The URL can be used to link to this page

2007 08 28 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, 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 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 ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2007-1158 Applicant......... Coronel Enterprises, Inc. Location........... 51-105 Avenida Villa Request ........... 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 Bator foam lettering. Action .............. Minute Motion 2007- B. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007- 104 Applicant......... East of Madison, LLC Location........... Southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52, within The Madison Club. 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. Action .............. Resolution 2007-_, Resolution 2007-_, and Resolution 2007- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None Vill. 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 AgendaMdoc 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 Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta 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 Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, August 24, 2007. 4ltyDAD: August 24, 2007 Executive Secretary f Quinta, 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 AgandaW.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 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 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 Ceia, 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 1) located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Seeley Drive within the Centre Pointe project. 0 FILENAME \p G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.docu 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\724-07.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 at 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 is close to 45 feet. 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 of 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 24feet 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. 15. 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 Engineer Ed Wimmer clarified the condition does not put 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 Council 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. 17. 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 long 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 entry area shall be removed. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-2407.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 2007-1 165; 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. 1 1 . 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:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.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, Engle, 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. Chairman 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:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.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. 0:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.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. 1 1 . There being no further questions and no other public comment, the 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:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.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- 1 136 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 17, 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:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2007\7-24-07.doc 13 PH #A DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2007 SIGN APPLICATION 2007-1158 CORONEL ENTERPRISES, INC. ESEQUIEL CORONEL 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: 51-105 AVENIDA VILLA (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VC. (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) 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. $A 07-1158 Durango Building (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 maximum 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 2007-1 158: 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 Building (STAFF REPORT) RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2007--1 approving Sign Application 2007-1158, as submitted: 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 Ceia, Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Original Sign Program 3. Sign exhibit SA 07-1158 Durango Building (STAFF REPORT) ATTACHMENT #1 ATTACHMENT #2 01 g J G, I 1 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT DATE: I AUGUST 28, 2007 CASE NUMBER: TENTATIVE 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: HUMBOLDT BLVD.; RANCHO.SANTANA (TR 31202) SOUTH: DE SOTO AVENUE; MADISON CLUB (TR 33076) EAST: HUMBOLDT BLVD.; CARMELA (TR 31874) WEST: 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 19 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 off 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 Villa unit is located on one of the proposed 19 residential lots. Tentative Tract Map The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 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 - AR1 1). 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 facades. The configuration of 16 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 1A 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 1A, 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 AR10). 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 .100 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 incorporated 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 plans 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 that 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 Villas 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 1 1): 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 17, 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. IAR,Is] 10ni 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 344968, 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 attachedXindings and Conditions of Approval. Jay u, Associate Planner Attac ments: 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 QUINTA, 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" day of August, 2007, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing, to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract Map 34968, a request to subdivide ± 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 1999-035 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 GFNFRAI 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. This tentative tract map shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) C Planning Department - o Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Y Coachella Valley Unified School District • 1 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • SCAQMD Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 5. The applicant,shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 6. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 7. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 8. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer. easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 9. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 rights -of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS (Per Final Tract Map No. 33076-1 and 33076-2 and Tentative Tract Map No. 34969) 11 Meriwether Way (28' ROW) - Private Residential Street measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28-foot travel width measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line with on - street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. The flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer. 2) Humboldt Blvd. (28' ROW): Private Residential Street with a flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer and on -street parking is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 3) De Soto Avenue (28' ROW): Private Residential Street with a flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer and on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. B. PRIVATE AUTO COURT - Sufficient right of way shall be provided for the Auto Courts per the following conditions: 1) Driveways shall have a minimum travel width of 20 feet as approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City Engineer, provided that parking is prohibited, there is adequate off- street parking for residents and visitors, and provisions are established for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 2) The turn around shall conform to the shape shown on Tentative Tract No. 34968 except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. At a minimum, the applicant's engineer or architect will be required to demonstrate vehicular back out from garages at dead end courtyard driveways are acceptable to the Engineering Department during the plan review process. The applicant's engineer should provide a turning template exhibit during the plan check submittal process. 3) The configurations shall be redesigned to comply with the requirements of the Riverside Fire Department and the City Engineer. 11. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights -of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 12. The applicant proposes to utilize shared Auto Court Drives for access to units, therefore language pursuant to reciprocal access agreements shall be documented in the CC&R's of all property owners of this tentative tract map. Additionally, the applicant or the appropriate HOA shall provide perpetual maintenance of the Auto Court Drives. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 13. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a twenty two foot (22') wide combination public utility easement and landscape/drainage easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets consistent with existing easements for Final Map No. 33076-1 and 33076-2. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 14. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 16. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. ET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 17. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design- Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For Individual Properties And Development), LOMC for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 18. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) PRIVATE STREETS (Per Final Tract Map No. 33076-1 and 33076-2 and Tentative Tract Map No. 34969) 1) Meriwether Way (28' ROW) - Private Residential Street measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28-foot travel width measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line with on - street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF, APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 prior to recordation. The flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer. 2) Humboldt Blvd. (28' ROW): Private Residential Street with a flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer and on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 3) De Soto Avenue (28' ROW): Private Residential Street with a flush curb street section shall have a full 28 feet of travelable roadway as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department and provided the method of drainage conveyance is acceptable to the City Engineer and on -street parking prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. C. PRIVATE AUTO COURT - Construct the Auto Court per the following conditions: 11 Driveways shall have a minimum travel width of 20 feet as approved by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City Engineer, provided that parking is prohibited, there is adequate off- street parking for residents and visitors, and provisions are established for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department prior to recordation. 2) The turn around shall conform to the shape shown on Tentative Tract No. 34968 except for minor revisions as may be required by PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 the City Engineer. At a minimum, the applicant's engineer or architect will be required to demonstrate vehicular back out from garages at dead end courtyard driveways are acceptable to the Engineering Department during the plan review process. The applicant's engineer should provide a turning template exhibit during the plan check submittal process. FINAL MAPS 19. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate mylars of the Final Map that were approved by the City's map checker on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final Map shall be 1 " = 40' scale. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 20. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC. 21. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site, Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1 " = 40' Horizontal NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. D. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City. approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1- foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2001 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. 22. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Online Engineering Library at the City website (www.la-quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 23. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 24. At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the mylars in order to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 reflect the as -built conditions. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 25. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off - site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by City. 26. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC. 27. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 28. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. 29. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2 x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 30. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING. 31. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 32. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 33. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), LQMC, and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), LQMC. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 34. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 35. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 36. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 37. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGF 39. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for The Madison Club development and this tentative tract map. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), LQMC, Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 41. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 42. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 43. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 45. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin. 46. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which 'directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. 47. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 48. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 49. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC. 51. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 52. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or .required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility,trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 53. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 54. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC. 55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 57. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director. Where PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. 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. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the Planning Director. 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. 59. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5`h Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. PUBLIC SERVICES 60. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 62. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision. 63. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods employed comply with the plans, specifications and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 other applicable regulations. 64. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal MAINTENANCE 65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 66. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 67. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 68. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 69. Tentative Tract 34968 shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. The in -lieu fee (sometimes referred to as the "Quimby Fee") shall be based on the fair market value of the land within the subdivision. Land value information shall be provided to the Planning Director, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 34968 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 via land sale information, a current fair market value of land appraisal, or other information on land value within the subdivision. The Planning Director may consider any subdivider -provided or other land value information source for use in calculation of the parkland fee. FIRE DEPARTMENT 70. Final Fire Department conditions will be addressed prior to final map. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshal conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-104, ALLOWING SPECIAL PRODUCT TYPES FOR THE MADISON CLUB VILLAS WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-104 APPLICANT: EAST OF MADISON, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 281h day of August, 2007 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by East of Madison, LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow special product types (including zero lot line residences) for a proposed single- family residential project within the Madison Club residential development, located south 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 1999-035 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 21 166; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1. The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation of Low Density Residential. The City's General Plan Policies relating to Low Density Residential encourages the development of single-family attached and detached developments. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the La Quinta Zoning Code. Use of the space as detached residential units will have similar characteristics and impacts as the surrounding single-family residential development, and similar uses which are permitted by right under the Low Density Residential zoning district. 3. Processing of this Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 East of Madison, LLC August 28, 2007 compliancewith the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The La Quinta 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 1999-035 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. 4. Approval of this proposed use will not be a detriment to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor shall it be injurious, or incompatible with other properties or uses in the vicinity. Use of the area as a single-family residential development will have similar characteristics and impacts as neighboring land uses. 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 Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 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: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 East of Madison, LLC August 28, 2007 LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2007-104 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 1. The applicant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of La Quinta, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval, of this Conditional Use Permit. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City of La Quinta shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 4. The City of La Quinta reserves the right to review and monitor the operation of this residential development and modify Conditions of Approval if necessary. 5. Any expansion of this use or substantial modifications to the approved site plan may require an amendment of this Conditional Use Permit. Minor modifications to this Conditional Use Permit may be approved by the Planning Director. 6. Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for the following related approvals: Tentative Tract Map 34968 Site Development Permit 2007-888 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888, INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE MADISON CLUB VILLAS, WITHIN THE MADISON CLUB RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2067-888 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 request by East of Madison, LLC, for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a proposed single-family residential project within the Madison Club residential development, located south 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 1999-035 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 21 166; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 1' day of August, 2007, hold a public meeting to review and recommend. approval of architecture and landscape plans for the Madison Club Villas; 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 make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a residential development in an approved residential tract, which is General Plan -designated for LDR (Low Density Residential). development. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Site Development Permit 2007-888 East of Madison, LLC August 28, 2007 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code, in terms of architectural style, building heights, building mass, parking, and landscaping. The Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes a residential development in an approved residential tract zoned for RL (Low Density Residential) development. The Site Development Permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the RL district, and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the LQMC. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed Site Development Permit is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the site has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2004- 520 which was , prepared for Specific Plan 1999-035 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. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit provide interest through use of varied roof element heights, enhanced building entries, facade treatments, colored roof tiles and other design details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design: The site design aspects of the proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, wi►I be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. 6. Landscape Design: The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code, as well as the approved Specific Plan for the Madison Club. The project landscaping for the proposed Site Development Permit, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed homes with surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007- Site Development Permit 2007-888 East of Madison, LLC ' August 28, 2007 landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to blend with the building architecture. 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 Site Development Permit 2007-888 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" day of August, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: kki 161 *,A ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 r;FNFRAI 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Site Development Permit shall expire two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 3. Site Development Permit 2007-888 shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for the following related approvals: Tentative Tract Map 34968 Conditional Use Permit 2007-104 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. FIRE MARSHAL 4. Final conditions will be addressed when complete building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Fire Department. All questions regarding the Fire Department should be directed to the Fire Safety Specialist at (760) 863-8886. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 5. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall review building plans with the Sheriff's Department regarding Vehicle Code requirements, defensible space, and other law enforcement and public safety concerns. All questions regarding the Sheriff's Department should be directed to the Deputy at (760) 863-8950. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2007- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2007-888 EAST OF MADISON, LLC AUGUST 28, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6. 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. Perimeter landscaping along the eastern and northern side of Humboldt Boulevard shall be installed prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the Madison Club Villas. 7. The applicant shall replace the California Pepper trees from the landscape palette with an alternate tree type. 8. Exterior lighting shall comply with Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. ATTACHMENT I 50TH AVE o PORT BLV z O .-- ATTACH M E_NT-#2 f -----.-52ND_AVE_- . -- _- ------ --� -- - - -- i ATTACHMENT#6 t x ,% U I \ % Jl IX A Qj Section Five Development Regulations 5.4 5.4.1 Development Regulations Residential Development Standards TABLE 5 Residential Development Standards Min. Lot Size Min. Lot Frontage' Max. Structure Height (Excluding Baseman t)2 Max. No. of Stories Min. Front Yard Setback/Non-Garage (from back of curb) Min. Front Entry Garage Setback (from back of curb) 3 Min: Side Entry Garage Setback Min. Interior Side Yard Min. Corner Side Yard Min. Rear Yard Setback Min. Building Separation. Min. Private Open Space Dimension Max. Lot Coverage Min. Livable Area (Excludinq Garage) 5 ATTACHMENT 7 10,000 s.f. 7,500 s.f. 85, 40' 28' 28' 2' 2' 25' 15' 30' 20' 25' S' 5, 4 3' 20' 10, 25' 10, N/A N/A N/A N/A 50% 80% 3,500 s.f. 2,600 s.f. CUSTOM/SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED VILLAS For main residence, per Development code. In For main residence, per Development code. In addition, one guest parking space shall be provided on addition, one guest parking space shall be provided for each lot. Guest parking must not impede full access to every two units. Guest parking must not impede full the aaraoe and driveway to the street. access to the qaraqe and driveway to the street. • Decorative roof projections such as chimneys, roof vents, finials, I8' projection al spires, and similar architectural features not containing usable space. • Roof overhangs, chimneys, media niches, awnings, and canopies. • Cantilevered seating windows or ledges, which are located a minimum of 1' above the floor and do not increase a building's usable floor area. • Balconies, exterior stairways, and elevated uncovered decks, which do not increase a building's usable floor space. 6' projection allowed on south and west 2' projection allowed 4' projection allowed into front or rear setback 0' projection allowed into side setback FOOTNOTES 1. Min. lot frontage on curves, cul-de-sacs, and knuckles shall be 25'. Min. lot frontage for flag lots shall be 15' 2. Any portion of a basement above any finish grade is excluded from calculation of building height. Buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan Image Corridor (Avenue 52, Avenue 54, and Madison Street) are limited to 22' within the 150-foot zone. 3. Roll -up type garage doors are required. 4. For interior setbacks, if the building is over 17' in height, the setback is 5' plus V for every foot over 17' in height or fraction thereof, to a maximum required setback of 10'. The additional setback may be provided entirely at grade level or a combination of at grade and airspace above the 17' building. 5. Developer reserves the right to control unit type through Development Regulations and through application to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for special product types, including attached or zero lot line residences. " "The Madison Club"Specific Plan 99-035 Amendment #1 February 2005 5-2 ATTACHMENT #11 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 11, 2007 Committee is the final landscaping for the final residen " lans. Discussion followed regarding how the landsc g plans are coming before the Committee. Committee ember Fitzpatrick asked about planting in the easem areas. Marty Butler, representing Trans West Ho g, explained the CVWD easements do not affect front yards. Where there are sewer easements the i 1 be planting decomposed granite. 