1986 07 22 PCA G E N D A
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
July 22, 1986 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute
2. ROLL CALL
3. HEARINGS
A. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023, A request for approval of a zone
change from R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial) on 2.79 acres to allow for the establish-
ment of a restaurant.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
B. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343, A request for approval to convert
existing residential structures to a dinner house restaurant
on a 2.79-acre site.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-346, A request for approval to construct
a single-family dwelling on the north side of Saguaro Drive;
208' east of Washington Street; Rick Johnson Construction,
Applicant.
B. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-347, A request for approval to construct
a single-family dwelling on the south side of Saguaro Drive;
600' east of Washington Street; Rick Johnson Construction,
Applicant.
C. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-348, A request for approval to construct
a single-family dwelling at the east side of Avenida Villa;
72.7' south of Calle Ensenada; Javier and Helen Loredo,
Applicants.
AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 22, 1986
PAGE 2.
D. MINUTES of regular meeting of May 13, 1986.
E. MINUTES of regular meeting of May 27, 1986.
F. MINUTES of regular meeting of July 8, 1986.
5. BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC USE CASE NO. 86-003, A request for approval to expand
an existing private school from 35 to 150 students and to
construct six additional classrooms and one multi -purpose
building.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
B. PROPOSED RESOLUTION. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, ADOPTING A
MANUAL ON ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES
AND A MANUAL ON LANDSCAPE STANDARDS TO CONFORM WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE "SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL" ZONE.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
6. ADJOURNMENT
ITEM NO. / X
DATE %
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE: _ Q �i
ems. O,e2 Ao 1/%
O
' MOTION BY
DE GASPERIN
MORAN WALLING THORNBURGH
D SECOND BY: BRANDT
DE GASPERIN
MORAN WALLING RNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
AYE NO
ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT
DE GASP=
MORAN
v
WALLING
v
THORNBURGH
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED:
YES
NO
ITEM NO. �. .
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY:c-,R ITD DE GASPERIN MORAN WAILING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN � WALLING THORNBURGH
T r
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COP24IS S IONERS :
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUMS
CITY OF LA OUINTA
3.A
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023
LOCATION: East Side of Avenue Bermudas, Bounded by Calle Cadiz
and Calle Barcelona
APPLICANT: Robert E. Cunard
REQUEST: Approval of a Zone Change from R-1*++ (One Family
Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on
2.79 Acres to Allow for the Establishment of a
Restaurant.
1. General Plan: REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 1.
2. Zoning: REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 2.
3. Existing Conditions: REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR PLOT PLAN
NO. 86-343.
4. Environmental Considerations: REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT FOR
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343.
5. Description of the Request: The Applicant, Robert Cunard, is
requesting a zone change from R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings,
1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size, 17-Foot Height Limit) to
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on a 2.79-acre site located on
Avenida Bermudas in the Village at La Quinta area. The purpose
of the request is to allow the Applicant to convert the existing
residential buildings to a dinner house/restaurant, as proposed
by Plot Plan No. 86-343 which was submitted concurrently with
this zone change request.
6. Comments from Other Agencies: REFER TO STAFF REPORT FOR PLOT
PLAN NO. 83-343.
7. Comment from the Public: No written comments have been received.
0 �
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 2.
STAFF COMMENTS
The site is located within the Village at La Quinta area which was
recently redesignated on the General Plan Land Use Plan from Low
Density Residential to Village Commercial. This zone change request
was submitted concurrently with Plot Plan No. 86-343, a proposal by
the Applicant to convert an existing residential use to a dinner
house/restaurant. The approval of this zone change request should
be consistent with the City's action on this related plot plan
application.
Regarding consistency with the General Plan, the requested C-P-S
Zoning is the most appropriate district available in the Municipal
Land Use Ordinance for the Village Commercial General Plan designa-
tion. Although it allows a wide range of uses (Refer to Attachment
No. 3), the concurrent processing of this zone change with Plot Plan
No. 86-343 will enable the City to condition approval of the project
to assure consistency with the General Plan.
Concerning the compatibility of the proposed rezoning with the
surrounding zoning and land uses, this application is the first
request to establish a commercial use within this former residential
neighborhood. The redesignation of this area on the General Plan
Land Use Plan unavoidably results in this neighborhood having mixed
uses until such time that the transition from residential to
commercial uses is completed. The City's policy of requiring change
of zone requests to be submitted concurrently with development
proposals allows conditions to be placed on approved uses to assure
compatibility with the remaining single-family residences to the
extent feasible. However, some negative effects,such as an increase
in traffic and noise over the current levels,are unavoidable. As
discussed within the Staff Report for Plot Plan No. 86-343, the
development can be conditioned to adequately minimize land use
compatibility concerns.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The C-P-S Zone permits the establishment of a restaurant as
proposed by the Applicant under the related Plot Plan No. 86-343.
2. The proposed change from the R-1*++ to the C-P-S Zone will bring
this property into conformance with the General Plan Land Use
Plan's designation of the site as Village Commercial.
3. The C-P-S Zone is the most appropriate zone concurrently
available for the Village Commercial land use designation.
4. Land use compatibility with the remaining residential homes in
the neighborhood can be provided to the extent feasible by
appropriately conditioning the accompanying plot plan application.
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 3.
5. There are no physical constraints on the site which would prevent
its development as commercial. All public services and utilities
are available to the site.
6. Adverse effects of the commercial use on the environment,
including an increase in traffic and noise, can be mitigated to
the extent feasible by the conditions of approval placed on Plot
Plan No. 86-343.
FINDINGS '
1. The requested C-P-S Zone is consistent with the La Quinta General
Plan.
2. The requested zoning, as implemented by Plot Plan No. 86-343, is
compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning.
3. Approval of this request will not result in significant adverse
impacts on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above Findings, the Community Development Department
recommends APPROVAL of Change of Zone No. 86-023, in accordance with
the attached Exhibit "A".
PREPARED BY:
S�a �. Bonner
Principal Planner
SLB:LLS:dmv
Atchs: 1. Attachment #1, General
2. Attachment #2, Zoning
3. Attachment #3, C-P-S-
4. Exhibit "A"
APP QED
Lawrence L. Stevens, I P
Community Development Director
Plan
Zone
CALLE
TAMPICO •'
.
.•.
.�.g.'.'
.•..�.
.. ...'.'......'.•..: • • • •
RESIDENTIAL
VERY LOW DENSITY
0-2 dwellings/acrei'
F
El
LOW DENSITY r
2-4 dwellings/acre
MEDIUM DENSITY
4-8 dwellings/acre
HIGH DENSITY
8-16 dwellings/acre'.•.•.••••••••
i
COMMERCIAL
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
*, n
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
MIXED COMMERCIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
®
COMMERCIAL PARK
ge
N
TACHMENT NO. 1a
GENERAL PLAN
Land Use Plan
CIRCULATION PLAN
I®I MAJOR ARTERIAL
I "I,
120-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
PRIMARY ARTERIAL
100-110 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
08 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
COLLECTOR
64-72 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
AVENUE 52
® s.
sITE .
4
o
1 w cn
.> 'a
.¢6LU !w
0 � DESERT CLUB DRIVE
00 OQ AVENUE 50 WILL BE
■_ ,p
IZ ■Z
.w Iw
U)
iw i'
a
A
1
0
Or
RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE E4'
100'
I Ai
j ATTACHMENT NO. 1 b
j Circulation Plan
.
e 4
ARTICLE IXb
_ C-P-S ZONE
I (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
The following regulations shall apply in all C-P-S Zones:
SECTION 9.50. USES PERMITTED.
(a) The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with
not more than 200 square feet of outside storage or display of
materials appurtenant to such use, provided a plot plan shall have
been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this
ordinance:
(1)Ambulance services
(2) Antique shops
(3)Appliance stores, household
(4)Art supply shops and studios
(5)Auditoriums and conference rooms
(6)Automobile parts and supply stores
(7) Bakery goods distributors
(8)Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail
sales on the premises
(9) Banks and financial institutions
(10) Barber and beauty shops
1 (11) Bars and cocktail lounges
(12) Bicycle sales and rentals
(13) Billiard and pool halls
(14) Blueprint and duplicating services
(15) Book stores and binders
(16) Bowling alleys
(17) Catering services
(18) Ceramic sales and manufacturing for on -site sales, provided
the total volume of kiln space does not exceed sixteen (16)
cubic feet
(19) Cleaning and dyeing shops
(20) Clothing stores
(21) Confectionery or candy stores
(22) Costume design studios
(23) Dance halls
(24) Delicatessens
(25) Department stores
(26) Drug stores
(27) Dry goods stores
(28) Electrical substations
(29) Employment agencies
(30)Escort bureaus
( (31) Peed and grain sales
(32)Fishing and casting pools
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
51 C—P—S ZONE
10-23-80
(33) Floristops
(34) Food markets and frozen food lockers
(35) Gift shops
(36) Hardware stores
(37)Household goods sales and repair, including but not limited
to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies,
lamps, radios, and television sets, including repair thereof
(38) Hobby shops
(39) Ice cream shops
(40)Ice sales, not including ice plants
(41) Interior decorating shops
(42) jewelry stores with incidental repairs
(43) Labor temples
(44)Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research or testing
(45) Laundries and laundromats
(46) Leather goods stores
(47)Liquor stores
(48) Locksmith shops
(49) Mail order businesses
(50) Manufacturer's agent
(51)Market, food, wholesale or jobber
(52)Massage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar
personal service establishments
(53) Meat markets, not including slaughtering
(54) Mimeographing and addressograph services
(55)Mobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed pur-
suant to state law, used for:
a. Construction offices and caretaker's quarters on construction
sites for the duration of a valid building permit, providing
they are inconspicuously located
b. Agricultural worker employment offices for a maximum of 90 days
in any calendar year
c. Caretakers or watchment and their families provided no rent is
paid, where a permitted and existing commercial use is estab-
lished. Not more than one mobilehome shall be allowed for a
parcel of land or a shopping center complex
(56) Music stores
(57) News stores
(58) Notions or novelty stores
(59) Nurseries and garden supply stores
(60)Offices, business
(61) One on -site operator's residence
(62) Paint and wall paper stores, not including paint contractors
(63) Parking lots and parking structures
(64) Pawn shops
(65)Pet shops and pet supply shops
(66)Photography shops and studios and photo engraving
!. (67) Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors
(68)Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales
52
10-23-80
(69) Printers or publishers
(70) Puce markets
71 Ra o and television broadca ng studios
(72) Recording studios
(73) Refreshment stands
(74) Restaurants and other eating establishments
(75) Schools, business and professional, including art,
barber, beauty, dance, drama, music and swimming
(76) Shoe stores and repair shops
(77) Shoeshine stands
(78) Signs, on -site advertising
(79) Sporting goods stores
(80) Stained glass assembly
(81) Stationery stores
(82) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi
(83) Taxidermist
(84) Tailor shops
(85) Telephone exchanges
(86) Theaters, not including drive-ins
(87) Tobacco shops
(88) Tourist information centers
(89) Toy shops
(90) Travel agencies
(91) Typewriter sales and rental and incidental repairs
(92) Watch repair shops
(93) Wedding chapels
(94) Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises,
but not to include storage
(95) (Delete)
(96) (Delete)
(97) Gasoline service stations
(98) Golf cart sales and service
(99) Hotels, resort hotels and motels
(b) Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The follow-
ing uses are permitted provided a conditional use
permit has been granted pursuant to the provisions of
Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
(1) Automobile repair garages, body shops, spray painting
shops
(2) Automobile sales and rental agencies
(3) Boat sales, rentals and services
(4) Car washes
(5) Drive-in theaters
(6) Equipment rental services, including rototillers,
power mowers, sanders, power saws, cement and plaster
mixers not exceeding 20 cubic feet in capacity and
other similar equipment.
(7) Heliports
(8) Liquid petroleum service stations, provided the
total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed
10,000 gallons
(9) Mortuaries
9-4-81 53
Ah
(10) Sale, latal, repair, or demonstration Wmotorcycles, scooters,
or motorbikes of two horsepower or greater
(11)Animal hospitals
( (12)Sports and recreational facilities, not including motor -driven
vehicles and riding academies, but including archery ranges,
athletic fields, beaches, golf driving ranges, gymnasiums,
miniature golf, parks, playgrounds, sports arenas, skating
rinks, stadiums, and commercial swimming pools
(13) Tire recapping
(14)Tire sales and services, not including recapping
(15) Trailer and boat storage
(16)Travel trailers, mobilehomes and recreational vehicles sales
and service
(17)Truck sales and services
(18) Trucks and trailers; the rental of trucks not over 19,500 pounds
gross weight, with body not to exceed 22 feet in length from
the back of the cab to the end of the body; and the rental of
trailers not exceeding 6 feet in width or 22 feet in length
(19) Underground bulk fuel storage
(20) Mini warehouse structures
(21)All uses permitted in subsection (a) that have more than 200
square feet of outside storage of display of materials
(c) Accessory Uses Permitted. An accessory use to a permitted use is
allowed, provided the accessory use is established on the same lot
( or parcel of land, and is incidental to, and consistent with the
character of the permitted principal use, including but not limited to:
(I)Limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, packaging, treat-
ing and incidental storage related thereto, provided any such
activity shall be in the same line of merchandise or service as
the trade or service business conducted on the premises and pro-
viding any such related activity does not exceed any of the fol-
lowing restrictions:
a. The maximum gross floor area of the building permitted to be
devoted to such accessory use shall be 25 percent.
b. The maximum total horsepower of all electric motors used in
connection with such accessory use shall be 5 horsepower.
c. The accessory use shall be so conducted that noise, vibra-
tion, dust, odor, and all other objectionable factors shall
be reduced to the extent that there will be no annoyance to
persons outside the premises. Such accessory use shall be
located not nearer than 50 feet to any residential zone.
d. Accessory uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely
enclosed building.
SECTION 9.51. PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Planned Com-
mercial Developments are permitted provided a land division is approved pur-
suant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 460.
54
10-23-80
® 0
SECTION 9.52. COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN REQUIRED.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, no commer-
cial building or use shall be constructed on a parcel that is 15
acres in size or greater, and no permits or approvals shall be
issued by any department of the County for such construction,
unless the applicant has applied for, and received final approval
of, a Commercial Specific Plan pursuant to the provisions of Govern-
ment Code Section 65450, et seq. and Section 2.3 et seq. of this
ordinance. A proposed commercial use shall not be broken into
smaller units to avoid the requirement to file an application for a
Commercial Specific Plan, and an application for a plot plan may
be denied on the basis that it is part of a larger commercial pro-
posal that requires the applicant to file an application for a
specific plan.
(b) A Commercial Specific Plan shall comply with all the standards re-
quired for approval of a commercial plot plan. In addition thereto,
no Commercial Specific Plan shall be approved unless it is found
that there will be no adverse effect upon the public health, safety
and welfare of the general community, including such factors as
the availability of employees and affordable housing for such em-
ployees and a demonstrated need for a commercial center. The
following additional standards of development shall apply to those
projects subject to the Commercial Specific Plan requirement:
(1)A minimum 159E of the site shall be landscaped and automatic
irrigation shall be installed.
