Loading...
2006 12 12 PCT4',vl 4 4129mm Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AG EN ®A A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California DECEMBER 12, 2006 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2006-045 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-031 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute B. Pledge of Allegiance C. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public heading. 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 November 28, 2006. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: NONE 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, orAn 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. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. STUDY SESSION ITEMS: A. Vista Santa Rosa Sphere of Influence Strategic Plan — Community Outreach Process Vlll. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Review of City Council meeting of December 5, 2006 X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to beheld on January 9, 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, December 14, 2006, 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 Wednesday, December 8, 2006. DATED: December 8, 2006 B VS ec SecretaryityofCalifornia G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA November 28, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was reconvened at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Quill who asked Commissioner Daniels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Ed Alderson, Katie Barrows, Rick Daniels, Jim Engle, and Chairman Paul Quill. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Les Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: A. Ms. Signey Cook, 51-470 Calle Jacumba, spoke regarding a lot that was on her street and was a public nuisance due to the number of large trees that were not being maintained. Chairman Quill informed Ms. Cook to call the Code Compliance Department to determine the status of the case. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston reviewed the process the City has to go through to abate the nuisance. Ms. Cook then asked how many vehicles a homeowner can have parked on the street. Chairman Quill again suggested she contact the Code Compliance Department. Ms. Cook then thanked the City for repairing the streets where she lives. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Quill asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of November 14, 2006. There being none, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Alderson/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2006\11-28-06.doc Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 A. Zone Change 2006-129; a request of the City for consideration of a reduction of the existing 15-foot rear setback to ten feet in the Medium Density Residential, 17 foot height, single -story zoned properties located south of Avenida La Fonda, north of Avenida Nuestra, west of Washington Street; and east of Calle Guatamala. 1. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Quill asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked why one of the recommendations was to prepare an Environmental Assessment. Staff explained that recommending denial did not require an environmental assessment. Should the Commission want to approve the change, it would require an environmental, review before it could ,be approved. Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston explained there are a number of criteria that CEQA requires before the zone change can be considered. Anything other than a denial would require an Environmental Assessment. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if there are any other areas of concern the Commission should consider for safety such as fire. Staff stated not at this time, but an Environmental Assessment would make those determinations. 4. Commissioner Daniels asked how Public Hearing "B" would relate to this item. Staff stated they were requesting the zoning symbols be corrected to be consistent. It did not directly relate to this request. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Robert Ancker, 51- 340 Calle Hueneme, stated he supported the request for the ten foot setback. He has been unable to develop his property until this issue is resolved. 6. Mr. Skip Lench, 78-215 Calle Cadiz, gave,`a. history on how this request came forward. He noted all the areas where the ten foot setback is allowed. Typically all 5,000 square foot lots have the ten foot setbacks except this section of the City. If R Planning Commission Minutes November 28. 2006 the Commission approves the request it would allow them to create a larger front yard. He finds no harm in balancing the rear yard with a ten foot. In his opinion to allow this setback would be fair as all the lots in the adjoining neighborhoods have the ten foot setback. 