to place the sign to direct people into the project from the north end. The directional sign would be to indicate which driveway should be taken to get to the restaurant. Ms. Kerr requested the wall signs be approved as submitted. She noted most Applebee's locations have "Neighborhood Grill & Bar" on all signs. They are only asking for it on the west elevation. 7. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 8. Commissioner Daniels asked for the location of all the signs for the project. Staff reviewed the location of the monument signs. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2007-012 approving Sign Application 2007- 1165 as recommended with the deletion of Condition No. 6 pertaining to reducing the wall sign sizes. Unanimously approved with Commissioners Engle and Quill being absent. 10. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing on the Site . Development Permit and asked for the staff report. 11 . Commissioner Engle rejoined the Commission. 12. Commissioner Daniels asked if any environmental protection was proposed for the south elevation. Staff noted there is a tile cover over the patio area. Commissioner Daniels asked if it was a walkway or a way to add additional landscaping on the west elevation. Staff stated it is not shown on the plans, but the perimeter landscaping is proposed by the master developer. 13. Chairman Alderson stated there is no landscaping on the south elevation. Staff clarified the area off-site is the responsibility of the master developer. They are also being required to provide a switchback sidewalk for ADA accessibility on Washington Street. G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200717-24.07.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 14. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the site development permit. Ms. Kerr stated they would be working with the master developer on the landscaping for the south and west sides of the building. They have no objections to the conditions as proposed. 15. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-033 approving Site Development Permit 2007- 889 as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Daniels, ~ngle, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. C. Site Development 'Permit 2007-879; a request of The Foundation Group for consideration of architectural plans for a 6,200 square foot retail building located within the La Quinta village Shopping Center on the northwest corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico. 1 . Chairr:nan Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Barrows asked about the landscaping. Staff stated a landscape plan had not been submitted. Commissioner Barrows asked that a different environment be created for landscaping by use of the green screen. Staff stated they would work with the applicant. 3. Chairman Alderson stated the south elevation is very bland even with the considerable landscaping to screen the elevation. He asked if the trees would provide any screening. Staff stated they would be a medium height. The applicant is providing windows to the south for the easterly tenant and staff required them to separate the columns from the building. G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200717-24-07.doc 10 - Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dan Almquist, representing the applicant, apologized for the landscaping plan as it did not provide a complete picture of the proposed landscaping. 5. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any comments or questions of the public. Mr. Stephen Sterling, stated he was one of the partners who owned the Center and he had some issues. First was that the applicant did not comply with the Center's CC&R's. The elevations were not submitted to them for approval prior to submittal to the City. Ralphs grocery store also did not receive a copy of the hearing notice or the plans. The site plan does not address traffic flow or parking in the Center. The parking area is to the side of the building and no handicapped parking is provided on the north. They need to provide additional parking. Trucks will have to unload in the fire lane. As they have not had the opportunity to review the plans, they are asking the Commission to reject this application till they meet their requests. 6. Commissioner Daniels noted Ralph's did not have parking in front of their store. Mr. Sterling stated it is the only store that does not provide parking directly in front. Commissioner Daniels asked if the overall Specific Plan allowed for this pad to be built on. Mr. Sterling stated it was to be a bank building. 7. Chairman Alderson stated even if it were to be a bank it would not change the number of parking spaces provided or change the use. Mr. Sterling stated his concern is that Ralph's does intend to expand which will require additional parking. 8. Commissioner Daniels stated the City is not a purview to enforcing the CC&R's. Mr. Sterling stated he wanted the building closer to Calle Tampico. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston asked if Ralph's had given any notice regarding any of the buildings in the Center. Planning Director Les .Johnson stated no. 9. Chairman Alderson asked if Mr. Sterling was trying to bank the parking for Ralph's future expansion. Mr. Sterling stated yes. G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200717.24-07.doc 11 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 10. Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant would like to respond. Mr. Dana McCay, representing The Foundation Group, stated there are some grade issues that prevent them from moving the building further to Calle Tampico. They concur with staff's recommendation. 11 . There being no further questions and no other public comment, tlie public hearing was closed and opened for Commission discussion. Commissioner Daniels stated the noticing requirements were complied with and the other issues raised by the Center owner are not an issue for the Commission. 12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-034 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-879, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Quill. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2007-1136; a request of Embassy Suites for Spa Hibiscus, for consideration of an Amendment to an approved Sign Program for a business identification sign, located on the north side of Calle Tampico, within the Embassy Suites Hotel. 1 . Commissioner Engle stated he had a potential conflict of interest and excused himself. 2. Chairman Alderson asked for the staff report. Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 2. Chairman Alderson asked why the sign was already installed. He does support the sign but questioned why the applicant would disregard the City's Sign Ordinance. Planning Director Les Johnson stated he believes the applicant had no intention to comply. . 3. There being no further questions of the applicant and no other public comment, the public comment portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200717.24-07.doc 12 - Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2007 4. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adopt Minute Motion 2007-013 approving Sign Application 2007- 1136 as submitted by the applicant. Unanimously approved. , Commissioner Engle rejoined the Commission. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: . A. Discussion of landscaping policies in regard to water features and turf usage. Commissioner Daniels suggested this item be continued to the next meeting to allow Commissioner Quill to join the discussion. He would suggest that it be handed out to the public to let them know it is under consideration by the City. B. Discussion of a multi-use trail on Madison Street south of Avenue 60. Commissioner Daniels also recommended this item be continued to the next meeting. C. Review of City Council meeting of July 1 7, 2007. Chairman Alderson asked for a new list of when the Commissioners are to attend the City Council meetings. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Daniels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting to be held on August 28, 2007. This regular meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. on July 24, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Betty Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:IWPDOCSIPC MinutesI200717.24-07.doc 13 .... PH#A -- ------- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 SIGN APPLICATION 2007-1158 CASE NO: APPLICANT: CORONEL ENTERPRISES, INC. ESEQUIEL CORONEL . PROPERTY OWNER: REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE DURANGO BUILDING TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN SIGN AREA, CHANGE IN SIGN COLOR AND TO ALLOW FOR GATOR FOAM LETTERING LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: 51-105 A VENIDA VILLA (ATTACHMENT 1) ON-PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311 (a) VC(VILLAGE COMMERCIAL} GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History The Durango Building was approved by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2000, under Village Use Permit 2000-003. The existing Sign Program (SA 2002- 609) (Attachment 2) was approved by Planning Commission on March 12, 2002. The two-story, multi-tenant building is located at 51-105 Avenida Villa. The approved Sign Program limits the total square footage of 'signage' for the building and limits sign letter font style to Roman. The approved Sign Program also limits sign materials to bronze colored plastic letters with no illumination. SIGN PROGRAM PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Sign Program Amendment be approved for the Durango Building. The amendment would allow for an increased sign area, allow variations in sign color and font, and allow "Gator-Foam" as a permissible sign material. The requests have been made to satisfy tenant sign needs at the building (Attachment 3). No other changes to the existing Sign Program have been requested. SA 07-1158 Durango 8uilding (STAFF REPORT) ANALYSIS: 1 . The proposed Sign Program Amendment would allow the addition of Gator- Foam lettering as a permissible sign material to the existing Sign Program. Gator-Foam signs have previously been approved as an acceptable material within the Village. 2. The existing Sign program limits sign color to bronze. The applicant's proposed Sign Program Amendment would allow additional colors to be used for signs. The City's Sign Ordinance does not restrict sign color. 3. The proposed Sign Program Amendment would increase the permissible sign area for an individual sign from twelve and a half (12.5) square feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) square feet. The increase in individual sign area is still below the City Sign Ordinance standard of 1 square foot per lineal foot of building frontage along a street, up to maximu'm of 50 square feet aggregate; the maximum sign area permissible for this building is 42, square feet. . 4. The proposed Amendment to the Sign Program would expand permissible font styles rather than limit font to Roman. Other font styles and types are permissible and prevalent within the City. 5. Future signs for each tenant will be submitted under the general sign permit process as they are identified, and reviewed against the parameters of this Sign Program as approved. All signs are required to receive property owners consent prior to City approval. FINDINGS: The following findings can be made in support of Sign Application 2007-1158: A. Sign Application 2007-1158, as recommended, is consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 9.160, in that it does not conflict with the standards as set forth in said Chapter. B. The project as recommended is harmonious with and visually related to: a. All signs as proposed under the Sign Program, due to the common use of letter type and size, color and location of signs; b. The subject buildings as the scale of the signs and letter sizes used accentuate the building design; and c. Surrounding development, as it will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure other adjacent conforming signs. SA 07-1158 Durango 8uilding (STAFF REPORT! RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2007- submitted: , approving Sign Application 2007-1158, as 1 . Final sign plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit for the signs. 