(2)A minimum 50-foot building setback shall be required on any
boundary where the commercial property abuts a residential
zoned property. Twenty (20) feet of the setback shall be land-
scaped unless a tree screen is included, wherein the land-
scaping may be reduced to 10 feet. The balance of the setback
may be used for automobile parking, driveways or landscaping.
Block walls, or other appropriate fencing, may also be required.
(3)All outside storage, and all trash, loading and service areas,
shall be screened by structures or landscaping -and located to
minimize noise or odor nuisance.
(c) Whenever a comprehensive Commercial Specific Plan or phase
thereof has been approved and is in effect, the requirement for a
subsequent plot plan or conditional use permit for certain uses
may be modified or waived. This determination shall be made as -
part of the approval of a specific plan, provided that a detailed
site plan and all required development standards are included as
a part of the final approval of a specific plan.
(d) The requirement for a Commercial Specific Plan may be waived by
the Planning Commission upon a finding by the Commission that
the proposed commercial use consists of infilling of an existing
55
10-23-80
commerce area. An application to waJ4 Commercial Specific
Plan shall be made in writing to the Planning Director, prior to
filing an application for a specific plan, stating fully the reasons
therefor and accompanied by a fee as set forth in Section 18.37
of this ordinance. The application shall be placed on the regular
agenda of the Planning Commission as a discussion matter for the
determination of the Commission. If the Commission approves the
waiver, the applicant shall be permitted to file an application for
any required plot plan, conditional use permit or land division.
SECTION 9.53. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following shall be
the standards of development in the C-P-S Zones:
(a) There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically
required by zone classification for a particular area.
(b) There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed
35 feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any
portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be
set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two
(2) feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The
front: setback shall be measured from the existing street line un-
less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be
measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback
shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any
recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street,
the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the
side lot line or from an existing adjacent street line unless a
specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured
from the specific plan street line.
(c) All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet in
height, unless a height up to 75 feet is specifically permitted
under the provisions of Section 18.34 of this ordinance.
(d) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by
Section 18.12 of this ordinance.
(e) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the
ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet.
ADDED EFFECTIVE: July 19,
1967 (Ord. 348.517)
AMENDED EFFECTIVE: 5-30-74
(Ord.
348.1327)
4-21-77(Ord.348.1564)
6-20-74
(Ord.
348.1340)
4-12-79(Ord.348.i688)
7-25-74
(Ord.
348.1349)
7-26-79(Ord.348.1702)
11-13-75
(Ord.
348.1476)
10-23-80(Ord.348.1879)
12-10-75
(Ord.
348.1481)
3-5-81(Ord.348.1926)
9-4-81 (Ord. 348.2000)
9-4-81
56
x
t1i
C
C
W
H
0
D
r
r
m
m
0
m
Q
DJi)m
c' m°
�mv D
0rmo
Dmo,
N0I
n)
�o�
AND
0
0
AVENIOA BERMUO,AS
0
r
m
n
D
0
N
mnocomr
-�o-zmr0
�zoammu)
m
M
I
A
a
°
r
D
�W
ro
c
�<c
�lA
A
o
�
D
fD
o
:0
—D
m
z
°
m
-�
N
D
ITEM NO. 3, k,
DATE -4d-�AL-
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: DE GASPERIN MORAN vpj LING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN /I�RAN J WALLING THOR IBURGH
DISCUSSION:�9/�
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*XISSIONERS:
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEM ORANDU
CITY OF LA OUINTA
3B
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
LOCATION: East Side of Avenida Bermudas, Bounded by Calle Cadiz
and Calle Barcelona.
APPLICANT: Robert Cunard
REQUEST: Approval to Convert Existing Residential Structures
to a Dinner House Restaurant on a 2.79-Acre Site.
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 1.
2. Zoning: REFER TO ATTACHMENT NO. 2.
3. Existing Conditions: The existing buildings and improvements on
the 2.79-acre site are shown on Exhibit "A" for this plot plan.
Buildings A and H are currently private residences, and the
remaining four buildings are accessory uses for the main
residence. The entire site is fenced or walled, with heavy
hedges along the entire east and portions of the south property
lines. The undeveloped portions of the property are landscaped.
Regarding surrounding developments, there are five other existing
houses along Calle Cadiz and one on Calle Barcelona. The lots in
this area generally are 100' wide and 1201+ deep. No other appli-
cations have been submitted for commercial uses in this area,
although an office building is being considered at the northeast
corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Cadiz.
Concerning streets, Avenida Bermudas is an existing, two-lane
road with a 60-foot-wide right-of-way. Ultimate development will
provide for an 88-foot right-of-way, four lanes of travel and
parking along each side. The existing roadway has approximately
45-foot-wide paving with no curb or gutter. Calle Cadiz and
Calle Barcelona both have 50-foot-wide rights -of -way with 16 to
20-foot-wide paving and no curbs or gutters. As shown on the
exhibits, each of these streets has a slight curve. Calle Cadiz
has a number- of existing encroachments including concrete
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 2.
driveways and a concrete block planter. There are also a number
of large trees which are located within the area of the future
roadway.
All utilities are existing or can be expanded to serve the
project. Coachella Valley Water District has stated that it can
provide domestic water and sanitation service to this area. A
dry sewer line is currently being installed along Desert Club
Drive, and the water system along Avenida Bermudas has recently
been substantially upgraded.
4. Environmental Considerations: The proposal is consistent with
the recent redesignation of this area on the General Plan Land Use
Plan from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial; the
general impacts of this change were addressed in the Master
Environmental Assessment which was adopted in conjunction with
the General Plan. An environmental assessment prepared on this
plot plan request indicated that the project will result in an
increase in traffic on the adjacent public streets, a potential
increase in ;noise from both the use and the traffic, and incre-
mental increases in the demand for public services and utilities.
All of these impacts can be mitigated by the conditions of
approval requiring improvements to the public roadways and the
preparation of a noise analysis with the implementation of
methods to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residential uses.
The Infrastructure Fee, which is collected on new construction,
will not be paid on the proposed 350-square-foot addition to
Building A for a service area.
5. Project Description: The Applicant, Robert Cunard, is requesting
approval to convert an existing residential use to a dinner house
restaurant. The only new construction proposed on the site is a
350-net-square-foot addition on Building "A" for a kitchen service
area, the reconstruction of the main entrance on Calle Cadiz to
increase the stacking area for cars, installation of an on -site
driveway between the entrance and the parking area, and construc-
tion of a 13,800-square-foot parking lot (40 spaces), which will
be surfaced with "grasscrete". The Applicant also is requesting
approval to convert the second existing house on the site to
offices (Building "H") for the Applicant's use in conjunction with
this restaurant and his other restaurant on Calle Tampico. The
Applicant will eliminate the existing swimming pool and a small
shed located. south of Building "E".
The restaurant will be located entirely within Building "A", the
existing main house. The serving area is approximately 1,350
square feet with seating for 70 people. A 250-square-foot bar
in Building "B", with seating for 9 people, will be used primarily
as a service bar for the restaurant as well as be open to the
customers.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 3.
6. Comments From Other Agencies
a. City Engineer: The following conditions of approval are
deemed necessary:
(1) The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street
and utility easements as required by the City Engineer,
including a 44-foot half -street for Avenida Bermudas, and
30-foot half -street widths for Calle Cadiz and Calle
Barcelona.
(2) The Applicant shall construct street improvements for
one• -half street widths for Avenida Bermudas, Calle Cadiz,
and Calle Barcelona, including relocating median islands,
to the requirements of the City Engineer and the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
(3) The Applicant shall have prepared street improvement
plans that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.
Street improvements, including traffic signs and
markings, shall conform to City Standards as determined
by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC. (311AC over
4" Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). Street
design shall take into account the subgrade soil
strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street
design life.
(4) The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be
required to supervise the grading and drainage improve-
ment construction; and certify that the constructed
conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the
approved plans and grading permit. This is required
prior to issuance of building permits. Certification at
the final grade stage and verification of pad elevations
is also required prior to final approval of grading
construction.
(5) A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils
engineering investigation shall be done and the report
submitted for review along with the grading plan. The
report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The
soils engineer and/or engineering geologist must certify
to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to
Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the
soils report certification shall be indicated on the
final subdivision map.
STAFF REPORT -PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 4.
(6) Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as
required by the City Engineer.
(7) All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted
to City standards prior to construction of any streets.
The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction
test reports for review by the City Engineer.
(8) The Applicant shall pay the required processing, plan
checking, and inspection fees as are current at the time
the work is being accomplished by City personnel or sub-
contractors for the Planning, Building, or Engineering
Divisions.
(9) The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering
a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and by
recording a subdivision map agrees to be included in the
District. Any assessments will be done on a benefit
basis as required by law.
(10) The Applicant shll process a parcel map or reversion to
acreage for establishing new lot lines that are
compatible with the proposed development.
b. City Fire Marshal: The Fire Department recommends the
following fire protection measures be provided in accordance
with the City of La Quinta Ordinances and/or recognized fire
protection standards:
(1) The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire
flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial
buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance.
(2) Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a 2-hour duration at
20 PSI residual operating pressure.
(3) A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI
residual operating pressure must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
(4) The required fire flow shall be available from a Super
fire hydrant, (6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-1/21'), located not less
than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of
the building as measured along approved vehicular travel -
ways.
(5) A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire
hydrants, (6"x4"x2-1/211x2-1/2"), will be required located
not. less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
July 22, 1986
Page 5.
(6) Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative
Code.
(7) Install Panic Hardware and Exit Signs as per Chapter 33,
Sections 3303, 3304, 3305, 3313, 3314, 3312, 3315, 3318,
and 3302 of the Uniform Building Code.
(8) Install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA,
Pamphlet #10.
(9) The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 6, Section 603,
of the Uniform Building Code regarding the location of
the building on the property with respect to access.
(10) The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 42, Sections
4202, 4203, and 4204 of the Uniform Building Code
regarding fire -resistive standards for fire protection
of building materials.
(11) The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 10,
Section 10.315 of the Uniform Fire Code regarding fire
extinguishing equipment for the kitchen.
(12) Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to provide or
show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire
Department.
(13) Final conditions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed in Building and Safety.
c. Community Development Department, Building Division:
(1) The new use would have to conform to all requirements of
an A-3 occupancy, including exiting, corridor widths,
etc.
(2) Handicap requirements would also apply for restrooms,
parking and dining accessibility.
d. Coachella Valley Water District:
(1) The area is protected from stormwter flows by a system
of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from
stormwater flows except in rare instances. The area is
designated Zone B on current Federal Flood Insurance
Rate Maps.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 6.
(2) The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation
service to this area in accordance with the current
regulations of the District, including the payment by
the developer of certain fees and charges.
(3) The area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55
of 'the CVWD for sanitation service.
e. Riverside County Sheriff's Department: No comment at this
time. '
f. La Quinta Chamber of Commerce: No comment at this time.
g. Southern California Gas Company: No comment.
h. Comments were requested, but not received from Imperial
Irrigation District and General Telephone.
7. Comments from the Public: No written comments were received
on the request.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The proposed conversion of an existing residential use to a
restaurant will be consistent with the La Quinta General Plan's goals
and policies provided that the use is established in accordance with
the recommended conditions of approval. The restaurant is consistent
with a goal of the Village Commercial land use designation to
encourage such uses in the downtown area. The recommended conditions
of approval, which are discussed in the following sections of this
report, will assure that the proposed business will be compatible
with.both the pedestrian -oriented atmosphere of the Village Area as
well as with the residential uses within the adjacent area.
Regarding consistency with the Circulation Plan, the Applicant's
proposal does not indicate the dedication and improvement of the
three adjacent public streets. Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona, both
of which have existing 50-foot-wide rights -of -way, are narrower than
the 60-foot-wide minimum width required for local public streets.
Avenida Bermudas., which currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, is
designated as a Secondary Arterial with an 88-foot width. The
recommended conditions of approval will require the dedication and
improvement of the public streets in accordance with the General
Plan standards and the provisions of the Village at La Quinta plan
at such time that it is adopted.
E
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 7.
Concerning other goals and policies
analysis will be required since this
1000 feet of residential uses. This
the following section regarding land
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
of the General Plan, a noise
commercial use is proposed within
condition is discussed further in
use compatibility.
As discussed in the Staff Report for the related case Change of Zone
No. 86-023, the recent redesignation of this area on the Land Use
Plan instituted the transition of this residential neighborhood to a
commercial area. this is the first request to establish a commercial
use in this former residential area. Since there are existing houses
adjacent to all sides of the restaurant site, additional measures
generally not required of businesses locating within an established
commercial area are warranted to ensure land use compatibility during
this transition period. The main compatibility issues are noise and
traffic.
Regarding noise, the establishment of any commercial use at this
location will generate increased noise over the current residential
levels. The proposed dinner house will generate noise in the
evening hours, which is generally quieter than the daytime. Because
of the nearby residences, several measures are recommended to minimize
the noise, at least until such time that the adjacent area is
converted to commercial uses. These measures are as follows:
* Relocate the main entry with its driveway leading to the
parking area from Calle Cadiz to the south portion of the
site off Calle Barcelona. The reasons for this are the
following: The main entry area will generate most of the
restaurant's exterior noise, especially since the Applicant
proposes valet parking only. Noise will be from vehicles
stopping and starting, car doors opening and closing, and
people talking; there are three houses directly across the
street from the proposed entry area and the driveway leading
to the parking area. The recommended driveway on Calle
Barcelona can be located so that it is not across from the
one existing house on this street; and the dropoff area for
valet parking can be relocated inside the site where addi-
tional noise buffering can be provided.
* Limit the hours of operation to require the business,
including the bar, to close by 11:00 p.m. Since the
Applicant is proposing a dinner house with the bar as only
an accessory use, this restriction appears reasonable.
* Require the noise analysis to specifically address the use
of the exterior courtyard for dining and other activities
and regulate the use of this outside area accordingly.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 8.
The recommended relocation of the driveway entrance to Calle Barcelona
will also reduce the traffic impacts on the existing residential uses.
This will be discussed further in the sections regardin on and
off -site circulation and street improvements.
PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Existing Conditions
As discussed in the sections regarding the existing conditions and
general plan consistency, all three public streets abutting the site
have minimal paving improvements and also right-of-way widths less
than required in the adopted General Plan Circulation Plan. Calle
Cadiz is substantially narrower than the minimum width needed for
safe two-way traffic. Expansion of the roadway is severely
restricted by numerous large trees and existing unauthorized improve-
ments installed by the adjacent homeowners within the right-of-way
(e.g., raised planters, concrete driveways). The narrower, 50-foot-
wide right-of-way and the large trees along the edge of the roadway
do not leave adequate space to install pedestrian walkways. While
Calle Barcelona has similar pavement and right-of-way widths, there
are no significant encroachments into the right-of-way which would
hinder the widening of the roadway. The inadequacy of the current,
50-foot, right-of-way to provide for pedestrian walkways also applies
to this street. Avenida Bermudas will require the greatest increase
in right-of-way width of the three streets, with an additional 14 feet
needed to bring it into accordance with the standards for a secondary
arterial. This street also has large trees along the inside edge of
the existing right-of-way which would conflict with the improvement
of this street to General Plan standards. There are existing walls
and fences along the entire perimeter property lines of the restaurant
site; expansion of the road rights -of -way and construction of
sidewalks will require the ultimate removal or relocation of these
fences.