7. Ms. Sidney Cook, 51-470 Calle Jacumba, asked for an explanation of the request being considered. Chairman Quill explained this was a request to consider changing what the setback would be for the new homes. 8. Mr. Michael Nelson, 51-460 Iliolo, stated he concurred with Mr. Lench's comments. He agrees this zoning designation should be changed to allow them the same privilege as the adjoining neighborhoods. He too would like to build on his lot with the ten foot rear setback. He submitted plans to build on his lot and was told he could build with the ten foot setback. Later, after his plans were completed, he was told it was a 15 foot setback and he would not be able to build the house as designed. 9. There being no further public comment, Chairman Quill closed the public participation portion of the hearing. 10. Commissioner Alderson noted that currently approximately 30 percent of the homes are in violation of the rear yard setback. What costs would be involved in changing the zone. Staff noted the costs that would be involved in the environmental review. Maximum lot coverage could become an issue and needs to be considered in the overall picture. 11. Commissioner Daniels noted mistakes do happen, but it seems we have seen a rejuvenation of this neighborhood and he is not concerned with the five foot setback reduction. The mechanics of approving the change would not cause any inconsistency with the neighborhood and he would not object to the change. 12. Chairman Quill concurred that ten feet is the norm for all the lots in the Cove. It does seem that since it works in the Cove, the simplest change would be to remove the RM designation and allow the RC designation. Therefore, the restrictions of the RC zone would then take place. If a lot was merged, you could 3 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 not unmerge them. He would recommend proceeding with an environmental assessment to change this to a RC Zone. 13. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Alderson directing staff to prepare an Environmental Assessment changing the zoning to Cove . Residential designation. B. Zoning Code Amendment 2006-085; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.20.030 and Section 9.50.030 Table 9-2 in order to cross reference existing special zoning symbols' in the residential development standards and to mandate their identification on the Official Zoning Map. Chairman Quill opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in.the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Quill asked if there was any other public comment. 3. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Daniels/Barrows to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-044 approving Zoning" Code Amendment 2006-085, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Barrows, Daniels, Engle, and Chairman. Quill. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2006 A. Review of City Council meeting of November 21, 2006. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Daniels/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on December 12, 2006. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. on November 28, 2006. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California M �FM OF TN4'�� TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUGLAS R. EVANS,MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2006 SUBJECT: VISTA SANTA ROSA SOI STRATEGIC PLAN — COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROCESS As part of the strategic planning process for the Vista Santa Rosa SOI, a Community Workshop was recently held during the evening of December 4. The Workshop was jointly conducted with the Riverside County Planning Department staff and was held at the Coachella Valley High School Library. Approximately 90 attended and participated of the Workshop, which included community leaders, community group representatives, residents of La Quinta, residents of Vista Santa Rosa and developers. The meeting was conducted as an interactive forum, in which participants were randomly placed (well mostly) into 13 small groups following an opening presentation. The small groups discussed a variety of topics and had opportunity to voice their ideas, goals, and concerns for the SOI areas. Each small group presented their top ideas and concerns to the full group. The following is a list of key items identified at the Workshop: • Equestrian uses • Density, and density locations • Defined limits, size, and density of "Town Center". concept • Affordable housing, and housing types • Traffic, speed limits, congestion, and width of roadways • Code enforcement, property rights • Trail variation, location, and maintenance • Protection of open space and views, and preservation of rural qualities • Public