2. The sign program shall be amended by the applicant to reflect the addition of Gator-Foam lettering as a permissible material, the increases in sign area, and the changes to sign color and font style for building mounted signs. Prepared by: Eric Ceja, Assist t Planner Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Original Sign Program 3. Sign exhibit SA 07-1158 Durango Building (STAFF REPORT) ----------.--,'-"----- PH#S PLANNING COMMISSION . STAFF REPORT DATE: . AUGUST 28, 2007 CASE NUMBER: TENT A TIVE TRACT MAP 34968 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-104 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC ARCHITECT: BAR ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: .. VITA ENGINEER: RCE CONSULTANTS, INC. REQUEST: CONSIDERATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.5 ACRES INTO 19 NUMBERED LOTS AND ONE LETTERED LOT ("THE MADISON CLUB VILLAS"); APPROVAL OF SPECIAL PRODUCT TYPES; AND ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS TO , . CONSTRUCT THE VILLA UNITS. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MONROE STREET & AVENUE 52, WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2004- 530, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 1, 2005. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE .PREPARATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. GENERAL PLAN: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: SOUTH: EAST: WEST: HUMBOLDT BLVD.; RANCHO.SANTANA (TR 31202) DE SOTO AVENUE; MADISON CLUB (TR 33076) HUMBOLDT BLVD.; CARMELA (TR 31874) MERIWETHER WAY; MADISON CLUB (TR 33076) BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The Madison Club, bounded by Avenue 52 and Avenue 53 on the north, Avenue 54 on the south, Madison Street on the west, and Monroe Street on the east, received Specific Plan approval on February 1, 2005 (SP 99-035 Amendment 1), and Tentative Tract Map approval on August 2, 2005 (TTM 33076) (Attachment 1). The project area encompasses approximately 472 acres, and consists of custom single-family detached units, detached villas, and an 18-hole golf course. The applicant recently received approval of Tentative Tract Map 34969, which subdivided approximately 24 acres along Meriwether Way into a clubhouse site and a remainder parcel to be used as the future site of the Madison Club Villas (Attachment 2). The applicant is now proposing to subdivide the approximately 14.5 acre remainder parcel at the intersection of Meriwether Way and Humboldt Boulevard into the Madison Club Villas, which consist of 1 9 private residential lots and one lettered lot to be used as a lake and putting course (TTM 34968) (Attachment 3). PROJECT REQUEST Project Overview The Villas site is located between existing streets Meriwether Way and Humboldt Boulevard. Located directly to the north of the project site is the Madison Club perimeter, which includes landscaping and a perimeter wall set atop an earthen berm, with the Rancho Santana single-family residential development beyond the berm. The same condition exists to the east of the project site, with the Carmela single-family residential development located on the other side of the berm and perimeter treatment. A previously-approved Coachella Valley Water District well site is located on the northeast corner of the project site. Located to the south and west of the project site are Madison Club residential lots and. the approved clubhouse site (Attachment 4, Sheet 1). The primary configuration of the Villas consists of single-family residential units clustered around automobile courtyards (Attachment 4, Sheet LR01). Access to the auto courts will be of,f of Humboldt Boulevard and De Soto Avenue. One of the 19 Villas units is not in the cluster configuration, and has direct vehicular access off of De Soto Avenue. Each Viila unit is located on one of the proposed 19 residential lots. Tentative Tract Map The applicant proposes to subdivide approximatei'y 14.5 acres into 19 numbered lots and one lettered lot (Attachment 3). Lots 1 through 19, which average approximately. 19,000 square feet, are the private residential Villas lots. Letter Lot A, at approximately 215,060 square feet, is designated as a golf course lot, and will include a lake feature and putting course. Eight of the residential lots are designed as flag lots due to a Coachella Valley Water District requirement that water meters be placed on the property being served. Access to the front lots is gained through a previously-approved reciprocal access agreement found in the Specific Plan and Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions for the Madison Club development. Conditional Use Permit The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit, as the. approved Madison Club . Specific Plan states that special product types, including zero lot line residences, are allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit (Attachment 7). Site Development Permit Residential Units: Included with this proposal are the architectural plans for the Madison Club Villas residential units, which have been designed to reflect a Spanish-Mediterranean architectural style consistent with the neighboring Madison Club Clubhouse (Attachment 4, Sheet AR04 - AR11). The architectural elements of the Villas units, in keeping with the design of the nearby clubhouse, include use of rust-colored clay tile roofing, off-white hand-troweled stucco walls, numerous columns and archways, and a combination of arched and casement windows with elaborate grille-work and ornate stone carving elements. Balconies, balustrades, covered patios and arcades, chimney accents, and other design elements provide architectural articulation to the various building fa9ades. The configuration of 1 6 of the 19 Villas units is comprised of four two-story floor plans clustered around a decoratively-paved automobile courtyard. The three remaining Villas units are designed with either a shared automobile courtyard or an individual driveway. Each unit has the following characteristics: Villa Unit Type 1 & 1 A (Attachment 4, Sheet AR01 - AR03): . 