The triangular medians at the intersections of Avenida Bermudas with
Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona are not consistent with current design
safety standards in that they allow two-way traffic on each side, with
the paths of travel crossing at the east end of the median. In
addition, the curb and trees along the west side of the island will be
within the ultimate 44-foot half -width for Avenida Bermudas. The rows
of palm trees along the west edge of the median can also impair visi-
bility for motorists turning out onto Avenida Bermudas from Calle
Cadiz and Calle Barcelona.
Design Requirements for Future Street Improvements
While the existing streets have an attractive rural appearance, they
do not adequately provide for the future needs of commercial uses
it �.,b lily
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 9.
which will be developed in this area. The basic design needs for
future street improvements are as follows:
* Provide sufficient roadway widths to safely handle the
anticipated ultimate traffic loads.
* Improve traffic safety and avoid potential traffic conflicts
by modifying the existing median design.
* Provide convenient and adequate public parking areas.
* Provide pedestrian walkways consistent with the pedestrian -
oriented theme of the Village area.
* Provide adequate parkway areas for landscaping and street trees.
While the appearance of the street
mentioned design requirements must
objective is to effectively blend
requirements with the desirable vi
street improvements.
Street Improvement Requirements
s is very important, the above
also be accommodated. The
the traffic safety and circulation
sual characteristics of the current
To bring this project into compliance with the adopted public street
standards of the General Plan and to provide for the above mentioned
design considerations, the recommended conditions of approval require
the Applicant to dedicate additional rights -of -way, and engineer and
install half -width street improvements on the three adjacent public
streets. This requirement is consistent with that placed on all
other new commercial uses approved by the City in the Village area.
These street improvement plans must also address the design of the
Avenida Bermudas intersections, including the median island, as well
as existing street trees and provisions for a public sidewalk. The
development of these street plans will take time. In lieu of
requiring the Applicant to develop the plan and install the improve-
ments prior to the restaurant opening, (as is the normal requirement)
the City may require only to complete the plan prior to opening the
business and post sufficient cash guarantees and/or bonds to ensure
the timely construction of the improvements.
ON -SITE CIRCULATION AND PARKING
Regarding on -site circulation, the recommended relocation of the
entry to Calle Barcelona will eliminate several safety concerns about
the Applicant's proposal. Firs, although the Applicant proposes to
extend the driveway towards the west approximately 15 to 20 feet,
there may not be adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting for
valet parking (which is the only type proposed), especially when an
additional 5 feet of right-of-way is dedicated. The view of any cars
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 10.
waiting in the street for entry to the vehicle dropoff area by
motorists entering Calle Cadis from northbound Avenida Bermudas is
obstructed by the existing wall and trees along the curve of the
street. The relocation of the entrance to Calle Barcelona will
allow the driveway to be shifted approximately 50 to 75 feet easterly
away from Avenida Bermudas intersection, and also provide for an
increased area for vehicle dropoff, thereby avoiding vehicles
stopping in the public roadway and creating a traffic hazard.
The second safety boncern resolved by the relocation of the entrance
regards the proposed driveway between the entry and parking lot.
After dedication of additional right-of-way on Calle Cadiz, a 24'10"
wide area will remain between the existing Building "D" and the
perimeter fence, which would be located on the property line.
Although not so :readily apparent on the plot plan, as it is on the
site, Building "D" obstructs visibility at the 90-degree turn in the
driveway. This, in addition to the minimum driveway width, could
create a traffic safety hazard.
Concerning pedestrian access to the restaurant, the building's entry
is located on the east side of Building "A" in the courtyard area.
The recommended change in the driveway entrance from the north to the
south side of this building should not adversely affect access to the
restaurant's entrance.
The proposed parking area will accommodate 40 cars, which exceeds the
City's parking requirement for 36 spaces. The proposed administrative
offices in Building "H" are an accessory use to the restaurant and
therefore do not require a separate parking area. The Applicant
proposes to use "grasscrete" in the parking area to improve the
appearance and to minimize noise.
The service driveway leading to the kitchen is separated from the
east portion of the property by a cyclone fence and a high oleander
hedge. No employee parking is indicated in this area. Staff proposes
no changes other than the installation of fencing and gates for
screening this area from the view of adjacent public streets.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Streetscape/Landscaping
A consideration the City may wish to require is the planting of
additional trees along the project's perimeter in what will ultimately
be the public street's parkway areas. The reason for this is that if
the existing eucalyptus trees must be removed to allow widening of the
road, other trees will already be needed to replace them. Secondly,
although the eucalyptus trees are attractive and should be retained,
if possible, additional types of trees are needed which will provide
canopies for shading pedestrian walkway areas.
STAFF REPORT - P:LANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 11.
Screening of the Service and Parking Areas
The restaurant's service area can be adequately screened from view by
the installation of fencing, walls and/or landscape screens. The
trash enclosure and outside cleanup areas should be located along the
west side of the service drive where the view of these uses from
Calle Barcelona will be blocked by Building "H" and the existing
oleander hedge.
The area proposed for parking is currently screened by a combination
cyclone fence and oleander hedge. While the Municipal Land Use
Ordinance requires that parking areas adjacent to residentially
zoned property be enclosed within six -foot -high block walls, Staff
anticipates that the adjacent properties will be rezoned to
commercial within a relatively short time. Therefore, Staff
recommends other types of view obscuring fencing and landscaping
barriers to screen the view of the parking lot as well as block
headlights and minimize off -site noise.
It should be noted that all the existing walls and fences are
located on the existing property lines. The requirement for
widening the roadways will require these fences along the street
frontages to be :relocated at the time improvements are installed.
Building Design and Use
Staff proposes no changes to the exterior building design. Although
the buildings have wood shake roofs which area prohibited on new
construction in 'the City for fire safety, the City codes do not
require reroofing of existing buildings unless substantial additions
are constructed.
The recommended conditions of approval restrict the use of other
structures existing on the site to storage only. Expansion of the
restaurant or bar use will require a revision to this plot plan
approval.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal to convert an existing residential use to a
restaurant use is consistent with the site's designation as
Village Commercial on the General Plan Land Use Plan.
2. The restaurant is an allowed use in the C-P-S Zone, which is
being requested for the site in the related Change of Zone Case
No. 86-023.
El
STAFF REPORT - ]PLANNING
July 22, 1986
Page 12.
3. The three public streets adjacent to
widths and :Levels of improvement less
City's adopted Circulation Plan.
the site currently have
than that required by the
4. All utilities are available or can be extended to the site.
There are no physical site constraints which would prevent the
establishment of a restaurant.
5. Land use compatibility with the adjacent residential uses can be
assured by modifying the site design to relocate the entry drive
to reduce noise and traffic impacts, by limiting the hours of
operation until such time that the surrounding area becomes
predominantly commercial, and by possibly restricting use of the
outside courtyard area.
6. Improvements to Calle Cadiz, Calle Barcelona and Avenida Bermudas
will be needed to improve traffic safety, provide adequate roadway
capacity, provide for public parking and to construct pedestrian
walkways. The approval as conditioned will fulfill these design
requirements in addition to bringing this proposed use into
compliance with the City's adopted Circulation Plan.
7. The relocation and redesign of the restaurant driveway from Calle
Barcelona to the parking area will improve traffic safety over the
proposed design by increasing the vehicle stacking distance
between the street and the valet parking area, and by eliminating
the on -site driveway's right angle turn.
8. The development and use of the site as recommended for approval
is in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use
Ordinance.
9. The impacts of the project on the environment are generally
limited to incremental increases in noise and traffic. These
impacts can be reduced to the extent reasonable by the conditions
of approval.
FINDINGS
1. The proposal as approved is consistent with the goals and policies
of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The plot plan as approved complies with the standards and require-
ments of the C-P-S Zone, as requested in Change of Zone
No. 86-023.
3. The use as approved is compatible with the surrounding development
and zoning.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 13.
4. Plot Plan No. 86-343 as approved will not create a threat to
public health or safety.
5. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse
impact on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above Findings, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 86-343, in accordance with
Exhibits A, B, and C, and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
Sandra L. Bonner � Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Principal Planner Community Development Director
SLB:LLS:dmv
Atch: 1. Attachment #la, General Plan Land Use Plan
2. Attachment #lb, Circulation Plan
3. Attachment #2, Zoning
4. Conditons of Approval
CALLE
TAMPICO"-'"
Jam' • .'.•••.' .�. • .
• ••••.
RESIDENTIAL
VERY LOW DENSITY
0-2 dwellings/acre �•;•;•; •;•;•;•
'�'yyy";yy
LOW DENSITY r
y
2-4 dwellings/acre I•'•••••••••••
MEDIUM DENSITY
4-8 dwellings/acre
HIGH DENSITY
8-16 dwellings/acre'.
COMMERCIAL
••
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
®
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
0
MIXED COMMERCIAL
GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
®
COMMERCIAL PARK
;•
m
TTACHMENT NO.
GENERAL PLAN
Land Use Plan
14,
■■w, r-
■mm. �
♦ z
0
c�
a Z
® m■mR =
p
Q
® AVENUE: 50
® ■s
1
t
® m�
CALLE TAMPICO1
Mesa
• N III NIXON,
® o soom ®
1 ; SITE
A •
1 1
gW ico
.> la
Fr BD
.cc
IW �W DESERT CLUB DRIVE
10
Q AVENUE 60 WILL BE
•= 1p
1z ■Z
•W IW
IW la
. 1
. 1
1 i ,
CIRCULATION PLAN
RI®I MAJOR ARTERIAL
120-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
PRIMARY ARTERIAL
100-110 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
ElSECONDARY ARTERIAL
ee FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
ElCOLLECTOR
eA-TT FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
AVENUE 52
IF
RIGHT—OF—WAY WILL BE 04'
100,
P
i
j ATTACHMENT NO. 1 b
• Circulation Plan
1 j
1
�q
N
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED JULY 22, 1986
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
ROBERT CUNARD, APPLICANT
GENERAL
1. The development of the project site shall comply in concept with
Exhibits A, B, and C as contained in the Community Development
Department's file for Plot Plan No. 86-343 and the following
conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event
of any conflict with these exhibits.
2. Plot Plan Ne. 86-343 shall comply with the provisions of the
La Quinta General Plan and the Village at La Quinta Plan, as in
effect at th,e'time of development.
3. Plot Plan No. 86-343 shall comply with the standards and require-
ments of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance unless otherwise
modified by the following conditions.
4. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final
approval; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the use as authorized by this
approval.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any
use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public
agencies:
* City Engineer
* City Eire Marshal
* City Community Development Department, Planning Division
* Riverside County Environmental Health Department
* Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permitss or clearances from the above mentioned
agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time
of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated
herewith.
6. This plot plan approval shall not take effect and no building
permits shall be issued hereunder until and unless Change of Zone
No. 86-023 is approved and becomes effective.
Land Use and Building Design
7. This plot plan approval is limited to authorizing the following
uses in accordance with Exhibits "A" and "B":
a. The conversion of Building "A" to a dinner house restaurant
with a maximum seating capacity of 70 people.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 2.
b. The construction of a 390-square-foot addition to Building
"A" for use as a kitchen service area.
c. The conversion of Building "H" to administrative offices,
intended. as only an accessory use to the main restaurant
use on the site.
d. The use of an existing 250-square-foot bar or tavern within
Building "B", with a maximum allowed seating capacity of 10
people, as an accessory use to the restaurant.
e. The remaining structures on the site (Buildings C, D, E, F,
and that. portion of B not a part of the approved tavern),
shall be limited to use as storage areas and shall not be
used for public dining, drinking or meeting areas without
prior City approval.
8. The following restrictions shall be placed on the operation of the
approved use:
a. The hours of operation of the restaurant and bar uses shall
not extend later than 11:00 p.m.
b. Use of outdoor areas in conjunction with the restaurant use
shall be: consistent with the recommendations of the acoustical
analysis as approved by the Community Development Department.
C. Plot Plan No. 86-343 does not permit the operation of the
administrative offices and/or the tavern as separate and
independent businesses from the main restaurant use. The
conversion of these uses from accessoyr uses shall require
additional plot plan approval.
9. The development of the approved uses and any related additions or
modifications to the existing structures shall conform substan-
tially with Exhibits A, B, and C. Any additional expansion of the
use or facilities shall require the Applicant to apply for and
receive approval of an amendment to Plot Plan No. 86-343.
10. All roof -mounted equipment shall be adequately screened by the
roof structure.
Streets, Circulation, Parking and Grading
11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
(a) The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and
utility easements as required by the City Engineer, including
J
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 3.
a 44-foot half street for Avenida Bermudas, and 30-foot
half street widths for Calle Cadiz and Calle Barcelona.
(b) The Applicant shall construct street improvements for
one-half street width for Avenida Bermudas, Calle Cadiz,
and Calle Barcelona, including relocating median islands,
the the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta
Municipal Code.
(c) The Applicant shall have prepared street improvement plans
that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street
improvements, including traffic signs and markings, and
raised median islands shall conform to City standards as
determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC.
(311AC over 4" Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets).
Street design shall take into account the subgrade soil
strength, the anticipated traffic loading, street design
life, and existing trees within and adjacent to the rights -
of -way,.
(d) The Applicant shall have prepared a grading plan that is
prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be
required to supervise the grading and drainage improve-
ment construction; and certify that the constructed
conditions at the rough grade stage are as per the approved
plans and grading permit. This is required prior to
issuance of building permits. Certification at the final
grade stage and verification of pad elevations is also
required prior to final approval of grading construction.
(e) A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils
engineering investigation shall be done and the report
submitted for review along with the grading plan. The
report's recommendations shall be incorporated into the
grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The
soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must
certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. Pursuant to
Section 11568 of the Business and Professionss Code, the
soils report certification shall be indicated on the final
subdivision map.
(f) Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required
by the City Engineer. Applicant shall comply with applicable
provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage including any
required fees.
(g) All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to
City standards prior to construction of any streets. The
soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction test
reports for review by the City Engineer.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 4.
(h) The Applicant shall pay the required processing, plan
checking, and inspection fees as are current at the time
the work is being accomplished by City personnel or
subcontractors for the Planning, Building, or Engineering
Divisions.
(i) The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a
City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and by recording
a subdivision map agrees to be included in the District.
Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required
by law.
(j) The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit prior to
commencing construction or work within the public rights -
of way.
12. Existing walls or other structures and permanent improvements
located within the dedicated street rights -of -way, as required
by this approval, shall be removed at the Applicant's expense at
the time of construction of the required public street improve-
ments.