facilities (Parks, Fire, Police, Library, Schools) • Water Based on feedback staff has received, the meeting was successful in that it helped bring different interest groups together to discuss the long term vision and goals for PAReports - PC\2006\12-12-06\VSR Sol Public Workshop Report.doc Vista Santa Rosa and the SOI area. Several participants expressed interest in conducting additional meetings to further define zoning and development standards for the area. A summary of the small group and individual comments are attached. Prior to the community workshop the consulting team (RBF) conducted 10 interviews with individuals having a vested interest in VSR. In addition, the consulting team also met with County Planning staff and the VSR Task Force this past Wednesday afternoon. In advance of presenting this information to the City Council at their December 19 meeting, we would like to have the opportunity to further discuss the results of the workshop with the. Planning Commission and receive your feedback. The RBF consulting team will not be able to attend the December 12 meeting but city staff will be available to facilitate the discussion. 'In addition, though this is not a public hearing, some of those who attended the workshop may also be in attendance at the December 12 meeting and may wish to provide further comments to the Commissioners. Should you have any questions in advance of the December 12 meeting, please do not hesitate to contact Les Johnson at 777-7071 or at Ijohnson@la-quinta.org. P:\Reports - PC\2006\12-12-06\VSR SO] Public Workshop Report.doc VISTA SANTA ROSA COMMUNITY WORKSHOP DECEMBER 4, 2006 Individual Exercise 1. VSR Plan Notes To be provided later 2. Amenities and Attributes # of times selected Amenity/Attribute 39 Neighborhood/Community Parks 28 Passive Open Space 12 Community Gardens 36 Tree -Lined Streets 38 Housing for Families 19 Affordable Housing 34 its' Multi -use Trails and Equestrian Trails 24 Equestrian facilities (stables, riding arena, etc.) 23 Streetscape amenities (lights, benches, trash receptacles, etc.) 20 Agricultural Fields 26 View Corridors 22 Rural Lifestyle Districts 23 Preservation of Date Palm Groves Other Amenity/Attribute listed by individuals (once each) • No cost to La Quinta • Date fields • Protected farm areas • Mixed use with community diversity • Get rid of Life Style Corridor • Life Style Corridor is too big! — Less than 50ft or 40 it • Detention Basin/recreational • No walls • Natural desert • Water • Lights • Equestrian Bias • Permanent preservation of equestrian/farm zoning thru out VSR • Demo parks illustrating history of water system/ag date farms, etc. • Traffic calming • Walking trail system • Design standards for buildings to relate to each other • Lifestyle corridor Calhoun & Glnd. • Low income housing • Mix of housing for all • Functional open spaces • Commercial/retail (edges & Airport Blvd.) • Tourism (edges & Airport Blvd.) • Sufficient density to develop infrastructure • Higher density • Walls • Concentrated ag/eq areas not throughout entire area — mandatory ag in landscaping, grapes, date palms, citrus • Community center • Retail location • Trails linking to parks, com. Retail, HITS horseshoe site • No track homes • Hz? refuel stations • Sustainability fueled electricity • Mix residential density within all P.A. • Bike Trails Move exterior buffer zones to usable interior space • 1 acre lot buffer zones make ? sense for smaller parcels • Walking or bicycle trails • Water usage!!!` • Vegetable farming • Water — water — water • Schools a I would like to stay ag without high density 3. Would you support increases in density for specific areas within VSR as an incentive to provide amenities and attributes that are identified above?: Total 58 forms, 59 total responses (1 person checked both Yes & Maybe) 36 — Yes 7 — Maybe 8—No 8 — Not checked Comment: Increases in density — smaller than what! Vista Santa Rosa Community Workshop December 4, 2006 Group Exercise Group 1 - Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Not enough diversity of density mixed use? (1 green dot) 2. Trails & roads too straight & wide need more corridors — better signs (1 green dot) 3. More density (14 green dots & 12 red dots) Step 1 Notes: • Frustration over delay of landowners meaning of development • Village center on Monroe St. & 58 is too close to Town Center • Trails should not be straight • Prefer to have more trails that are not as wide • Wide avenues would "kill" the rural atmosphere • Agree on smaller corridors & more • Map doesn't allow enough diversity of development. ■ More density • Landowners should be compensated for road widening 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Mountain views (2 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 2. Improved street landscaping trees, etc. — diversity 