5,826 square feet . 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms . 2-car garage (1-car side-entry golf cart garage) Villa Unit Type 2 & 2A (Attachment 4, Sheet AR06 - AR08): . 6,249 square feet . 4 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms . 2-car garage (1-car side-entry golf cart garage) . Optional detached casita (Attachment 4, Sheet AR11) Villa Unit Type 1 A and 2A are mirror images of the Type 1 and Type 2 units, with .identical floor plans and features, but with a variation in courtyard design, exterior amenities, and orientation. . The height of Unit Type 1 and 1 A, at the highest roof - ridgeline, is approximately 28 feet in height (Attachment 4, Sheet AR05). The height of Unit Type 2 and 2A, at the highest roof ridgeline, is approximately 27 feet in height (Attachment 4, Sheet AR1 0). Common Area: The Madison Club Villas common areas include the auto courts, lakes, and putting golf course. The auto courts within each cluster of homes are proposed to be finished with colored concrete (Attachment 4, Sheet LR13), and the center of each auto court features a decorative fountain (Attachment 5). The fountain feature, not including any supplemental landscaping, is approximately 1 00 square feet in area, and stands four feet in height. The proposed lake and putting course is located in the area between the Villas units and Meriwether Way (Attachment 4, Sheet LR01). The lake and streams are non- functional and serve only an aesthetic purpose (no swimming, fishing, boating, etc.), and are iocorporated into the previously-approved Madison Club golf course irrigation system. The putting course is intended to be available for use by anyone within the Madison Club development, not just Villas residents, and access to the course is provided off of Meriwether Way (Attachment 6). Users are anticipated to park their golf carts on an informal parking area located on a landscaped lawn area next to the course. Landscaping: Landscaping throughout the Villas site is plentiful and designed to complement the Spanish-Mediterranean architecture of the residential units (Attachment 4, Page LR02- LR12). Utilized around the Villas site are various dense hedges, shrubs, and groundcover, with minimal use of turf, which has been limited to small lawn areas outside of each individual Villa unit. Numerous Date Palms, Mexican, Mediterranean, and. California Fan Palms, and the use of a variety of canopy and accent trees provide screening and articulation to the project site. In general, the diverse plant material palette for the Villas site are characterized by low water users and minimal- maintenance plants. ANALYSIS Tentative Tract Map The design of proposed Tentative Tract Map 34968, as conditioned, is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and the Madison Club Specific Plan in that its street and lot design are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, and will provide adequate circulation, infrastructure and utilities. In keeping with the City's General Plan and the Madison Club Specific Plan consistency, Humboldt Boulevard is proposed to be 28 feet wide, with restricted parking. The design of the streets, coupled with the configuration of residential lots, allow for adequate access to and from each automobile courtyard along Humboldt Boulevard, as well as acceptable circulation for delivery and service vehicles for each residential unit. Site Development Permit Staff finds that the overall architectural style and design of the proposed Madison Club Villas to be acceptable. The Spanish-Mediterranean architecture and layout of the Villas is, for the most part, compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood, and is also consistent with the development guidelines stated in the approved Specific Plan for The Madison Club. The design of the 19 units clustered around a common auto court .allows for adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation without compromising privacy, and also minimizes vehicular effect, in the form of headlights, on neighboring residential developments. The proposed floor pl,ans and unit orientation' are acceptable in that they fully utilize indoor and outdoor living spaces, and capitalize on views of the proposed lake and surrounding mountains. However, staff believes that wherever a Unit 2 or 2A occur, the height and design of the unit along Humboldt Boulevard, coupled with the distances from neighboring residential development Carmela to the east and Rancho Santana to the north, presents a massing issue. This results in the orientation of the units being moderately out of scale and incompatible 'with the surrounding area (Attachment 8). The closest distance between a two-story Villa unit and a Carmela property line is approximately 93 feet, which includes a 25-foot setback from a Villa unit to the property line, 28- foot-wide Humboldt Boulevard, and ,a 40-foot Madison Club perimeter landscaping easement. The closest distance between a two-story Villa unit and a Rancho Santana property line is approximately 145 feet, which includes an approximately 55-foot landscaping easement. Staff's concern is not so much the obstruction of views, but rather the height/distance relationship (whether it is pad heights ,or building heights) of the proposed Villas with the aforementioned adjacent communities (Attachment 9). Staff recommends that the applicant install all perimeter landscaping, as described in the landscaping analysis below, along the eastern and northern side of Humboldt Boulevard along the Villas project area prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the Villas. Staff believes rhat having full-grown/mature landscaping, which include trees ranging from minimum 48" to 72" box sizes, installed prior to construction of the buildings will result in a lesser' visual impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods. In general, the landscape palette presented is acceptable. The proposed species of plants, which are taken from the approved plant list in the Specific Plan, provide diversity, while having the