13. The main driveway entrance shall be relocated and improved to
the following standards:
a. The entrance shall be relocated from Calle Cadiz to Calle
Barcelona, east of the existing service driveway on the
site and at a location to be approved by the City Engineer.
b. The entry driveway shall be a minimum width of 24 feet.
c. The waiting area for valet parking service shall be located
so as to provide adequate stacking space on -site for arriving
vehicles, as approved by the City Engineer.
d. The entrance on Calle Barcelona shall be the main and only
customer access to the parking area and the restaurant,
excepting that pedestrian access shall be retained from
Calle Cadiz to the entry.
14. The easternmost driveway on Calle Cadiz shall be maintained as
an emergency access only.
15. Parking shall be provided and improved in accordance with the
requirement: and standards of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance,
excepting that the on -site parking area may be surfaced with
"grasscrete" in lieu of asphaltic concrete.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 5.
16. The parking lot and service area shall be screened from view from
adjacent streets and properties by view obscuring fencing or a
combination of fencing and landscaping.
Public Services and Utilities
17. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the City of
La Quinta Codes and Ordinances in effect at the time of issuance
of the building permit as follows:
a. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a 2-hour duration at
20 PSI residual operating pressure.
b. A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI
residual. operating pressure must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
C. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super
fire hydrant, (6"x4"x2-l/2"x2-l/2"), located not less than
25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
d. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants,
(611x4"x2-l/2"x2-l/21'), will be required located not less than
25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building
as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required
fire flow shall be available from any two (2) adjacent
hydrants.
e. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code.
f. Install Panic Hardware and Exit Signs as per Chapter 33,
Section: 3303, 3304, 3305, 3313, 3314, 3312, 3315, 3318, and
3302 of the Uniform Building Code.
g. Install portable fire extinguishers as per NFPA, Pamphlet #10.
h. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 6, Section 603 of the
Uniform Building Code regarding the location of the building
on the property with respect to access.
i. The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 42, Sections 4202,
4203, and 4204 of the Uniform Building Code regarding fire -
resistive standards for fire protection of building materials.
The Applicant shall comply with Chapter 10, Section 10.315 of
the Uniform Fire Code regarding fire extinguishing equipment
for the kitchen.
0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 6.
j. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to provide or show
there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department.
k. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are
reviewed in Building and Safety.
18. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella
Valley Water District as follows:
a. Water service shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and Coachella Valley Water District.
b. When there are identified conflicts, the City will withhold
the issuance of any building permit until arrangements have
been made with the District for the relocation of these
facilities.
c. The project site shall be annexed into Improvement District
No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation
service„
19. Location and design of the septic system shall be subject to the
standards and requirements of the Riverside County Health
Department. The system shall be designed to allow ultimate
hookup to permanent sewer lines.
20. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance
with City standards.
21. Trash enclosure shall be gated and enclosed by a six -foot -high
wall of the same construction and color as the commercial
buildings. Location and construction of the enclosure shall
conform to requirements of Palm Desert Disposal Company and the
Community Development Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
22. Prior to the: issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
submit to the Communtiy Development Department, Planning Division,
for review and approval, a plan (or plans) showing the following:
a. Landscaping, including revisions to plant types, sizes,
spacing„ and locations as required by these conditions, or
proposed by the Applicant.
b. Landscape irrigation system.
c. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required
walls.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 7.
d. Location and design of sidewalks on -site and adjacent
streets.
e. Exterior lighting plan.
f. Design of walled enclosure for trash bin.
The approved landscaping and improvements shall be installed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The landscaping
shall be maintained in a healthy and viable condition for the life
of the project. Landscaping within 10' of all driveway approaches
shall not exceed 30" in height. Landscaping shall not interfere
with vehicle: overhang areas.
23. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting
materials shall be incorporated for inclusion into the landscaping
plans for the site.
24. All lighting facilities shall be designed to minimize light and
glare impacts to surrounding property and shall be subject to
review and approval by the Community Development Department.
25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for signs, the
Applicant shall submit a sign plan showing the location, type,
size, colors, and type of illumination (if any) of all proposed
identification and directional signs. Identification signs shall
be installed in accordance with the approved plan.
26. A noise study shall be conducted by a licensed acoustical engineer
to determine: the increased noise levels of the project on
adjoining residential properties. The study shall recommend
methods of reducing noise levels both on -site and off -site. The
noise study shall be submitted for review and approval by the
,Community Development Department prior to submittal of project
construction plans to the Building Division for plan check.
27. Project phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements,
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
Development Department.
28. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
comply with the City's adopted requirements regarding
Infrastructure Fees.
29. Prior to the: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the
Applicant shall apply for and receive approval of a parcel map,
parcel merger, reversion to acreage, or lot line adjustment,
whichever is appropriate, to establish new lot lines on the site
which are compatible with the approved development.
RECEIVED
juL i'('p 198S
C U N R R D S of La Quinta COMMUNITY OF LA DEVEIOPMENTDEFT
Originally built in the 1930's, the property is located on three acres
in downtown La Quinta. The group of buildings is set back from
Avenida Bermudas with a 3600 square -foot main house consisting of
a living room, a dining room, a master suite, a guest bedroom, and
a commercial kitchen with den. Adjoining the main house there is an
L-shaped wing housing an office, a den with a full commercial -type
bar, a laundry facility, a wine storage vault, and a two-story guest
apartment totalling 2500 square feet. The grounds that surround
these buildings, the large swimming pool, the spa, and the gazebo are
well landscaped with old Euchalyptus trees, large Palms, Olive trees,
and numerous Fruit trees, lending an atmosphere of an Oasis in the
Desert.
Robert and Edith Cunard purchased the property in 1974 from the
world famous Mary Mead Maddick, whose photographs graced the
covers of TIME, LIFE,, R=00,k'and other national publications. Mrs.
Maddick used the property as backgrounds for some of her
photographs. Still a resident of La Quinta, she is a major contributor
to the La Quinta Arts Foundation.
Since the original 1200 square foot house was constructed in the
1930's, both of the owners have worked to enhance its beauty and
size. The current upgrades include the commercial kitchen, the
enlargement of the living space, and the acquisition of more land, all
creating the lovely, spacious estate it is today. Mr. and Mrs. Cunard
and their youngest daughter, Michele, are currently living on the
property.
Mr. Cunard's reputation as a restauranteur was well established in
the Coachella Valley, when he owned the Adobe Gardens Hotel and
The Irongate Restaurant. Both were sold in 1979. He purchased The
Sandbar Restaurant in 1983, and in a few short months created the
quality establishment it is today. Previously, the Cunards owned
restaurants in San Rafael, Tiburon, San Francisco, and the well
known Duke Kahanamoko's in Honolulu where many entertainers
performed, including Don Ho, Sarah Vaughn, Della Reese, Tom Jones,
Earl Grant, and Dick Jensen.
2
The Cunards plan to transform their beautiful country estate into
one of the finest restaurants in California, The restaurant, although
large, will only have a seating capacity of 70. This will create a
feeling of dining in a private home, with the utmost care given to
each guest. This concept, along with the excellent cuisine, will give
outstanding recognition to La Quinta in many of the world's pretigious
gourmet magazines.
The restaurant's three intimate dining areas will each have their
own personality, tastefully decorated to maintain the charm and
identity of the existing structure. On pleasant evenings, dinner may
be served in the open coutyard.
In keeping with the idea of a private home, there are very few
changes planned for the principle residence. The existing commercial
kitchen, however, will be enlarged to provide a dishwashing section
and all of the existing facilities will be updated to present building and
health standards.
It is estimated that initially the city of La Quinta will receive
approximately $36, 000.00 per year in sales tax dollars. This will
increase as CUNARDS of La Quinta flourishes.
Valet parking, with ample space, will be provided on the premisses.
In order to maintain the residencial feel, the parking area will be
made invisible and soundproof to the surrounding area. The main
access will be just off Avenida Bermudas on Calle Cadiz. Limousine
service will also be available to guests of the local hotels.
It only stands to reason that, considering the tremendous growth of
the entire Coachella Valley and especially La Quinta(PGA West,
Sunrise Corp. , and the plans of MBJ Corp.) that new high quality
dining establishments of this caliber are a necessity.
CUNARDS of La Quinta plans to open six days a week, closing on
Sundays. Dinner will be served from 5PM until 10PM. As
demonstrated in the past, we are not a drinking establishment
per -se. We are in the business of serving excellent food, expensive
wines, and offering exceptional service. CUNARDS of La Quinta will be
a showplace in the heart of the new La Quinta Village, adding
established character and prestige to its continuing developement.
ITEM NO.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE: 2U.C/6�(, ��
MOTION BY:
C-`nRR
DE GASPERIN � NDRAN WALLING THORNBURGH
------
SECOND BY: DE GASPERIN MORAN WALLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION: / lo',�4 G
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO^!MISSIONERS:
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED:
AYE NO ABSTAIN
YES NO
ABSENT PRESENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
Community Development Department
July 22, 1986
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-346
LOCATION: North Side of Saguaro Drive; 208' East of Washington
Street
APPLICANT: Rick Johnson Construction
REQUEST: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended
for Sale.
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-
Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Special Residential Zone
proposed.
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 100' lot located in an
existing subdivided area north of Avenue 50 and east of
Washington Street. The size and configuration of lots in this
area are very similar to that existing in the Cove area.
Development within this neighborhood, having 125 lots, is very
sparse with only 15 houses. This low number of homes is
primarily due to the poor water system in in this neighborhood
in the past. Coachella Valley Water District is in the process
of upgrading the system throughout the City.
Regarding the design and siting of the existing houses, almost all
the buildings have the typical California Ranch and modern Spanish
styles common in the Cove area. With the exception of one house,
all homes have stucco siding. Eleven of the houses have Spanish
tile roofs, with the remaining older homes having wood shake,
gravel, or asphalt shingle roofing. All the homes are one-story.
Concerning siting, three of the 15 houses are built on double lots
with the remainder built on single lots.
Regarding public services and facilities, water service is not
existing to the lot, but can be extended upon payment of a $1500
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 2.
surcharge fee by the Applicant. All other services are available.
Saguaro is a two-lane, paved street without curb or gutter.
4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the
County Recorder. The site is located within the Coachella Valley
Fringe -Toed Lizard area, a designated rare and endangered
species. The Applicant will be required to pay a mitigation fee
of $600 per acre, or portion thereof, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 1473-square-
foot unit, based on net living area calculations employed in
review. It is a standard floor plan of the Applicant, with
3-bedrooms and 2-bathroom areas which do not indicate tub/
shower connections. Pedestrian access to the garage is via the
front entry area. The garage incorporates laundry facilities and
measures 20' x 23' clear. The house is in compliance with all
other single-family development standards and policies. This
request was submitted concurrently with Plot Plan No. 86-346,
which incorporates the same floor plan, elevations and siting,
and is located adjacent on the east side of this request.
The siting of the unit provides the following setbacks:
* Front Yard - 20 feet
* Side Yard - 5 feet
* Rear Yard - 13 feet
Regarding the house design, a twin -gabled roof design is shown
at the front elevation, with a 4 and 12 pitch and a height of
14 feet. Popout style windows are shown at the right side and
rear elevations. Railroad tie accents and planters are
delineated. Colors of the house will be an adobe stucco
with brown trim. The roof material will be a red
colored tile.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Applicant has received 52 previous approvals for single-family
houses in the City, 4 of which are located in the same neighborhood
as this request. Most of these houses have been completed and sold,
with the remainder under varying stages of development. The
Applicant has submitted an updated sales and development status
sheet of his single-family houses (Refer to Attachment #1 for unsold
or uncompleted houses). In accordance with the condition placed on
the Applicant's two previous approvals, less than five completed
houses are unsold at this time. The list does show that contrary to
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 3.
the Applicant's previous statements, not all the houses are presold
prior to plot plan approval; however, no completed houses are unsold.
This plot plan request raises an issue which was discussed during
the hearings on the proposed "Special Residential" Zone about the
need to require greater variation in the exterior elevations of the
standardized production units being constructed in the Cove area. Of
the six houses approved or proposed by the Applicant in the Sagebrush
Drive area, all six have the same design with only minor variations
in colors and in the treatment of the front facade. Since this
neighborhood is so small with sparse development (125 lots along
three streets with only 15 existing houses), the repetition of the
same house design will be very noticeable, and may tend to dominate
the neighborhood. Staff recommends that any future requests
submitted by the Applicant in this area incorporate additional, more
substantial changes in the exterior design, such as variations in the
architectural style and roof design.
Regarding this proposal, the garage must be deepened 1' to provide a
24' clear interior depth, as required by City standards. Changes in
architectural features of the units need to be provided to assure some
variation in the appearance of the design between the Applicant's
other nearby units. The floor plans also need to indicate any tub/
shower combinations.
FINDINGS
1. The request, as approved, is consistent with the requirements of
the current and proposed zoning, and with the goals and policies
of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The building design, as approved, is consistent with the draft
Manual on Architectural Standards for single-family houses and
will be compatible with area development.
3. The project will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 86-346 in accordance with
Exhibits A, B, and C and subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 4.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
Sandra L. Bonner Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Principal Planner Community Development Director
SLB:LLS:dmv
Atchs: 1. Status Report - Previous Approvals
2. Conditions of Aproval
3. Exhibits A, B, and C
RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION
STATISTICS AS OF JULY 15. 1986
RJC#
ADDRESS
PLOT PLAN #
APN #
STATUS/OWNER
LQ109
53675
Carranza
86-267
774-115-018
SOLD/LELAND
+
LQ110
53685
Carranza
86-268
774-115-019
UNSOLD/SPEC
+.
LQ118
54659
Montezuma
86-279
774-264-003
SOLD/KING
+
LQ123
53725
Navarro
86-299
774-134-021
SOLD/RODRIGUEZ +
LQ119
52400
Vallejo
86-280
773-263-008
UNSOLD/SPEC
+
LQ120
54475
Diaz
86-297
774-233-023
SOLD/RANDALL
+
-024
LQ129
78535
Ultimo
86-298
769-061-004
SOLD/BISSELL
+
LQ131
52333
Herrera
86-310
773-263-016
SOLD/HUNDT
+
-023
LQ133
78540
Saguaro
86-309
617-382-047
SOLD/GUTTRE
+
LQ134
78585
Sagebrush
86-308
617-381-008
UNSOLD/SPEC
+
LQ114
48721
San Pedro
86-317
617-301-019
SOLD/WOODS
AO
LQ139
78545
Bottlebrush
86-330
617-382-004
SOLD/NICHOLS
AO
LQ140
78555
Bottlebrush
86-331
617-382-005
SOLD/WHITE
AO
LQ152
Saguaro
86-346
617-382-034
SOLD/EMERY
P
LQ153
Saguaro
86-347
617-383-013
UNSOLD/SPEC
P
* Completed
+ Under Construction
AO Applied Only
P Pending Approval Date
0
THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The developmentof and Chcontainedall in thelfileconformance
plot Plan No.
Exhibits A, B, conditions.
86-346, unless otherwise amended by the following
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the
approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and
of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning
of substantial construction, not including grading, c-year
-ye
plated by this approval which is begunithin thecomtwo
tion
period and is therefore diligently pursued
alled
3. Water an , accordanceswithethe srequirements tOfsshall theRiversidetin
county
Health Department.