3. Community parks (3 green dots) Step 2 Notes: • Utilize trails within developments, people would feel safer • Tree lined streets • Limited lighting • Bigger street signs • Trees on every street, not all palm trees; perhaps each street having its own variety • Benches • Greenery along streets, golf courses, pastures, alphafa • Community parks, with pools • Develop multiple mini -community identities with different themes such as floral "competition" 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Group supports density bonuses for providing amenities (1 green dot) • Higher density appropriate near town & village centers (1 green dot) • Density should be achieved by originality in development & quali (1 green dot) Additional Comments • Transfer of development rights was beyond our time limits (2 yellow dots & 3 red dots) Group 2 1 - Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Size and uses, lifestyle corridor & trails (4 green dots) 2. Economic effect of setbacks & open space reqs (1 green dot & 3 red dots) 3. Lack of block walls, security & privacy (1 green dot, 2 yellow dots & 3 red dots) 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Reasonable sized MP trails (3 green dots) 2. Public recreation (2 green dots) 3. Golf courses (1 yellow dots & 5 red dots) 3 - Support increases in densitv for amenities or reduced densitv elsewhere? • Up to 4/ac gross w/compatible mix and minimum lot size (5 green dots & 1 red dot) • Increase density in north (3 green dots & 4 red dots) Additional Comments • Cultural evolution through economic fluctuation, current generation of landowners passing land to next generation (1 green dot & 1 red dot) • Attraction to families & working class Group 2 notes • Lifestyle trails do not make any sense • Need to increase density in PA2 & north. It is close to Indio and Coachella. • We need to have brick walls for security • I oppose the 1 acre lot concept around the perimeter of projects • #1 Note - Maintenance — small group interest — bikers/golfers/joggers • #4 Notes • Density low/high — inconsistent • Trails • Affordable housing — 0 • Tribal territories • Fish traps/date groves Town & village center • Traffic, speed limits • Agriculture use to residential De? (not legible) • City of Moreno Valley — Fairbanks Ranch, Monterey Ranch, compatibility • Lifestyle corridor's • One acre buffer — walls Trails Group 3 - Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Density vs. water (10 green dots) 2. No density bonus (6 red dots) 3. No density transfers (2 green dots & 2 red dots) 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. No density tradeoff(1 green dot) 2. Amenities supported by the interest group <paths> (1 green dot) 3. Open spaces/rurality (rural character) (1 green dot) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • No! (2 green dots & 2 red dots) Additional Comments • H2O = Life! (4 green dots) Group 3 notes • Map concerns • 'H20 • Limited Density • Concern about "Density Bonuses" • Pro Annexation • Equestrian over -representation • Cost factor for annexation — commercial is there enough? • Amenities • Amenities a low priority because of desire for rural lifestyle • Unwilling to trade density for amenities • Density transfers • Strongly prefer planning and zoning certainty • Would not support transfers of development rights • Recommendations ■ No significant development until long-term water impact is determined • To maintain rural character, low density/open space far more important than amenities • Interest groups wanting amenities — trails — should bear maintenance & repair burden • Concerned about financial costs of infrastructure if there is high density development Group 4 - TOD 3 Concerns related to the ma 1. Density • High:vs. Low • Leap frog • Inconsistent 2. Trails (1 red dot) 3. Affordable Housing (6 green dots) 4. Indian Interface (2 yellow dots) 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Open space 2. Historic fish traps 3. TownNillage centers 3- Yes — however the devil is in the details (1 green dot) • Land, size — fairness • Degree of trade off • Congestion • Cost of amenities • No — Group 4 Notes • Map comment — great zoning (southeast corner Monroe St. & Avenue 58) Group 5 Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Grid equestrian trail — need more natural curve/plow (2 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 2. Corridors be part of open space consideration (1 yellow dot & 1 red dot) 3. Fringe go to 4 to acre (3 green dots) 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Lifestyle Corridor (1 green dot & 2 red dots) 2. Variable density (2 green dots) 3. Open space (1 green dot) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? Area left blank no comments Additional Comments • Village Center • Police Substations • Animal Control • Has city of La Quinta made