3. There being further questions, it was moved and seconded by Co ttee Members Fitzpatrick/Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Min Motion 2007-020 recommending approval of Final ndscaping Plans 2007-012, as recommended by staff. B. Site Development Permit 2007-888, a request of East of Madison, LLC for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for the Madison Club Villas, a 19-unit residential development of single-family detached units, located at the southwest corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 52. . 1. Committee Member Fitzpatrick stated he had a potential conflict of interest due to the location of his residence and excused himself from the meeting. 2. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Staff introduced John Gamlin, East of Madison, who gave a presentation on the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify the area in question regarding the relationship between this project and the two adjoining projects. Staff noted the location on the site plans. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how this landscaping relates to the issue of having view corridors. Planning Director Les Johnson stated the view corridor issue related to Avenue 52. This issue relates to the perimeter between this project and Carmela and Rancho Santana. He noted the trees being planted have several years of growth and are not the typical size of tree for most new construction. Staff is concerned that this project has two story units with some units having a terrace, and staff wanted to bring this to the Committee's attention. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if either of the two adjoining projects had commented on the project. Staff noted neighborhood meetings 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee July 11, 2007 were planned but as of this date had not been held. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he has no problems at this point in time, but he would like to hear the results of the meeting between this project and the neighborhood meetings. Discussion followed regarding the difference in the pad elevations. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated to him the bigger issue is the view corridor that will be blocked by the trees. We don't want a wall, but he would be more sympathetic to what the adjoining projects want. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the ground lighting as what is proposed tends to deteriorate over time and become a high maintenance issue. He would suggest a different type of fixture of a more .substantial material be used. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the trellis and railings at the back of the units would be wood. He would ask that it be treated to keep its shape. He asked the depth of the reveals. Mr. Prevost stated they are set back nine inches. 6. Committee Member Arnold , stated he had no objections. He was impressed with the size of the plant material being installed. 7. There being no further questions, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2007-021 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2007-888, as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. Committee Member Fitzpatrick rejoined the Committee. C. li tar Use Permit 2007 035; a request of Dan Kline, Forward Architect it d Design for consideration of architecture and landscaping plans he Plaza at Calle Tampico, located at the northeast corner of Calle TO and Desert Club Drive. 1. Planning Director Les Johnson ented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of h is. on file in the Planning Department. Staff introduced Dan ine, Forward Architecture and Design, and who gave a presenta ' on the project. 2. Committee Member Fitzpatric t e.detail on the parapets on the shop bmilzi4igiT is nice. The parapets on the loading dock .t7 CI #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 APPLICANT: I CITY OF LA QUINTA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST: DISCUSSION OF LANDSCAPING POLICY IN REGARDS TO WATER FEATURES AND TURF USAGE 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 CVWD Guidelines, 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 recreational 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 recognized 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, and/or 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, 'a 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 half of 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: e Turfusage 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 18 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: A ew J. Mogensen P 'ncipal Planner CI #B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: DISCUSSION OF MULTI -PURPOSE TRAIL ROUTES IN VICINITY. OF MADISON STREET BETWEEN AVENUE 58 AND AVENUE 60 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 (SOI) 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: Wallace Nesbit Principal Planner Attachment: 1. La Quinta General Plan Multi -Purpose Trails, Exhibit 3.10 ATTACHMENT #1 c c } - ea e_�g �QQ A° ii ttt cl 1' • 19 JI-tt�-� I Ile all w U C10Cl ��Oq PCSG I � ' =-- J, r � August 28, 2007 City Of La Quinta PO Box 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 Planning Commission have bea steadily forward in the area of water conservation for the general good. that I believe has not been specifically examined is the tremendous loss dust control measures currently in use in our valley. If you have lived here any time at all you know the winds can come aboi and it requires, by law, that the developer or builder respond immediatel We even require signage given appropriate names and numbers to call. I unrealistic to presume he can respond this fast before the calls start comi the State and Federal Governments rely on the local cities to enforce the regard so we get the calls and have to deal with the problem. I also belie severe financial losses in State and Federal funding that can occur if cent are not achieved and maintained. So, considering the above, I feel we h,- edged sword here in the water loss and the dust control inadequacies we and Fall season. As a practical matter, I have had all to much personal experience at the i know this is a flawed system. Despite the difficulties in enforcing these regulations in a timely manner, there is the practical side of it Conside gallons of our precious potable water into a water truck from a hydrant a surface street to the dust control site. Assume the hot wind is blowing a MPH. That driver will dispatch those 2500 gallons of water in about 71 off to another load tracking mud down the street which is a finable offer water (which reaches the ground) will crust over the dirt surface for as lc wind to dry it and once again start blowing away. I would hate to think , water in this process. On a major jobsite or development this is a tremei water lost forever and never to return to the aquifer. There is a better wa moving ne of the areas 7water to the very quickly to the crisis. is is very g in. I believe Lws in this e there are n dust levels e a double ice each Spring d level and les and Iling 2500 driving it on a gusting to 65 utes and he is in itself. That as it takes the he % of lost us amount of 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. f 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 if'. 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