4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the
standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of
La Quinta.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for
the front yard showing the speciessize, location cation and spacing
of all planting materials, including a minimum of two it
street trees. The plan shall indicate the
15-gallon, irriga-
location of the required three (3) outdoor
tion system and the
water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
occupancy , the Applicant shall install
1scaAll gtrees and
accordance with the approved landscape plan.
plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of
the approved use.
6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground
mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure.
i
7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be
concealed by fencing or landscaping.
d have
8. The driveway shall be surfaced avementn(a2" x
with concrete
header)
asphaltic concrete connectingnt•
to the existing street paveme9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to
the Building Department for plan check:
* Riverside County Health Department
* City Fire Marshal Planning Division
* Community Development Department,
* Desert Sands Unified School District
CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 86-346
10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as
determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District
in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as
approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of
issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands
Unified School District stating that these fees have
been paid shall be presented to the Community Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
12. The garage shall be deepened to allow 24' clear depth for the
proposed laundry facilities.
13. All bathroom connections shall be noted or shown on plans
submitted for plan check.
14. The Applicant shall provide sufficient architectural varia-
tions between Plot Plan No. 86-346 and Plot Plan No. 86-347
and present these variations to the Community Development
Department prior to or at plan check submittal. Plans will
not be accepted until the variations have been approved by
the Community Development Department, Planning Division.
More significant color variation shall also be provided.
15. Prior to acceptance for plan check, the Applicant shall
provide updated information or other proof of sale of all
constructed units. No plans will be accepted for planning
or building review if five (5) or more completed units exist
as vacant or unsold.
16. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay a
Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard impact fee of $600 per
acre or portion thereof, which amounts to $66.00.
17. The roofing material shall be concrete or clay tile.
0 0
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
�8.
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN NO. 86-347
LOCATION: South Side of Saguaro Drive; 600' East of Washington
Street
APPLICANT: Rick Johnson Construction
REQUEST: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended
for Sale.
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Low Density Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-
Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Special Residential Zone
proposed.
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 100' lot located in an
existing subdivided area north of Avenue 50 and east of
Washington Street. The size and configuration of lots in this
area are very similar to that existing in the Cove area.
Development within this neighborhood, having 125 lots, is very
sparse with only 15 houses. This low number of homes is
primarily due to the poor water system in in this neighborhood
in the past. Coachella Valley Water District is in the process
of upgrading the system throughout the City.
Regarding the design and siting of the existing houses, almost all
the buildings have the typical California Ranch and modern Spanish
styles common in the Cove area. With the exception of one house,
all homes have stucco siding. Eleven of the houses have Spanish
tile roofs, with the remaining older homes having wood shake,
gravel, or asphalt shingle roofing. All the homes are one-story.
Concerning siting, three of the 15 houses are built on double lots
with the remainder built on single lots.
Regarding public services and facilities, water service is not
existing to the lot, but can be extended upon payment of a $1500
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 2.
surcharge fee by the Applicant. All other services are available.
Saguaro is a two-lane, paved street without curb or gutter.
Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the
County Recorder. The site is located within the Coachella Valley
Fringe -Toed Lizard area, a designated rare and endangered
species. The Applicant will be required to pay a mitigation fee
of $600 per acre,.or portion thereof, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 1473-square-
foot unit, based on net living area calculations employed in
review. It is a standard floor plan of the Applicant, with
3-bedrooms and 2-bathroom areas which do not indicate tub/
shower connections. Pedestrian access to the garage is via the
front entry area. The garage incorporates laundry facilities and
measures 20' x 23' clear. The house is in compliance with all
other single-family development standards and policies. This
request was submitted concurrently with Plot Plan No. 86-346,
which incorporates the same floor plan, elevations and siting,
and is located adjacent on the east side of this request.
The siting of the unit provides the following setbacks:
* Front Yard - 20 feet
* Side Yard - 5 feet
* Rear Yard - 13 feet
Regarding the house design, a twin -gabled roof design is shown
at the front elevation, with a 4 and 12 pitch and a height of
14 feet. .Popout style windows are shown at the right side and
rear elevations. Railroad tie accents and planters are
delineated. Colors of the house will be an adobe stucco
with brown trim. The roof material will be a red
colored tile.
STAFF COMMENTS
The Applicant has received 52 previous approvals for single-family
houses in the City, 4 of which are located in the same neighborhood
as this request. Most of these houses have been completed and sold,
with the remainder under varying stages of development. The
Applicant has submitted an updated sales and development status
sheet of his single-family houses (Refer to Attachment #1 for unsold
or uncompleted houses). In accordance with the condition placed on
the Applicant's two previous approvals, less than five completed
houses are unsold at this time. The list does show that contrary to
0 0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 3.
the Applicant's previous statements, not all the houses are presold
prior to plot plan approval; however, no completed houses are unsold.
This plot plan request raises an issue which was discussed during
the hearings on the proposed "Special Residential" Zone about the
need to require greater variation in the exterior elevations of the
standardized production units being constructed in the Cove area. Of
the six houses approved or proposed by the Applicant in the Sagebrush
Drive area, all six have the same design with only minor variations
in colors and in the treatment of the front facade. Since this
neighborhood is so small with sparse development (125 lots along
three streets with only 15 existing houses), the repetition of the
same house design will be very noticeable, and may tend to dominate
the neighborhood. Staff recommends that any future requests
submitted by the Applicant in this area incorporate additional, more
substantial changes in the exterior design, such as variations in the
architectural style and roof design.
Regarding this proposal, the garage must be deepened 1' to provide a
24' clear interior depth, as required by City standards. Changes in
architectural features of the units need to be provided to assure some
variation in the appearance of the design between the Applicant's
other nearby units. The floor plans also need to indicate any tub/
shower combinations.
FINDINGS
1. The request, as approved, is consistent with the requirements of
the current and proposed zoning, and with the goals and policies
of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The building design, as approved, is consistent with the draft
Manual on Architectural Standards for single-family houses and
will be compatible with area development.
3. The project will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 86-347 in accordance with
Exhibits A, B, and C and subject to the attached conditions.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 4.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
Sandra LZ Bonner Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Principal Planner Community Development Director
SLB:LLS:dmv
Atchs: 1. Status,Report - Previous Approvals
2. Conditions of Aproval
3. Exhibits A, B, and C
RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION
STATISTICS AS OF JULY 15. 1986
RJC#
ADDRESS
PLOT PLAN #
APN #
STATUS/OWNER
LQ109
53675
Carranza
86-267
774-115-018
SOLD/LELAND
+
LQ110
53685
Carranza
86-268
774-115-019
UNSOLD/SPEC
+
LQ118
54659
Montezuma
86-279
774-264-003
SOLD/KING
+
LQ123
53725
Navarro ..
86-299
774-134-021
SOLD/RODRIGUE2 +
LQ119
52400
Vallejo
86-280
773-263-008
UNSOLD/SPEC
+
LQ120
54475
Diaz
86-297
774-233-023
SOLD/RANDALL
+
-024
LQ129
78535
Ultimo
86-298
769-061-004
SOLD/BISSELL
+
LQ131
52333
Herrera
86-310
773-263-016
SOLD/HUNDT
+
-023
LQ133
78540
Saguaro
86-309
617-382-047
SOLD/GUTTRE
+
LQ134
78585
Sagebrush
86-308
617-381-008
UNSOLD/SPEC
+
LQ114
48721
San Pedro
86-317
617-301-019
SOLD/WOODS
AO
LQ139
78545
Bottlebrush
86-330
617-382-004
SOLD/NICHOLS
AO
LQ140
78555
Bottlebrush
86-331
617-382-005
SOLD/WHITE
AO
LQ152
Saguaro
86-346
617-382-034
SOLD/EMERY
P
LQ153
Saguaro
86-347
617-383-013
UNSOLD/SPEC
P
* Completed
+ Under Construction
AO Applied Only
P Pending Approval Date
El
THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the
Exhibits A, B, and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No.
86-347, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the
approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and
of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning
of substantial construction, not including grading, contem-
plated by this approval which is begun within the two-year
period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion.
3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County
Health Department.
4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the
standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of
La Quinta.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for
the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing
of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2)
15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indicate the irriga-
tion system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor
water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in
accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and
plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of
the approved use.
6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground
mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure.
7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be
concealed by fencing or landscaping.
8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have
asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header)
to the existing street pavement.
9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to
the Building Department for plan check:
* Riverside County Health Department
* City Fire Marshal
* Community Development Department, Planning Division
* Desert Sands Unified School District
CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 86-347
10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as
determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District
in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as
approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of
issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands
Unified School District stating that these fees have
been paid shall be presented to the Community Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
12. The garage shall be deepened to allow 24' clear depth for the
proposed laundry facilities.
13. All bathroom connections shall be noted or shown on plans
submitted for plan check.
14. The Applicant shall provide sufficient architectural varia-
tions between Plot Plan No. 86-346 and Plot Plan No. 86-347
and present these variations to the Community Development
Department prior to or at plan check submittal. Plans will
not be accepted until the variations have been approved by
the Community Development Department, Planning Division.
More significant color variation shall also be provided.
15. Prior to acceptance for plan check, the Applicant shall
provide updated information or other proof of sale of all
constructed units. No plans will be accepted for planning
or building review if five (5) or more completed units exist
as vacant or unsold.
16. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall pay a
Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard impact fee of $600 per
acre or portion thereof, which amounts to $66.00.
17. The roofing material shall be concrete or clay tile.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN NO. 86-348
LOCATION: East Side of Avenida Villa; 72.7' South of Calle
Ensenada
APPLICANT: Javier and Helen Loredo
REQUEST: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended
for Personal Residence.
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per
Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-
Sq.Ft. Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is approximately 6,280 square feet,
located in the La Quinta Cove area. The area development is well
established; most of the units are older with the same basic
design. Most of the colors are earthtone stucco with darker trim.
Roof lines are all standard gable; most are at a 4 and 12 pitch
with gravel roof covering. There are only two, tile -roofed
structures at the far end of the block from the site. Building
heights are between 13 and 15 feet. No new construction is
occurring in the immediate area.
4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County
Recorder.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 1,448 square
foot (net living area) unit with three bedrooms and two bath-
room areas. The house incorporates a family room, which accesses
the garage. The house meets or exceeds City dimension require-
ments relative to single-family dwellings for the garage and
bedrooms.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 2.
The site plan provides the following setbacks:
Front Yard
Rear Yard
South Side
North Side
- 20'6"
- 10'6"
Yard - 710"
Yard - 510"
The siting of the house orients the front of the garage to the south,
perpendicular to Avenida Villa. This creates a curvilinear driveway
access between Avenida Villa and the garage entry.
Exterior design of the house is based on California Ranch style
architecture. The house is 14' high, with a 4 and 12 pitched asphalt
shingle roof. The house has archway treatments along the rear patio
area and covered front porch. The exterior siding will be a tan
stucco with dark brown wood trim. The proposed asphalt shingle roof
color is also brown.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The major concern with this proposal is roofing material. The
proposed Special Residential Ordinance requires tile roof material
on all single-family dwellings. Although the ordinance is not yet
in effect, the Planning Commission has recently approved homes based
on the ordinance requirements. Existing development in the area does
not warrant the tile roof requirement in this case. The Applicant
is aware that the tile roof requirement may be imposed even though it
is not currently mandatory.
Regarding access to the garage from the family room, there does not
appear to be a problem as a family room is not a sleeping area per
se, and there is no immediately accessible bathroom area which could
be limited only to that room. The curvilinear driveway access does
not present any concerns and appears to be adequate.
FINDINGS
1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone
and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan.
3. The building design is compatible with the area development
contingent upon the conditions of approval.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 1986
Page 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 86-348 in accordance with
Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions.
PREPARED BY:
"� /z
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WHN:LLS:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APP VED�
llr
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
11
THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the
Exhibits A, B, and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No.
86-348, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions.
The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the
approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and
of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning
of substantial construction, not including grading, contem-
plated by this approval which is begun within the two-year
period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion.
3. Water and,sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County
Health Department.
4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the
standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of
La Quinta.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer
shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for
the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing
of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2)
15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indicate the irriga-
tion system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor
water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in
accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and
plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of
the approved use.
6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground
mounted. or screened entirely by the roof structure.
7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be
concealed by fencing or landscaping.
8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have
asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header)
to the existing street pavement.
The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from
the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to
the Building Department for plan check:
* Riverside County Health Department
* City Fire Marshal
* Community Development Department, Planning Division
* Desert Sands Unified School District
CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 86-348
10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as
determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District
in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as
approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of
issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands
Unified School District stating that these fees have
been paid shall be presented to the Community Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a
building permit.
11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
12. The Applicant shall note on the plans that a tub/shower
combination shall be provided in "Bath 2".
13. If laundry facilities are incorporated with the garage, the
interior depth or width must be increased by four (4) feet.
14. Applicant shall provide minor architecture details, such as
wood plant-ons, brickwork, bay windows or other window treat-
ments so as to enhance the proposed design. These shall be
proposed and reviewed by the Planning Division at plan check
submittal. The Applicant is not limited to those examples
previously alluded to.
L
M I N U T E S
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
May 13, 1986 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at,7:00 p.m. and led all present in the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; the Secretary
called the roll:
Present: Commissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling
and Chairman Thornburgh
Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L.
Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner
Gary W. Price, Planning Assistant Wallace Nesbit and Secretary
Donna M. Velotta. Mayor John Pena and Councilman Dale
Bohnenberger were also present.
Absent: None.
3. HEARINGS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first public hearing matter as
follows:
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-274, A request to construct three, two-story
retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 sq.ft. on a .846-acre
site; John Feld, La Quinta, Ltd., Partnership - Applicant. He
then called for the Staff Report.
1. Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens advised
the Commission that this matter was heard at their
previous meeting on April 22 and was continued to this
meeting in order to allow the Applicant additional time
to submit further information on building materials and
colors and to evaluate alternatives to redesign the
corner of Bermudas/Montezuma to open it up more. The
Applicant was advised of this, but did not submit the
revised materials in sufficient time for review at this
meeting. In fact, the materials have not been received
to date. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue this matter again to the meeting of
May 27 to allow the Applicant the same opportunity.
Staff also recommends that should the materials not be
submitted in time for that hearing, that the matter be
tabled. If that occurs, Staff would renotice for recon-
sideration at such time that revisions were submitted.
There being no discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for
a motion.
Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Walling, to continue Plot Plan No. 86-274 to
their next meeting of May 27, 1986. Unanimously Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next four public hearing matters,
which were to be:heard concurrently, as follows:
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-009, A request to amend the
text of the Community Development Element by adding a new
classification, "Very High Density Residential" (16-24 units
per acre), and to amend the Land Use Plan on a 30.01-acre
site from Medium Density Residential (4-8 units/acre) and
High Density Residential (8-16 units/acre) to Very High
Density Residential (16-24 units/acre); Western Corporation,
Applicant.
C. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 83-001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, A request to amend
the "Duna La Quinta" project by decreasing the site from 246
to 180 acres, increasing residential densities within por-
tions of the project, and increasing the total number of
dwellings from 1,146 to 1,225 units; Landmark Land Company of
California, Inc., Applicant.
D. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 85-020, A request for a zone change on the
30.01-acre site from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Dwellings,
3350 sq.ft. net lot area per dwelling unit) to R-3 (General
Residential); Western Corporation, Applicant.
E. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-254, A request for approval of a 688-unit
apartment project on a 28.64-acre portion of the 30.01-acre
site; Western Corporation, Applicant.
He called for the Staff Reports.
Associate Planner Gary W. Price addressed the General
Plan Amendment advising the Commission that the Applicant
is requesting same to introduce a new General Plan desig-
nation of "Very High Density Residential" at 16-24 units
per acre. The site is located within the Duna La Quinta
Specific Plan. He advised that the issues on which this
report is focussed are the appropriateness and consistency
of the "Very High Density Residential" land use designa-
tion and how it is appropriate with the General Plan. Is
the amendment consistent with the goals and intent of the
- 2 -
0
General Plan? Are Very High Density Residential projects
appropriate developments to be encouraged in the City?
Mr. Price went on to discuss the next issue, that being
the suitability of the project site to accommodate a
"Very High Density Residential" land use project. Is a
"Very High Density Residential" land use appropriate
given surrounding existing and planned land uses in the
surrounding area? Should the General Plan encourage
"Very High Density Residential" developments in or nearby
the Village at La Quinta and the Duna La Quinta Specific
Plan project area as well as the southern portion of the
City?
Mr. Price stated that during the development of the
General Plan, there were several public hearings and
community forums, at which time it was determined to
limit High Density Residential to only a few areas and
restricted this designation to 16 units per acre. It
seems that the existing High Density Residential of 8 to
16 units is sufficient in providing a wide variety of
housing opportunities, including apartment development.
However, should you consider the General Plan Amendment
as submitted, there are several issues that should be
addressed with regard to certain elements within the
General Plan. Many of those specific issues were pre-
sented to the Commission at the study session. Some of
the major issues include the Circulation Element. This
relates to how high density projects create traffic
impacts, which means we must be very careful in assessing
these impacts to certain areas of the City. Particularly,
as it relates to the southern part of the City where there
is a very limited traffic circulation.
Addressing the Housing Element, Mr. Price stated there is
an inclusionary housing program as part of the City's
commitment to contribute to the supply of affordable
housing in La Quinta. Higher density projects allow a
better opportunity to provide for the affordable housing
inclusionary program. Therefore, should the "Very High
Density Residential" category be considered, that the
inclusionary housing program be included as specified in
the staff report. Also, we recommend changing the "Very
High Density Residential" category to "Affordable Density
Residential".
Regarding the Cultural Resources Element, Mr. Price
advised that it specifies basically that there should be
provision of some Open Space requirements within a "Very
High Density" project; obviously, as you increase density
- 3 -
in projects like this, there is a need to provide open
space.
Mr. Price advised that Staff is recommending denial of
this General Plan Amendment per findings in the staff
report. This concluded Staff's report on this matter.
Director Stevens addressed Specific Plan No. 83-001,
Amendment No. 3. He stated that initially, the Duna
La Quinta Specific Plan consisted of some 240 acres
which was ultimately approved for 1,277 units. He
referred to the wall renderings of the Land Use Plan and
the Phasing Plan for the Duna La Quinta project. The
project which we are specifically talking about with the
three other matters related to this is a 30-acre site.
The Duna La Quinta Specific Plan currently calls for 13
units per acre. You may recall that the density is
established by generally taking the overall development
ability within the entire 246 acres of the Specific Plan
and redistributing it via the Specific Plan device to
various portions of the project. In this case, in the
previous approvals, the remaining units that were avail-
able to this site were 390, based on the overall
redistribution of units.
Director Stevens stated that the Duna La Quinta Specific
Plan Amendment request is before the Commission for two
reasons. The first of which relates to the proposal by
Western Corporation and the second relates to some
cleanup activity associated with the previously approved
Oak Tree West project. With respect to the latter, the
Oak Tree West Specific Plan was revised to include land
area that was previously Phase 9 of the Duna La Quinta
plan. That was deleted from Duna La Quinta and added to
Oak Tree West. In addition, a small parcel of property
which is currently a golf school and driving range,
located on the north side of Tampico between Adams and
Calle Rondo, is proposed as a park in compliance with
conditions set forth in the Oak Tree West plan. It is
also proposed that this site be deleted from the
boundaries of the Duna La Quinta plan.
In evaluating the Specific Plan proposal, Director
Stevens advised that Staff recommends approval of the
Amendment No. 3 to the Specific Plan; however, there are
revisions recommended to it. The revisions recommended,
in order to be consistent with our recommendation on the
General Plan Amendment request by Western Corporation,
are that the 13 unit per acre density be retained on that
site rather than the 24 units per acre being requested.
In addition, Staff has a couple of lesser issues that
relate to the revised approval of Amendment No. 3. Those
- 4 -
lesser issues relate to the phases that Jack Clark is
developing on the north side of the evacuation channel.
Landmark is requesting an increase in density in the
undeveloped portion of that phase from 54 to 72 units.
Staff recommends that you not increase the density in that
location as there is a recorded map on that site and we
believe that should be the limiting factor in terms of the
unit approval for that phase. We have a minor request for
increased density on the estate lot phase which is
currently approved at three units per acre and the
Applicant is requesting it be increased to five units per
acre. Staff does not have any objection to this even
though there is an approved tentative map which has not
been recorded and there is some potential given the
development of the Western Corporation phase that a minor
increase in density may be reasonable.
Director Stevens advised that the remaining differences
relate to building heights. He referred the Commission
to discussion at the study session regarding Condition No.
14 in the revised approval, where Staff has suggested that
building height limitation within 200' of the perimeter
of the site be the same as previously imposed on the Oak
Tree West and The Grove Specific Plans. The Applicant has
objections to that condition primarily for those phases
that are on the easterly side of Washington Street.
In addition, Staff is requesting another condition that
requires dedication of a neighborhood park between 5-10
acres within or in the general vicinity of the Duna
La Quinta Specific Plan area. The Applicant again objects
to that condition; however, Staff recommends that it be
retained. All other revised conditions for the Duna
La Quinta Specific Plan, to the best of my knowledge, are
acceptable by the Applicant.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff's
recommendation is for approval of this matter as outlined
in the staff report with the minor revision addressed on
the estate lot phase. This concluded the staff report on
the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, Amendment No. 3 request.
Associate Planner Gary Price addressed the Change of Zone
Case No. 85-020 and Plot Plan No. 85-254. The Applicant,
Western Corporation, is requesting a change of zone from
R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to R-3 (General
Residential) for the purpose of developing a 688-unit
apartment project. He advised the Commission that, as
Staff has recommended on the General Plan Amendment, they
also recommend that the R-2-3350 be retained on this site,
and therefore recommend denial on the change of zone
request.
- 5 -
Regarding the plot plan, Mr. Price advised that the
project is located on the north side of Calle Tampico and
the east side of the Desert Club Drive alignment. The way
in which this request is related to the General Plan
Amendment and the Change of Zone is that the project
boundary encompasses 30 acres and the plot plan relates
to 28.64 acres, which is the actual project. So the
density is 24 units per acre within the 28.64 acre area,
whereas the Applicant has left 1.36 acres open for future
development.
Mr. Price continued by addressing the project design
stating that there would be two-story (28' high) building
complexes contained along the perimeter of the project
and within the center areas are included two, three-story
(32' high) building complexes. The project contains
approximately 80% of the two -bedroom units with the one
and three -bedroom units distributed within the remaining
percentages. The main access to the site is by a private
driveway extending through the southerly portion of Calle
Tampico. Secondary access is provided by the Desert Club
Drive alignment.
Project amenities include 4 tennis courts, a central
recreation building and a large community pool, with 6
smaller, satellite pools; 7 laundry facilities and a
full, security guard system. There is also the feature
of subgrade parking.
Mr. Price further stated that if built, this project
would be the largest and highest density project in the
Coachella Valley. In light of previous actions taken
regarding the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan
Amendment, and Change of Zone, Staff recommends denial
of this plot plan request. However, in the case that
these requests are looked at favorably by the Planning
Commission, Staff recommends that the following design
Considerations be reviewed.
The density of the buildings should be spaced appro-
priately to provide for openness and sunlight between
the buildings. Presently, this space is not provided
resulting in a dense, intense feeling. Regarding the
east/west and north/south orientation, there is actually
no diagonal orientation which creates an architectural
interest in other projects. Mr. Price advised that some
of the considerations for design would be maybe deleting
the three-story buildings in the center of the project.
Staff feels that the density and intensity of this project
is just overly so. Also, given the unit distribution and
design, La Quinta does have a family -oriented population
and this project consists of primarily two -bedroom units.
Staff feels more three -bedroom units are required to
assist in the need for that. Staff also has indicated
that there are some minimal living requirements that have
been used in past projects in other areas, such as the
10' x 10' clear dimensions required for all bedrooms, that
should be applied here. Also, minimum dwelling sizes,
which are indicated in the Staff Report, which would be
consistent with the General Plan in developing an overall
distribution of minimum dwelling unit sizes for apartment
projects. Staff also feels that as compared with other
apartment projects within the desert, the project lacks
recreational amenities and suggest these features be
addressed in a future redesign, if necessary. Mr. Price
advised that this concluded his report.
Director Stevens continued stating that, in general,
Staff's position could be summed up as follows regarding
the four applications. Staff thinks the project is too
intense for the Community as the Community was envisioned
by the recently adopted General Plan. Its intensity is
expressed by the relatively high density of the project,
by its traffic impacts, and by its impact on public
services. The project, Staff feels, is inappropriate
for a village type concept, even though it does have some
advantages in terms of an increased population base and
some opportunity to enhance our supply of affordable
housing. However, we do not feel these sufficiently
offset the disadvantage or defiencies we have noted. As
a result, Staff recommends denial of each and every
application associated with the project, based on the
various findings in the Staff Reports. Mr. Stevens
advised the Commission that if it was their desire to
consider some alternatives or alterations of the project,
Staff will be available at the Commission's direction to
look into and report back on available options. This
concluded Staff's presentation.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.,
calling upon the Applicant to speak.
Tim Ealey, President, The Western Corporation, 74-075 E1
Paseo, Suite A-6, Palm Desert - Advised the Commission
that The Western Corporation is ready to make a signifi-
cant investment, not only on their behalf, but on behalf
of the City of La Quinta. He stated they are prepared to
invest at least $50 million dollars into this project to
own, build, and manage on a long-term basis. What we've
done is set out to build the highest quality apartment
project that we can with the greatest amount of afford-
ability. Hence, what we have done is engage Merrill -Lynch
as Senior Manager to provide tax exempt bond financing for
the project. What that does is lower our total cost in.-
- 7 -
® 0
money to the point where we can service more debt. By
being able to service more debt, we can put more money
into the project; hence, the underground parking and some
other amenities such as security. What we are doing is
not only making an investment in the project, but also to
create a quality living environment for future residents,
which is very important. We believe that intensity of the
project is an issue, but we believe its a positive issue.
In fact, in Staff's report, there are several references
to One Quail Place in Palm Desert, which is an excellent
project and we all regard it highly. What we would like
to do is give you some information that we created that
provides some comparisons that you can look over and we
can run through quickly, based on that project.
(Mr. Ealey passed out a document to the Planning
Commission and Staff.) Mr. Ealey stated that as you can
see on this document, originally and as noted in Staff's
report - as a matter of clarification - the site is 30.01
acres. In calculating the density, as all of the 30.01
acres is part of the project, the density actually,
according to our calculations, is 22.5 units per acre.
In comparison, One Quail Place is 17.5 acres with 384
units, which is 21.5 units per acre. A mix as far as
type of apartments, One Quail Place has no three -bedroom,
two -bath apartments. They have not addressed the issue
of family living as we have in this project. In spite of
the fact that we have a larger number of units, we still
maintain a very close building coverage based on the
entire site. He felt the park area and landscaped areas
were all very comparable. He stated one thing he wanted
to mention is that the landscape and open space in the
project is surely just that. At One Quail Place, they
have 51% open space which includes their recreation
buildings, sidewalk areas and open areas. This was con-
firmed today by the City of Palm Desert. He went on to
state that these are comparisons of what they (One Quail
Place) have done and arrived at a very good project and
we are trying to make ours a little better. In doing
that, we have created 11 additional acres at our expense,
which is the underground parking. By taking the parking
off the surface and placing it underground, which is again
a pretty costly situation, it provides for more open space
and more landscaping and a higher quality of life. What
we have also is a very secure and comfortable situation
for the tenants. This project has two covered parking
spaces per unit, whereas, One Quail Place has one per
unit.
As far as the compatibility of the site, we feel it is a
very good location. It is approximately 660' off Tampico.
There is a planned office/commercial project in front of
part of this project, High Density Residential in front
of the project and to the east there is High Density
Residential, which is all vacant. We believe it is a
compatible land use. We believe it is in the right
location without being on top of a major street which
does cause problems. Therefore, we believe it is a
compatible land use and we believe it is in close
proximity to the village area without being too close.
It is buffered in several different ways.
Re market research that we have obtained, Mr. Ealey
stated that based on intense growth of resort hotel
industry in this valley, the number of jobs being created
at this point in time, requires permanent, affordable
housing. What we have done is create a project that can
handle that need. Our market information also tells us
that in the next three years, the City of La Quinta can
absorb 1500 units City-wide. Obviously, this project
with its 688 units is not going to come on line with all
of the units probably for three years. By the time the
project is started and built, we are looking at the first
occupancy probably in January, 1988 for the first two
phases. After that, there is another 12-month buildout.
We are not going to have 1100 people dumped on the down-
town area in one month. We feel this very significant.
As far as the apartment sizes, again, our market research
has indicated the appropriate sizes for apartment units.
That is what we based them on. In the event any clarifi-
cations or design changes need to be made, those we
believe can be mitigated by working with Staff, along with
a lot of other items of design which can be mitigated.
Mr. Ealey went on to state another thing that the project
will do re the infrastructure of the City. Schools -
$432,000 will be contributed directly as a result of this
project. City of La Quinta - $480,000 in Infrastructure
Fees; Coachella Valley Water District - $1,720,000; and
County of Riverside Fire Department - yet to be deter-
mined. If it is in accordance with normal fees, we are
talking in excess of $200,000.
Mr. Ealey felt that this speaks to the fact that the
project is more than paying its way. Again, these are
strictly fees, not anything that requires mitigation.
With regard to the economy, Mr. Ealey stated they feel the
project will have a terrific overall effect on the economy
of downtown La Quinta. We believe, and other people
believe, in the development business it takes a popula-
tion base near the downtown to create a catalyst for
growth, both in commercial and retail areas. The City of
La Quinta has many times and in many ways indicated the
0 0
desire to develop the downtown. We believe that this
project, among others, will provide the catalyst for
growth in the downtown area. The Riverside County
Community Development Department indicated to us that
each individual that lives in the project will have
approximately $7,000 in disposable income per year which
they will spend somewhere. At that $7,000 per person
living in the project, it calculates to almost $5,000,000
of infusion into the local economy. It will increase the
sales tax fee and it will also increase the subvention
monies that the City receives from the State. Once these
people move into the project, these fees continue every
year.