any commitment to endorse plan?" • Who maintains lifestyle corridors? Group 6 Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Maintain equestrian/ag lifestyle (3 green dots & 2 yellow dots) 2. Density adequate to provide useful amenities & infrastructure (10 green dots) 3. Unique planning process for general zones (PA, 1,2, 3, & 4) No blanket plan(2 green dots) Step 1 Notes (Ideas, concerns, changes): • Ave 56 more retail/mixed use density • Separate planning for area 4 — not consistent with PA 3 • Eclectic mix of densities within each area with open space • If 2 du/ac how do you fund infrastructure? Does Du's need to be higher? • Higher densities consistent with the equestrian /rural theme 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Usable open space (2 yellow dots) 2. Multi use, integrated trails (3green dots) 3. Preserve date palms & other historical features of area (1 green dot, 2 yellow dots & 2 red dots) Step 2 Notes: • Hotel, retail, village center • AG field, preservation of date field, rural lifestyle district • Trail, open space that is usable, infrastructure/streets/sewer/water/power Utilities underground/maintain view corridors, small commercial zoning — not strip malls Lifestyle corridors as shown interconnected horse trails not following streets, maintain historical icons — 62 Palms, AG facility icons 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced densitv elsewhere? • Yes — if supports infrastructure & usable amenities, respect property rights (2., green dots) , • No — preserve existing lifestyle Step 3 Notes: Yes - densities on borders of VSR & as you set nearer & along Calhon Corridor to compensate for 300 feet setbacks • No density increase for open space, date groves and ag. Fields — leave community as is to preserve current lifestyle • Yes — property rights to maximize value w/higher densities respecting community needs including amenities, parks & other infrastructure • Yes — want to see things the same but if change is inevitable be responsible to existing residences and not limit ultimate land values. Group 6 Notes on map • PA 1 — Like central feature • Lifestyle corridor/Airport Blvd — retail? Hotel & higher density • PA 3 — mixed densities, eclectic mix, not cookie cutter • PA 3 — allow greater density more than the 2/du so we can offer infrastructure • PA 4 — Allow separate planning at later date, i.e. not necessarily consistent with PA 3 Group 7 Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. NE Density transitions to reflect neighboring cities & estate densities (3 green dots) 2. Trail system: cost/maintenance/acquisition (3 green dots) 3. Appropriate standards & restrictions for industrial/commercial interface w/existing uses & residents along Harrison 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Parks & recreation desired (2 green dots) 2. Retail/commercial support services 3. High quality streetscapes (1 green dot & 1 red dot) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Yes — for commercial/retail support services and public space uses • No — density transfers, but yes to density incentives (2 yellow dots & 3 red dots) Group 7 Notes • Aggressive code enforcement to maintain & protect residential areas (3 green dots) • Higher estate density residential on north side • Rural estate should = 1-2 du/ac • Appropriate transition zones from community center & into rural estates Group 8 1 — Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Take more opportunity of the enterprise zone (1 red dot) 2. Right to farm one's own land (6 green dots, 1 yellow dot & 1 red dot) 3. Keep high density areas all in one area, instead of spotted, sporadic H.D. areas — one story housing, more affordable housing (1 green dot, 1 yellow dot & 4 red dots) 2 — Top 3 Amenities 1. Enforcement for overgrown vacant land. Code enforcement on weed control. 2. Underground power lines. (3 green dots & 5 yellow dots) 3. Shopping center with density around amenities (3 green dots) Step 2.Notes • Clean - no sofas, no dumping parks, reasonable housing • One story homes, no tamarisk trees on streets (blocks view & are ugly), more opportunity to take advantage of enterprise zone • Shopping — village center • Enforcement for overgrown vacant land. Code enforcement weed control, cross street view — overgrowth on country roads, trimmed, right to farm, underground power lines 3 - Su000rt increases in densitv for amenities or reduced densitv elsewhere? • No support of transfer of development rights (5 green dots & 1 red dot) Step 3 Notes • H.D. along Jackson 21s'to Airport • Higher density north of Jackson to 54`h East to fill in • Around Town Center • Keep high density areas all in one area instead of spotted areas — more around commercial areas. Group 8 Notes • On the buffer — if I as farmer want to farm why don't I have to provide a buffer? Group 