characteristics of being low water users. Canopy and accent trees, and the thorough use of shrubs and groundcover, are fully utilized in complementing the architecture and layout of the Villas units. The proposed mature landscaping in the common areas around each residential unit is robust and provides adequate screening between each unit and from the surrounding neighborhoods. Perimeter landscaping along the eastern and northern side of Humboldt Boulevard, which includes mature landscaping and wall set atop an earthen berm, is not a part of this approval (Attachment 10). However, the applicant has stated, and staff concurs, that the perimeter landscaping treatments are sufficient in screening the Villa~ units from the adjacent neighborhoods, and vice versa, thereby alleviating any visual impact the Villas may have on Rancho Santana and Carmela. Staff believes that the perimeter landscaping, if installed prior to construction of the Villas, coupled with the configuration and design of the Villas units, results in a minimal effect on the relationship between the surrounding neighborhoods. Carmela/Rancho Santana Neighborhood Meeting On August 22, 2007, the applicant presented the proposed Madison Club Villas plans to both the Carmela and Rancho Santana Homeowner's Associations. An overview of the project was presented, along with details relating to height/distance relationship and landscaping. A brief question and answer period afterwards allowed for residents, sales associates, and developers to ask questions. ALRC ACTION On August 1, 2007, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed these architectural, and common area landscaping plans, and unanimously' recommended approval of the Site Development Permit, subject to the following staff- recommended Condition of Approval (Attachment 11): 1 . Final landscape plans for on-site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first Building Permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. 2. All Madison Club final perimeter landscaping plans adjacent to the project site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the Madison Club Villas. 3. Replace the California Pepper trees from the landscape palette with an alternate tree type. 4. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. PUBLIC NOTICE This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on August 1 7, 2007, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. ' . RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 34968, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007- ,recommending to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2007-104, subject to attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2007-_" recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit' 2007-888, subject to attached indings and Conditions of Approval. Pre 1 . Vicinity Map 2. Project Location Map 3. Tentative Tract Map 34968 4. ALRC Submission Set (booklet) 5. Auto Court Fountain Details 6. Putting Golf Course Access Details 7. Madison Club Specific Plan Residential Development Standards 8. Photographic Rendering 9. Carmela/Rancho Santana Street Section View 10. Conceptual Perimeter Landscaping Plans (Humboldt Boulevard) 11 . Minutes of August 1, 2007 ALRC meeting PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINT A, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 34968, SUBDIVIDING 14.5 ACRES WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTO THE MADISON CLUB VILLAS CASE NO, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 28'h day of August, 2007, hold a duly-noticed Public Hearing, to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract Map 34968, a request to subdivide :t 14.5 acres into 20 lots, including 19 private residential lots and one golf course lot, located generally on the south side of Avenue 52 and west of Monroe Street, more particularly described as: APN: 767-200-091; 767-210-082 WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request has been assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2004-520 which was prepared for Specific Plan 1 999-035 Amendment 1 , which was certified on February 1,2005. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify their recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 34968: 1. The design of proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the city general plan and any applicable specific plans in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards, such as lot size, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because mitigation measures and conditions have been incorporated into the project approval to mitigate impacts where needed. 3. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban infrastructure improvements are Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Tentative Tract Map 34968 East of Madison, LLC August 28, 2007 existing, or will be installed, based on applicable local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the. proposed subdivision, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to adjacent public streets. 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 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 34968 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28'h day of August, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California CI#A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 CITY OF LA QUINTA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISCUSSION OF LANDSCAPING POLICY IN REGARDS TO WATER FEATURES AND TURF USAGE APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CITY-WIDE BACKGROUND Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest and discussion regarding use of water in our community. Recent discussion by the Planning Commission has focused on attaining lower water usage through policy limitations on turf placement and water features. The Planning Commission requested staff bring this topic forward as a study item during their regular meeting held June 26, 2007. A staff member and Commissioner Barrows recently attended the Coachella Valley Water District's Water Efficient Ordinance and Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines Committee meeting held July 11, 2007, at their office in Palm Desert. Discussion during the meeting included a number of potential policy enhancements to the existing CVWDGuidelines, including increasing the spray irrigation setback standards, the use of smart irrigation controllers, the definition of "recreational turf," and reducing the landscaping water co-efficient from the current .6 to a more efficient .5 threshold. It was noted by a representative from Palm Desert, which currently incorporates the .5 threshold, that they have had success with the reduced co-efficient and that a limited use of turf is still possible with the standard. Palm Desert does not mandate the .5 standard on playable golf course turf areas or portions of parks and similar public areas which utilize recre~tional turf. The Planning Commission continued this item from their July 24, 2007 meeting due to an extended hearing and to provide staff an opportunity to identify landscaping examples. STATEMENT OF ISSUES Because it is reco,gnized that we live in a desert environment where water supplies are limited, mandating the use of water efficient landscaping has always been the practice and policy of the City. The City continues to adhere to the CVWD's adopted landscaping water co-efficient of .6, a number which relates to the amount of water consumed by the overall landscaping for a project. As this number represents a maximum permissible standard, the majority of the commercial and residential landscaping plans being approved by the City are somewhere between .6 and the lower desert landscaping water co-efficient threshold of .5. To reinforce this.commitment to water-efficient landscaping, the Planning Commission has been consistent in imposing two different types of water-use conditions. The first is encouraging a reduction in the use of turf. The Commission has accomplished this through three different turf-related conditions which have consistently been applied. The first is mandating a specific threshold of turf coverage not to exceed 50% of the landscaping, recreational, and open space areas with the exception of golf courses and parkland. The second is the condition that turf be limited to functional or recreational areas. The third has been a condition for a "no-turf" option to be provided with all typical residential landscaping plans. The focus of these water-efficient conditions has traditionally been on residential projects, as water use has historically not been an issue for commercial projects. The second water-use condition consistently imposed by the Planning Commission relates to the use of passive water features, such a fountains, waterfalls, ponds, or lakes that are continually replenished by a potable water supply. The Planning Commission has been discouraging the use of passive water features placed in locations which have a passive visual function, such as large ponds or lakes, elaborate waterfalls, and/or fountains located at project entries or along perimeter streets. These types of water features are often supported by pumping equipment with heavy electrical consumption requirements. Passive water features are defined as those placed outside of a project's perimeter wall or entry which are not actively used by the residents or visible from the individual residences. An example could be those water features located at a project's entry or perimeter which serves as advertising or an attention-getting purpose for a particular project. The Commission recently deemed a proposed water feature acceptable based upon the following points: 1. The water feature did not use a potable water source. 2. The water feature was located adjacent to and visible from the proposed residential homes, rather than along a right-of-way. 3. The water feature was surrounded by a walking path and landscaping, providing a recreational feature and aesthetic amenity for homeowners. 4. The water feature utilized a recreational or habitat function, such as containing fish. 5. The water feature served a dual purpose including use as a reservoir for storm water, nuisance water, and/or irrigation storage purposes. Examples of an acceptable water feature would be those which are replenished by non-potable sources, serve an active recreational function such as fishing or golfing, are appropriately sized, are utilized for storm water retention, are visible from a public park or publicly accessible open space adjoining residences, andlor have an alternative purpose such as irrigation water storage or natural habitat. DISCUSSION As previously stated, there is increasing concern and discussion regarding use of the limited water. supply in our community. Turf and water features such as fountains and waterfalls are the single largest consumer of water in landscaping and often require a, significant amount of electricity. Although the City Council continues to support the "lush and efficient" policy of the CVWD, water usage can be effectively reduced even farther by limiting the use of turf and water features to "functional and recreational purposes." Staff has been evaluating the similarities and differences between Palm Desert's water-efficient landscaping standards and La Quinta's. Although both communities have made a commitment to reducing water usage and have instituted policies to encourage greater water-efficiency, Palm Desert has gone one step further by reducing their water,co-efficient factor from a .6 to a .5 under their Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Homeowner-provided landscaping, cemeteries, and areas with landscaped areas less than 2,000 square feet in size are exempt from Palm Desert's ordinance, and areas used for active recreational purposes such as golf courses, parks, sports fields, and playgrounds are permitted to exceed the maximum water allowance. Tract home landscaping and all water features are included under Palm Desert's Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. One of the biggest misconceptions regarding the lower water co-efficient of .5 is that it prohibits the use of turf and certain types of plants. This is not necessarily