Regarding locating projects such as this with this type of
density within the northern part of the city, it would
probably be appropriate, but those people will shop else-
where - not in the downtown area.
Overall, Mr. Ealey stated, what we feel we have, with the
assistance and the help of the City, is a project the
Western Corporation, in cooperation with the City of
La Quinta, can point to with pride. This concluded
Mr. Ealey's presentation.
Chairman Thornburgh - asked Mr. Ealey about the statement
he made that the project would be on 30 acres, while Staff
is saying 28 acres; he asked if the small 1.5 acres would
be a part of this project?
Mr. Ealey - responded that originally, the application
stated the project was going to consume 28.84 acres. In
subsequent meetings with Staff, we indicated to them that
it was 30.01 acres and that the 1.5 acres would be part of
the project. Therefore, as part of the project, we feel
it should be part of the density.
Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Ealey what the density
would become if the 1.5 acres was included in the project?
Mr. Ealey - responded it becomes 22.5 units per acre,
comparing it to One Quail Place, which has 21.5 units per
acre.
Chairman Thornburgh - questioned that the proper assump-
tion is that the 1.5 acres will be a part of the project
and it will be a green area not to be developed or built
on at a later date, that it will be part of the project?
Mr. Ealey - responded that what we indicated is that it
will be green area or park area and would be a permanent
- 10 -
0
part of the project. He stated he appreciated the
question because it is an important clarification.
Commissioner Moran - asked Mr. Ealey how large the area
was?
Mr. Ealey - replied that it was 1.38 acres.
Chairman Thornburgh - asked Mr. Ealey what Phase I of the
project would comprise?
Mr. Ealey - responded (referring to the wall rendering)
that first it would include the improvements for the
entry roadway which will be gate guarded by 24-hour
guards. The entire community will be walled. He noted
that Phase I would include the first two quadrants, all
of the tennis courts, the leasing and recreation building
and the main pool. This would account for approximately
340 units. We would like to open the project with all of
these amenities in place.
Craig Combs, Architect for this project, 1535 Monrovia
Avenue, Newport Beach, California - speaking as a repre-
sentative of the Applicant, he advised that he has been
involved with this project for approximately a year. He
stated that the project is accessed from Calle Tampico in
two locations and the project is approximately 660' back
from the street, which he felt was significant.
Therefore, the project will probably not be perceived
visually from Tampico. The perimeter buildings are two-
story on grade and are 2418" in height. The buildings
on the parking lids themselves, the majority of which are
two-story, are 2418" above the lid and the lid is 416"
above grade. The three-story buildings are sited in the
center of the project and will probably not be seen from
the perimeter at all. He referred the Commission to a
drawing which showed the buildings in perspective.
Mr. Combs went on stating that parking has been broken
into four living enclaves or clusters. Access to the
parking areas is at two points for each of the clusters.
There are two parking spaces per unit under the lid and
they can be accessed by the resident very smoothly and
easily, and they do not have very far to walk to their
parking area.
Additionally, on each of the lids, there are two swimming
pools on three of them. The Staff Report states we have
seven pools, but there are eight. That works out at about
one pool for 85 units, where one Quail Place has one pool
for 95 units. There are four tennis courts and quite a
recreation building. Trash locations are within the
parking structure. Management would operate a system
wherein the trash bins would be taken from the structure
and brought to a location in the northeast corner of the
project where there would be one major pickup twice a
week or whatever it may turn out to be and we are working
with the refuge company on that. In that same corner
location, there will be a maintenance building and space
for recreation vehicle parking.
Mr. Combs conducted a short slide presentation showing
various apartment projects in Southern California with
underground parking facilities.
Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Combs if his firm was
involved in many of the projects shown in the slide
presentation?
Mr. Combs - Responded that they were involved in quite a
few of them. In terms of density, we have designed
projects, truthfully, of the density type we are present-
ing tonight, 22.5 units per acre, which is quite a light
density, believe it or not, for this type project. He
noted further that his firm is working on projects now
that exceed 45 units to the acre and still obtain two-
story buildings over the parking lid. He stated they
feel fortunate to have Mr. Ealey and a client who is
willing to make the commitment for this type of a parking
situation. Typical projects of 24 units per acre will
develop an awful lot of surface parking and driveways.
This type of project, however, is unusual in that the
cars are virtually out of the project. They will only
show along the perimeter and perimeter drive.
Commissioner Walling - asked Mr. Combs if there would be
water features in the project?
Mr. Combs - replied that there would be such features.
The site plan that was prepared does not illustrate in
full the landscaping intentions. We would carry a lot
of waterscape. This is going to be a very attractive
project, both on and off the lid, and I doubt that a
resident or guest would perceive whether they were on or
off the lid. This concluded Mr. Combs' presentation.
Mike Smith, J. F. Davidson Associates, 78-760 Runaway
Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, Engineer for the project - Mr.
Smith advised the Commission that it was his firm's job
to make sure that there was flood controls, sewer and
water for the project which has been done. He stated he
did a line -of -site study (referring to the wall rendering)
to show that if a person was standing in the center of
Tampico, they would not be able to see the project. The-
- 12 -
first building is approximately 708' from the centerline
of Tampico. He further stated that sewer exists at the
cul-de-sac at the top of the dike which can take care of
this project. The water line is in Tampico and the storm
drain runs out Desert Club Drive and in. We have designed
the tennis courts, the play yards and recreation area to
hold the water in a storm. We have a five-day drainoff
from another project (Crystal Canyon) which must get
through the pipe first. Then water from this project
would be pumped off at a later date.
Commissioner Walling - What would you do with residual
water in the parking structure?
Mr. Smith - replied that they would pump it out. The way
the parking structures are designed, we have rolled the
driveway up and then down and since it is only four feet
down, it really isn't very bad. At the very bottom, there
is a grate and any water that comes in will go through the
grate into a dry well. When the dry well gets within 4'
from the top, the electric pump starts and will be pumped
into the retention area.
Chairman Thornburgh - asked if the retention area was the
tennis courts?
Mr. Smith - advised that the tennis courts were the storm
retention area and the nuisance retention is the greenbelt
area in low lying spots which will be handled by dry wells
so the children will not splash around in it.
Commissioner Brandt - asked if there was something to show
line -of -site from the estate lots on the levee?
Mr. Smith - replied that his firm did the plan for the
estate lots. They had designed that area with a block
wall at the top of the slope. The estate lots are on top
of the levee and are set back from the block wall to the
curbline about 81, then there is a 32' street, with a 25'
setback to the face of the garage. Those units are
oriented off their north side to face the golf course.
George Parmeter - J. F. Davidson, 10200 S. Mt. Vernon,
Colton, CA - advised the Commission that he is a
registered traffic engineer in the State of California
and has a background of some 30 years with the County of
San Bernardino, some time with the City of Palm Springs
as traffic engineer and with the City of Irvine as
Principal Transportation Analyst responsible for develop-
ment review.
- 13 -
Mr. Parmeter noted that he had a copy of the BSI, Inc.
consultant's report dated April 17, 1986. Although the
report is not signed by a traffic engineer, Mr. Parmeter
stated he had a couple of things he wanted to clarify
with the report. The travel demand forecast is based on
the Car Counter Company's counts made in Palm Springs. It
was good at the time, but its becoming somewhat dated now
because of a more recent study. More recent information
indicates condos and apartments of this nature run about
6.3 trips a day. The travel desire lines are very much
the same as he had worked out - 70% to the north; he had
used 30% to the east instead of the 20-10 split shown in
the BSI report. He stated he had no quarrel with the
trip assignment data or the traffic volumes that were
developed. They are all based on sound criteria and have
been part of reports previously presented to the City,
including the Washington Street Corridor Study, also done
by BSI. Traffic impacts are illustrated very well in the
Volume Capacity Ratio information. As can be seen, the
Existing + Project Volume Capacity on all streets is well
under a normal design criteria, the highest being
Washington Street at a .58. He went on to state the only
thing that he finds a little confusing is that the
Cumulative ADT on Washington Street is compared to a two-
lane street capacity and reading the Washington Street
Corridor Report previously prepared by this same firm, I
find that the point in time when 33,000 cars are going to
be generated, Washington Street is contemplated to be a
six -lane, divided roadway. That, depending on the
efficiency of traffic signals, should easily carry 36,000
to 42,000 vehicles a day. At the minimum of 36,000, you
would have a .93 Volume Capacity Rate which is well within
the operation since it would probably only occur perhaps
30 minutes a day at that level. Mr. Parmeter stated other
than those particular items, he finds himself in agreement
with the report. This concluded his presentation.
Commissioner Brandt - asked if on that section of
Washington Street, are we not looking at a four -lane,
divided street south of Avenue 50 going to Avenue 52?
Director Stevens - replied that we are designating
sufficient roadway right-of-way to accommodate six travel
lanes. We are hoping that the projections for traffic are
high and we can maintain a four -lane configuration in
terms of striping, but the road would be sufficient to
accommodate six lanes throughout the length of Washington.
Commissioner Walling - stated the trip generations, a
portion of them anyway, presumably are for people going to
some commercial area. Has it been taken into considera-
- 14 -
H
tion that a portion of them will
Washington, but satisfying their
downtown area? In other words,
ultimate traffic.
not be going on
commercial needs in the
relieving some of that
Mr. Parmeter - advised that it is not considered here
(referring to the report presented to the Commission at
this meeting). He stated he did run some figures on that
particular item and felt something like 28% of the trips
generated would stay within the local area. He stated he
did not have any concrete figures to back that up. Only
experience based on other similar developments.
Kevin Manning - Landmark Land Company, P. O. Box 1578,
La Quinta, CA - advised the Commission that his firm is
the applicant on the Specific Plan Amendment. He stated
that throughout the course of the past 45 minutes, he has
been cognizant of the fact that much of the discussion he
has heard from Staff, as well as the Staff Report, focuses
on the fact that the Specific Plan Amendment that they
have submitted is inconsistent or in conflict with the
existing General Plan, which was adopted by you six months
ago, and of course the City Council thereafter. However,
he stated as he reads the existing General Plan, the
entire request is consistent with it. A review of the
plan indicates that the total 178 developable acres allows
a maximum density of 1,425 units. The total requested
number of units is 1,225. Therefore, the request that is
before you tonight is 200 units less than the allowable
maximum density. The density requested is 6.87 units per
acre. These density figures assume that the entire resi-
dential property area is designated Medium Density
Residential. By that, Mr. Manning stated he meant that
there are two or three or four acres along the southern
border of The Western property acquisitioned that may be
designated High Density Residential. Therefore, although
on a stand alone basis, this project would require a
General Plan Amendment. By that, he stated he meant there
is no General Plan designation for up to 24 units to the
acre. He felt, based upon the fact that this is part of
an overall Specific Plan, the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan
that this 30-acre request is consistent with the existing
City General Plan and is definitely consistent with the
intent of the plan, as well as the Duna La Quinta specific
Plan, as approved. Mr. Manning further stated that he
felt that a General Plan Amendment is unnecessary if this
project is considered as a whole to the Specific Plan,
which it is, in his opinion. This concluded Mr. Manning's
presentation.
- 15 -
,III
EI
The following persons appeared and were heard:
For the project:
Earle Ellson (Repr.
of La Quinta Chamber of
Commerce)
Lee Sleight (Pres., La Quinta
Property Owners Assoc.)
Chuck Jimenez (Owner/Principal
of Plaza Tampico project)
Bruce Cathcart (Realtor/Owner
of La Quinta Palms Realty).
Against the project:
Ann Young
Audrey Ostrowsky
As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Thornburgh
closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
To begin the Planning Commission discussion period,
Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions that the
Commissioners may have of Staff or the Applicant.
Commissioner De Gasperin: Questioned Mr. Ealey as to
what the impact would be on the project should the
Commission disagree with the Very High Density factor
and look at the project favorably at a less density.
Mr. Ealey replied that the impact would be an economic
one; units mean income, income means debt service. Debt
service is based upon what you put into the project, so
they all interrelate. There is really no direct answer
to the question. we feel that the number of units was
derived at, not only to plan the project in the best
possible living environment, but also to service the type
of debt it will take to build "a project like this".
Commissioner De Gasperin: Again questioned the Applicant
as to whether he would build at a Medium Density or High
Density, and not at a Very High Density.
Mr. Ealey replied that Medium Density would immediately
eliminate the parking structures causing the project to
go back to surface parking. The original study that they
did was at a lesser density; 70% of the entire acreage
was in asphalt either in roadways, accessways or parking.
The High Density would also make it impractical to build
the project shown to you this evening.
Commissioner De Gasperin: Questioned Mr. Manning of
Landmark Land Company regarding the impact of this
- 16 -
1.i'
project on their estate lots located on the northern
border of the project.
Mr. Manning: Replied that theirs is a tentative map and
they have five years in which to record it. When they
submitted the map, they were under the impression that
they would go ahead and do the improvements, finish the
final map and record it, and then sell the lots. However,
with the fruition of the negotiations with Western
Corporation, we have basically put the tentative map on
hold. The bottom line is that if this project goes
through, we will have to rethink what we want to do on
that eight acres.
Commissioner De Gasperin commented that the feeling of
the community six months ago was not only to put a lid on
how we would define High Density which this project is way
beyond (in her opinion) and secondly, to move that High
Density away from the Cove. That seemed to be the
expression of the community, which was then adopted in the
General Plan. Then, also, there was an expression of the
community to enhance the Cove and define a Village at
La Quinta project, which she was not sure this apartment
project is in line with. Now, she stated she is hearing
representatives of the community, from business and
property owners, saying they are in favor of this project,
which seems to fly in face of those two different aspects
of the General Plan.
Earle Ellson: Replied to Commissioner De Gasperin's
comment, stating tht the density has to be looked at from
exactly where the location of that density is occurring
and the impact that it will have on the surrounding area.
If you wanted to put this project out in my neighborhood,
I'd say forget it, that wouldn't do. It is not going to
enhance that neighborhood. However, I do think that the
location where it is now is an enhancement because it is
going to be a tremendous economic factor to the develop-
ment of the Village area. It will provide an instant
market for a lot of things that will attract more
development. He felt this was all positive. Mr. Ellson
went on to comment that if it turns out that there is a
problem with the density in that neighborhood, then he
would be the first to say, be considerate of it. He felt
that the surrounding project, Duna La Quinta, has made no
complaint with regard to the density requested and felt
they would be the first to do so.
Commissioner Moran: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding the
fact that this project will generate a great deal more
- 17 -
traffic and what his feelings would be toward a require-
ment of providing a traffic signal at the corner of Calle
Tampico and Washington Street.
Mr. Ealey replied to Commissioner Moran's question by
stating that in any circumstance where you have new
development or growth, there is always something involved
in that new development or growth that needs to be miti-
gated. He advised her that they have already expressed
to the City, and felt it was an appropriate question here;
that if there are things that can mitigate traffic or
other situations, they would be happy to do them. He
commented that they believe it is necessary if they are
going'to be a part of the community. Therefore, the
direct answer to the question is yes.