9 1 — Too 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Water levels (6 green dots & 4 red dots) 2. Density defined (4 green dots) 3. Traffic (1 green dot, 1 yellow dot & 1 red dot) 2 — Top 3 Amenities 1. Trails/buffers (2 green dots & 2 yellow dots) 2. View corridors/parks (2 yellow dots & 1 red dot) 3. Preservation of date groves (2 green dots & 2 yellow dots) Step 2 Notes • Trails • Dark skies • Peace & quiet • Dates • Roads (rural) • Passive open space or agriculture • Traffic coordination/mitigation • Buffers (dangerous) — maintenance • Trails & buffers • Better roads • Walls • Schools • Parks • Preserve our groundwater —100ft min 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Looking for a balance between density and open space (3 green dots, 2 yellow dots & 1 red dot) • Buffers between developments and other properties (7 green dots) Step 3 Notes • Density is ambiguous — it can be controlled visually Additional Comments • Compromise (3 yellow dots) • More meetings (1 green dot & 1 red dot) Group 9 Notes • Rural (listed 3 times) • Affordable housing (Redevelopment Act) • 3 or 4 lots/acre need higher density affordable to incomers • 53 & Monroe (developer) compromise • School district (involved in process) don't want to bus Group 10 1 — Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Harrison 4-6 lanes higher density (2 yellow dots) 2. Town Center = larger, higher density (1 green dot & 1 yellow dot) 3. Sustainability of the entire VSR area (2 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 2 — Top 3 Amenities 1. Tree lined streets (2 green dots & 2 yellow dots 2. Multi -use trails (2 green dots) 3. Cohesive design guidelines (4 green dots) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Yes — increase density, amenities must be well defined & consistent (8 green dots, 1 yellow dot & 7 red dots) • Do not support reduced density (3 red dots) Additional Comments • Trails/open space • 4-6 lanes — Harrison, higher density, commercial Too low density, 5,000 lots more — ? future plight catering to ? (not legible) • More commercial density needs • PA 2 likes density • Sustainability/infrastructure of the entire project • Larger Town Center & more density • Tree lined streets • Multi use trails • Design guidelines that are cohesive • Yes, increase in density • Amenities must be well defined Group 11 — Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. We need trails and parks and they need to be connected to logical points to HITS horse show site, mountains, etc. safely (2 green dots, 1 yellow dot & 3 red dots) 2. Increasing density responsibility respecting surrounding areas in PA2 (.5 du/acre) (3 green dots) 3. Address family housing need (2 green dots, 1 yellow dot & 3 red dots) 2 — Top 3 Amenities 1. Community parks (6 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 2. Multi -use trails (3 green dots) 3. Vistas 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Yes - .5 du/acre in planning area #2 (3 green dots & 4 red dots) • No (3 red dots) Group 11 Notes • Trails connecting and safety • East to HITS • West to mountains • North — South to rural community centers/parks • Parks very important • Compatibility of new families moving in —need parks —for family activities - soccer — equestrian activities? • How do you pay for the parks? • Community parks & multi -use trails • Vistas Y Need housing for families Group 12 — Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Variety of density (2 green dots) 2. Locate open space in interior of project (1 green dot & 1 red dot) 3. Fewer perimeter walls —no berms (1 yellow dot & 8 red dots) Step 1 Notes: • Open space in interior not exterior • Preserve some estate densities 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Open space (1 green dot) 2. Variety of trails (3 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 3. Landscape streets & trails (1 yellow dot) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Public parks (2 green dots) • Trails (1 yellow dot & 1 red dot) • Landscaping (1 yellow dot) Additional Comments • Clarity & certainty of zoning densities & approvals (3 green dots & 2 yellow dots) Group 13 1 — Top 3 Concerns related to the map 1. Like higher density around perimeter (7 green dots & 3 red dots) 2. Low density (3 green dots & 6 red dots) 3. Center of community less dense than perimeter (1 green dot & 6 red dots) 2 - Top 3 Amenities 1. Youth rec area (3 green dots & 1 yellow dot) 2. Paths & trails links (1 green dot & 1 red dot) 3. Sport center for all ages (1 green dot & 3 yellow dots) 3 - Support increases in density for amenities or reduced density elsewhere? • Some what Additional Comments • Need own Fire & Police code enforcement (1 yellow dot) TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUG EVANS, COMMUNI4DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2006 