true because the co'-efficient method involves an averaged water use calculation for all plants listed under any given plant palate. All plant species are assigned a level of water use under the Water Use Classification of Landscaped Species (WUCOLS). In order to be able to use turf under a .5 co-efficient, a landscape architect would need to compensate for turf elsewhere with more ,water efficient plant species. The City of Palm Desert allows a water credit for the use of inorganic or inert landscaping features such as rocks or cobblestones. By instituting a .5 co-efficient standard, landscaping designs would have less permitted water usage and would thus need to be designed with a more desert,oriented plant palate. In addition to the' current CVWD landscaping standards, the City has been supportive of CVWD's water-based irrigation clock controller program. A rebate program was created in 2005 to encourage Valley residents to replace their irrigation timers with a weather-based system which had the potential to reduce water consumption by 30%. La Quinta provided a total of $5,000 to help off-set - the cost of the controllers for local residents. In 2006, a total of 64 controllers were installed. So, far this year,s total of 21 controllers have been installed, for a total of 85 weather-based controllers installed City-wide. Of the $5,000 budgeted, $3,955.97 has been spent thus far. CVWD anticipates the remaining budgeted ,amount for this program to be spent during the second halfof 2007. Consideration 'should be given to formulating a policy direction involving landscaping conditions which both support the existing "lush and efficient" policy and also provide a transition towards the practice of limiting turf and water features to functional and recreational use. The type policy should also be discussed, whether via a General Plan policy directive, a regulatory ordinance, or combination thereof. Based upon past discussion, this policy should include the following directives: . Turf usage shall be limited to less than 50% of total landscaping coverage and shall be placed within functional and accessible recreational areas. . All typical landscaping plans for prototypical residential units shall include a no-turf option. The Commission should consider a policy of limiting turf to a percentage of an overall project. . Water features should be replenished by a non-potable water supply, appropriately sized and designed for functional and recreational purposes in conjunction with recreational amenities, placed at a location visible from adjacent residential or commercial uses, and serve a functional purpose such as storm water retention, irrigation storage, or wildlife habitat. . Turf should be placed at locations away from sidewalks and streets. While the existing CVWD standard is to place turf 1 8 inches from the curb (unless an underground irrigation system is used), the Commission should consider expanding the policy to prevent overspray. RECOMMENDATION Provide a policy direction to staff concerning landscaping standards for turf placement and water features. Prepared by: CI#B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 CITY OF LA GUINTA DISCUSSION OF MUL TI"PURPOSE TRAIL ROUTES IN VICINITY OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND AVENUE 60 APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND AVENUE 60 BACKGROUND On April 10, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed architecture and landscaping plans for the Malaga project (R.T. Hughes; TT 33597). During the public hearing, the Planning Commission inquired as to the project's provisions for multi"purpose trails. Based on the discussions that ensued at that meeting, staff has prepared a brief report on the status of trails in the area of Avenue 60 and Madison- Street. Attached to this report is a copy of the General Plan Multi"Purpose Trails Plan (Exhibit 3.10). When the General Plan was adopted in March of 2002, no multi-purpose trail designations were applied to Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 62. The segment between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 was not designated, based on unresolved access along Madison Street with respect to the Travertine- development. It is unclear why no trail designation was assigned to the segment of Madison Street between Avenue 58 and Avenue 60, which splits the Andalusia project. ANALYSIS The 1992 General Plan included only one equestrian trail route, south along Madison Street to Avenue 58, then west on Avenue 58 from Madison Street. The . 2002 General Plan greatly expanded the concept of Multi-Purpose Trails, and in so doing the routing as adopted may not have been fully developed. A Multi-Purpose Trail exists along the east side of Madison Street, extending from Avenue 54 south to Avenue 58, and will continue north from Avenue 54, along the Madison Club and up to Avenue 50 once that segment of roadway is completed and improved to current standards. Trail provisions have also been required along Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. Both of these streets are designated for Multi-Purpose Trails from Jefferson Street (extended) to the eastern Sphere of Influence (SOl) limits of the Planning Areas. Andalusia has constructed a Multi-Purpose Trail along the south side of Avenue 58, from the commercial site on Madison Street to their eastern project limits. The trail will be required to continue along Avenue 58, with development of the commercial site at Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and the residential areas west of Madison Street as well as east of Andalusia to the current City limits at Monroe Street. The Trilogy project has a Multi-Purpose Trail along its frontage on the south side of Avenue 60, from Monroe Street to Madison Street. Avenue 60 is designated to include a Multi-Purpose Trail west of Madison Street, presumably on the south side. In the recent past, there has been discussion with the Malaga tract developer and Andalusia in regard to vacating Avenue 60 and making it a private street. This could incorporate public trail access, or may be deferred if a trail designation could be made for Madison Street south of Avenue 60, that would also include the portion of Madison Street between Avenues 58 and 60. It does appear that if the Madison Street trail system is made a continuous link between Avenue 52 to Avenue 62, and the Avenue 60 trail west from Madison Street is not completed, there will only be the one link along Avenue 58 to the westerly trail systems that exist (i.e. Boo Hoff and Art Smith Trails). However it would complete the link connections on the mile grid streets south of Avenue 58. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff concerning an amendment to the Multi-Purpose Trail routes on and in proximity to Madison Street. Prepared by: ~4. tl/~ Wallace Nesbit Principal Planner Attachment: 1. La Guinta General Plan Multi-Purpose Trails, Exhibit 3.10 ... August 28, 2007 City Of La Quinta POBox 1504 . La Quinta, California 92253 Re: Seasonal dust control measures and related water usage Attention: Tim Jonasson / Public Works Tom Hartung / Building Department Les Johnson / Community Services Kathy Jenson / City Attorney Doug Evans / Asst City Manager Ladies and Gentlemen: As you all now the City Council and the Planuing Commission have beep moving steadily forward in the area of water conservation for the general good. One of the areas that I believe has not been specifically examined is the tremendous loss 6f water to the dust control measures currently in use in our valley. If you have lived here any time at all you know the winds can come about very quickly. . I and it requires, by law, that the developer or builder respond immediately to the crisis. We even require signage given appropriate names and numbers to call. 'This is very unrealistic to presume he can respond this faSt before the calls start comihg in. I believe , the State and Federal Governments rely on the local cities to enforce the laws in this regard so we get the calls and have to deal with the problem. I also belieVe there are severe financial losses in State and Federal funding that can occur if cerdun dust levels are not achieved and maintained. So, considering the above, I feel we ha~e a double I edged sword here in the water loss and the dust control inadequacies we face each Spring and Fall season. .. . I I As a practical matter, I have had all to much personal experience at the field level and know this is a flawed system. Despite the difficulties in enforcing these twes and regulations in a timely manner; there is the practical side of it. Considerifilling 2500 gallons of our precious potable water into a water truck from a hydrant arid driving it on a surface street to the dust control site. Assume the hot wind is blowing arid gusting to 65 MPH. That driver will dispatch those 2500 gallons of water in about 7 nJinutes and he is off to another load tracking mud down the street which is a finable offenJe in itself. That water (which reaches the ground) will crust over the dirt surface for as lobg as it takes the I wind to dry it and once again start blowing away. I would hate to think of the % oflost water in this process. On a major jobsite or development this is a tremendous amount of water lost forever and never to return to the aquifer. There is a better waf. Given the above, I respectfully submit the following for your departmental review and legal analysis and would appreciate your response before I take it any further. My proposal would require changes in our permit procedures, and field monitoring and city code changes etc. Enter Kathy Jenson. You all know that there are soil treatments available that coat the ground with dust control coatings that last until physically disturbed. These applications are far more expensive than a quick pass with a water truck. Cost per square foot would be hard to calculate given that.the water truck may have to respond to the same area several times during a dust storm. I know that most sophisticated builders have cost categories for "dust control" but usually they are wholly inadequate in the amount of money needed for the entire project duration. It is an estimating "crap shoot" and an easy place to cut a comer going for construction funding. We in the trade have all been there. Most projects have a time lapse between the grading operations and the actual project construction effort There is a note in the dust control parlance that states "if you break it, you bought it". In other words, once grading has started the developer is responsible for onsite dust control even if the work effort is a long way off in time and it is a large site. This is also a problem for ''future'' pads in commercial centers. I think I have made my point on the problem so now lets talk aboUt the cure. I propose the following actions could be taken to not only help abate the dust issues but conserve millions of gallons of water annually. More specifically: 1. ReQuire the applicant to install colored dust control coatings immediately upon completion of the grading operation to the entire site. It is to be colored so as to be ' evident to all that it in fact is in place. LE. City inspectors, AQMD personnel and the general pUblic helping to assure them we are doing our job.. 2. ReQuire installation of a barricade of some sort to keep the coated area free of traffic and keep the integrity of the coating as long as possible. 3. Allow general construction areas with actual work going on to use water for dust control. 4. These requirements could be made part of the permit procedure and code enforcement. 5. Require these actions be taken immediately after the Pad Certification survey and to be done in conjunction with "Pad Certs" submittal. I would notice the public of these new requirements when they apply for a grading permit. In closing, I thank you for your time and effort. I may be behind the times on this but, if so, I appreciate you patience. Should you have any questions or further suggestions, I would appreciate hearing from you. If this seems to have merit it could be implemented through out the valley should others elect to follow suit. I thank you again for your consideration. Ed Alderson Chairman / Planning Commission