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION REGARDING TIMESHARE USES AND RIGHT-OF- WAY/STREET VACATIONS At a precious Commission meeting staff had been asked about the above -noted subjects. By way of clarification, the following information is provided. Staff checked the City policy on timeshares and the attached ordinance addresses timeshare uses in the City. A conditional use permit is required for timeshare uses. In SilverRock the Specific Plan does not require a CUP since timeshare uses are specifically permitted. Staff wanted to clarify this since our response to a question was not factually correct. The second issue is whether the Madison Club would come back before the Commission after the General Plan conformance approval. Staff answered in the affirmative, however, after double checking, it was determined the development will not come back.to the Commission. The street vacation was requested by the applicant because the final map neglected to vacate the street. The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map in 2005. Should you have any questions, staff is available to answer them 9.60.320 Resort residential. Page 1 of 2 La Quinta Municipal Code Op Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Title 9-ZONING Chapter 9.60 SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 9.60.320 Resort residential. A. Purpose. Resort residential provides for the development and regulation of a range of specialized residential uses that are individually owned but rented for periods of thirty consecutive days or less, on a regular basis and oriented to tourist and resort activity as part of a golf/resort country club. Land uses include single- family detached or attached residential uses, eating and drinking facilities, small accessory retail and personal service shops, and recreational buildings. B. Review Process. Resort residential uses are permitted when developed as part of a residential golf country club. The conditional use application review process shall be used subject to Section 9.210.020. C. Development Standards. The following standards apply to the development of resort residential uses: ITEM QUANTITY Minimum lot frontage 30 ft. Maximum building height 28 ft. (1) 2 ft. (1) adjacent to an image corridor Maximum no. of stories Minimum livable reserved floor area excluding garage 420 sq. ft. Minimum front yard setback from: Street or parking stall curb 8 ft. Pedestrian circulation walks 5 ft. Garage/carport setback -from street curb 5 ft. Minimum building to building setback: Without partial attachment (see note) 6 ft. With partial attachment (see note) 4 ft. Minimum interior/exterior side yard setbacks 3 ft. (2) Minimum rear yard setback - 5 ft. Maximum allowable wall height 8 ft. inimum parking required 1 space per bedroom 1 space per 300 sq. ft. GFA Note: Partial attachment of two buildings is made when an enclosed area having a typical interior function such as a hot water heater closet, furnace closet, or other essential use, is attached to two otherwise separate buildings. Construction standards and fire ratings shall meet U.B.C. requirements. 1. Chimneys, roof vents, finials, spires, and similar architectural features not containing usable space are permitted to extend up to three feet above the maximum structure height. 2. Residential units supporting mechanical equipment shall be allowed within side yard setback area with a minimum three-foot clearance to the side property. http://gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_60-9_60_320&frames=on 12/8/2006 9.60.320 Resort residential. Page 2 of 2 D. Allowable Resort Residential Units and Commercial Uses. The density of the allowable units is determined by the underlying general plan land use designation. The eating and drinking facilities, small accessory retail and personal service shops, and recreational buildings shall be an integral part of the development. These facilities shall not utilize more than five acres of the total site. E. Transient Occupancy Tax. Resort residential shall be applicable to all provisions of Chapter 3.24 of this code. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998) http://gcode.us/codes/laquinta/view.php?topic=9-9_60-9_60-320&frames=on 12/8/2006 T a;� •c OF T INTENT TO SPEAK FORM I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO.: PUBLIC HEARING NO.: RE: RE: I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM AM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM . WRITTEN COMMENTS: (Optional) PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES WHEN SPEAKING!! DATE: l Z / /p a 712RU4 ADDRESS: 7�� < A CYV CN (&Q-CC (A RETURN THIS FORM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL YOUR NAME AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU! PACAROLYNOanning Com\INTENT TO SPEAK FORM.doc J