Chairman Thornburgh commented at this point that if the
Commission saw justification to go forward with this
project that they would request Staff to re-evaluate and
come back with an opinion regarding mitigation measures
relative to traffic, etc.
Commissioner Walling: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding the
private drive into the project and whether it would have
pedestrian circulation along it.
Mr. Ealey replied that there would be bikeways and walk-
ways along it. It has been designed as a 60' wide
entryway.
Commissioner Brandt: Questioned Mr. Ealey regarding a
market study mentioned earlier in his presentation. Her
question was whether the 1500 units mentioned in the
report to be absorbed by the City of La Quinta were just
apartment units or a combination of apartment/single-
family units.
Mr. Ealey replied that the market study that they had
completed in February of this year indicates that over
the next five years, La Quinta has the ability to absorb
1500 apartment units. The report was strictly done based
on this type of project.
Chairman Thornburgh commented that looking at the 30-acre
project and seeing that there is 11 acres of subgrade
parking, he felt that the City is benefitting from this
type of parking. Comparing the size of 11 acres, he
referred to the Plaza Tampico project, which is going to
have 90,000 square feet of office buildings on it, which
is only six acres. Therefore, looking at the 30-acre
project, plus the 11 acres of subgrade parking, the
amilm
result is actually 40 acres - which brings the density
down, in his configurations. Chairman Thornburgh went on
to comment that he felt the Applicant used intelligent
choices when placing the three-story buildings in the
center. He stated that one concern he had was regarding
the entrance into the project from Tampico, which
Commissioner Walling had brought up earlier, which he felt
should be given a "country club" look such as we have
requested of previous developers. Another concern was the
spacing between the buildings which he felt should be
greater. He requested that Staff evaluate this concern
and come back with some guidelines. And lastly, he
requested that Staff look into the matter of a guarantee
of mature landscaping being planted within the project.
Commissioner Moran stated she agreed with Chairman
Thornburgh's comments. The only thing that she wondered
about was the spacing of the buildings. She commented
about the joint City Council/Planning Commission tour to
different apartment complexes in the valley and the
closeness of some of the buildings. She felt, however,
that with mature landscaping, the closeness could be
mitigated.
Commissioner Walling commented that an interesting thing
is that if we rezoned this area to 20 units per acre and
allowed whoever developed the property to come in with
25% of inclusionary housing at 30 units per acre, you
would end up with an average of 22.5 units per acre, which
is what this Applicant is asking for currently. He noted
that this might be something to think about; if we do
approve a general plan amendment, if we do increase the
density, then we should make it restrictive because there
are some unique features here that we really should
require if someone is going to get this kind of density.
One feature, of course, is the opportunity of inclusionary
housing and, at this ratio, you would get the density you
wanted by using that formula. Other things, perhaps like
requiring underground parking, a certain amount of open
space, a certain recreational ratio in terms of units,
etc., he felt should all be included in whatever designa-
tion, if we do decide to change the density. It should
not be a density per se, but it should include these
restrictions so that we are sure of getting a very good,
high quality project with the increased density.
Commissioner Walling stated that professionally, he did
not share the stigma as most people do about high density.
He stated that he has seen many projects with this density
and higher that are excellent, well -designed, and would be
welcomed by any community. So, the fact that there are
- 19 -
more people per acre is not a problem in that respect. It
does increase traffic, unquestionably, but whether it
increases to a degree that is going to be any more detri-
mental than other factors in the community is
questionable. One thing that is unique here is that we
will eventually have 1100+ people within walking distance
of the downtown area. The downtown area, as it develops
commercially, will always have a problem with parking.
We have the advantage here of having the project within
foot distance, thus not having a lot of cars in the down
town.
Commissioner De Gasperin asked if it is possible to impose
restrictions or conditions upon approving a general plan
amendment for a particular parcel.
Director Stevens replied that the Commission has two
options with regard to the density, assuming that there
would be an approval for something higher than the current
maximum of 16. One option is to basically specify any
density beyond the 16 be for affordable units, and he
believed that the current General Plan language would
allow that and would also be supported by Housing Element
policies. He felt that this interpretation would rely on
all units above 16 being affordable for either low or
moderate income persons. The other alternative with
regard to approving a higher density, if you wanted to
take Commissioner Walling's suggestion of a more restric-
tive approach, would be something similar to the approach
Palm Desert took which they called Affordable High Density
Residential. They did not use that as a land use
designation that they imposed on individual pieces of
property, but what they did is create a General Plan
overlay and said these are the areas we want to consider
on a case -by -case basis, and then created some policies
that would do it. Of course, you could go to another
approach and just designate it high density and go from
there. Director Stevens felt that these are the options
that the Commission has to get the density to some point
beyond 16, if that is your desire.
Chairman Thornburgh commented that he would prefer to not
see our density go beyond 16 without special conditions
being applied to it. He felt that with approving 10,000-
11,000 units, having the golf courses and what we have
done with the Village at La Quinta, that we will create
business down here. He felt this project is exciting for
the downtown community and liked the idea that it is out
of the way. He stated he would like Staff to become
creative and allow so much for low-cost housing and so
- 20 -
much for underground parking, and so much for a few other
things, so as to get our density up without changing the
General Plan, and without having these conditions tied to
it.
Commissioner De Gasperin asked if any of the other
Commissioners were concerned that the surrounding
undeveloped land will also go the same way.
Chairman Thornburgh replied that it becomes their choice
and stated he felt that it was economics rather than
zoning that would control what they do downtown.
At this point, Chairman Thornburgh asked if there was
a consensus to go forward with the project, and if so,
his recommendation would be to point out the things that
the Commission is most concerned about, making Staff aware
of those things; then he would like to recommend the
matter be continued to their next meeting so that Staff
would have the opportunity to get back to them with
changes and a report based on what we have said, rather
than a negative report that denied it.
The Commission presented the following comments:
Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see in the
general plan amendment some language regarding an afford-
able housing density bonus program, so as not to create a
new density category; i.e., Very High Density, but remain
at the 8-16 units per acre and consider a 25% maximum
density bonus provided that additional units would go
toward meeting our fair share of the regional housing
needs in the valley, as identified by the Local Agency
Governments.
Chairman Thornburgh commented that Staff and the Applicant
should study that and bring back a report to the
Commission.
Commissioner Brandt stated she would also like to see the
market feasibility study that was prepared for the
Applicant's project. (Director Stevens advised that a
copy was not provided to Staff.)
Director Stevens requested clarification on the 25%
maximum density bonus requested by Commissioner Brandt.
He asked if there was a consensus on that because that
also implies basically, a maximum 20-unit-per-acre
density; therefore, he wanted to clarify if that is
agreed to or not, or understood.
- 21 -
Chairman Thornburgh stated he would not want to agree on
figures, but agree on the principal, to have it studied
and brought back to the Commission.
Commissioner Moran stated she would also like to see a
density bonus given the Applicant for the underground
parking because it opens up so much open space. Also, if
they do grant density bonuses, she would like to have a
specific plan approved at the same time.
There was a consensus to Commissioner Moran's requests.
Chairman Thornburgh felt that Item 13 (regarding contri-
bution,by the Applicant toward funding of a central fire
station project) should be left for the City Council to
determine. He stated that they have left these dollar
figures for the Council to determine in the past.
Chairman Thornburgh asked for any comments/questions on
the Change of Zone application.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff will
raise an additional issue on the Change of Zone and that
is the concern as to whether or not the R-3 Zone is
appropriate. He felt Staff would use the R-3 Zone to
start with, but felt they may suggest that, as a final
action, Staff be directed to develop a new zoning district
to handle affordable housing projects, with the under-
standing that it would ultimately be placed on this site.
This might give us a better technique to control the
appropriateness of projects where we grant affordable
units.
To begin discussion of the plot plan application,
Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt the most important
decision that the Commission had to make, rather than
deciding do we want this density or do we want this
project, or whatever, is do we want apartments in this
area. If that is the intent of the Commission to pursue
he felt what they should do is go forward, disecting the
project as they have done on previous applications.
Commissioner Brandt stated she had problems with the
location of the RV parking/maintenance area adjacent to
the levee. She was concerned with the interface between
this development and what is tentatively going to go on
the levee.
Chairman Thornburgh responded stating the reason he has
paid no attention to that area of the project is that
Landmark owns both and this would be ahead of Landmark's
- 22 -
proposal, and Landmark does not know what they will do
with the levee property at this time.
Commissioner Brandt advised that there is also the
property to the south and east which would also be
adjoining the RV parking/maintenance area, and they are
not represented here tonight. We do not know what their
plans are so we do have them to consider also.
Commissioner Moran, addressing the subject of building
heights, stated she did not have a problem with this
matter because the three-story units are within the
interior of the project and they would not be visible
from Tampico.
Commissioner Brandt stated she did have a problem with the
building heights. Without the adoption of our Village
plan, she is not sure that we would have allowed three-
story development. She is not sure this is consistent
and feels we would be setting a precedent now with this
three-story development. Admittedly, it is within the
interior of the project and set back from Tampico, but
she is not convinced that three-story is consistent with
the downtown area and consistent with the Village theme.
Commissioner Walling stated it seemed to him that the
three-story is only relevant if you can see it from out-
side the project. If it is well -screened from the
exterior, he felt it would not be much of an impact. All
these things are precedent setting, but what we are doing
here is trying to establish a device where we can control
these items when they come up in another project. He felt
the consideration here should be project specific. In
another project perhaps, it would make a visual impact and
we should allow the three stories.
Chairman Thornburgh commented that he looks at this as
impacting the Village at La Quintal but not as part of it.
He felt that design -wise and whatever, it sets off by
itself and that it will impact because of the people it
brings. Design -wise it will not impact what our final
decision will be on the Village at La Quinta design.
Therefore, he sees no problem with the three-story
buildings.
Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see a more
varied mix of units and maybe increasing the percentage
of the one -bedroom, as well as the three -bedroom units.
She would particularly like to see a variation in the mix
reflect the need for the low and moderate income units.
- 23 -
Chairman Thornburgh felt that the people who put their
money up should make the decision on this matter. He
felt if they go into the low-cost housing, it would be a
benefit to the community. He commented that he did not
feel smart enough to tell people how many one -bedroom or
two -bedroom units to develop and felt the Commission
should not recommend a change in the Applicant's mix.
Regarding this matter, Director Stevens recommended to
the Commission that they request the Applicant to submit
their market study to Staff. Staff will evaluate the
study in light of a couple of other market studies we
have and will come back with a recommendation of whether
we should get involved in the issue of bedrooms and mix.
Commissioner De Gasperin stated her feeling regarding
this matter is we should be encouraging units for small
families.
Director Stevens questioned the Commission as to whether
they wished to pursue the matter of recreation amenities
more thoroughly or whether they felt that what has been
proposed is generally adequate.
Commissioner Moran replied she felt what the Applicant
presented was adequate; the comparisons Staff made in
their report was with condominium projects and this is
not a condominium project, it is an apartment complex.
Commissioner De Gasperin felt the need for some
discussion verifying that the one -acre parcel south of
the project WILL be used for a park.
Chairman Thornburgh, in answer to Commissioner
De Gasperin's request, replied that it is on record
tonight that the parcel will be used for a park.
Commissioner Brandt commented that from what she under-
stood from the presentation given by the Applicant
earlier, there are additional recreational facilities
in this project that are not reflected in the plot plan
rendering before them. She stated she would like to see
the recreational exhibit only, showing all the little
tot lots and all amenities that the project has to offer
so that the Commission will know exactly what they are
approving. She stated she would like this information
prior to approval because the Applicant had indicated in
their presentation that this plot plan did not reflect
all of the recreational facilities.
- 24 -
Chairman Thornburgh commented that he felt the Applicant
was referring to the waterways and different landscape
amenities that were not shown on the rendering. He called
upon the Applicant's representative, who verified this
statement.
Director Stevens stated he assumed, in that regard, not
only did the Commission wish to see the additional
recreational amenities, but a number of other things that
were pointed out that are not shown on the plan submittals
that the Commission would expect Staff to prepare condi-
tions to assure that those things were going to occur.
Commissioner Walling stated he would like to see a little
more study on the building orientation as Staff pointed
out in their report. There are some buildings that are
quite close. There was a consensus of the Commission
regarding this concern.
Chairman Thornburgh stated he would like to have the entry
driveway look like a part of Tampico; not knowing what is
going in on either side of it, he would like to have it
stand on its own with landscaping, possibly a wall, or
some kind of break so that it is not a pretty road down
through the dirt.
Commissioner Walling questioned Director Stevens as to the
distance between the entry driveway into the project and
Desert Club Drive.
Director Stevens replied that it was approximately 1200
feet.
Commissioner Walling asked if a median break or even a
traffic signal would not be a bad request for that area.
Director Stevens replied he felt that Staff would support
a signal at the entrance location. He stated that Staff
would evaluate a median break and make a recommendation.
He was not sure that it was evaluated by BSI, Inc., as
part of our traffic recommendation; we would probably ask
BSI to look at it and then incorporate it into the condi-
tions based on their recommendation.
Chairman Thornburgh requested Staff to make sure that, if
this project goes before Plaza Tampico, it is in the
conditions to require the improvement of Desert Club
Drive.
Director Stevens replied that Staff would definitely make
some provision, based on who was first, relative to Desert
Club improvements. He advised the Commission that in the
- 25 -
0 0
Plaza Tampico conditions, Staff basically did not specify
that Desert Club Drive go further north from that project
as, frankly, we were not sure how this property and
property to the west was going to develop. We are still
not sure how Desert Club is going to be aligning to this
area to the west. We do not think we will make it a
cul-de-sac at that driveway - we have got to look at some
connection further to the west - whether that ends up
being just an L-shape or a U-shape and coming back to
Tampico. What we will probably do is put some additional
traffic analysis requirements on this to evaluate an
appropriate configuration for Desert Club and the
immediate area, so that we can determine how far north it
should proceed.
Continuing with the discussion, Chairman Thornburgh felt
there was no need to discuss Hearing Item C tonight.
Director Stevens added that the issues pertaining to
Hearing Item C are clearcut. He felt there was an under-
standing of the points the Applicant would raise, based
on discussion at the study session. Staff will continue
to work on those points between now and the continued
hearing so that the Commission can take action on all
those related items at the same time.
Chairman Thornburgh felt that the Commission's recommen-
dation would be that the property on top be increased,
whereas the Clark property not be increased because it is
a final.
There being no further discussion on these matters,
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to continue General Plan Amendment
No. 86-009, Change of Zone No. 85-020, and Plot Plan No.
85-254, to their next regular meeting of May 27, 1986.
Unanimously Adopted.
Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to continue Specific Plan No. 83-001,
Amendment #3, to their next regular meeting of May 27,
1986. Unanimously Adopted with a 4-0 vote; Commissioner
Walling abstained due to a conflict of interest.
After a short discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission
to hold their next study session at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 27,
1986, due to the 3-day, Memorial Day weekend.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as
follows:
- 26 -
Ell
g, NDMENT NO. 86-011, A request to amend the
GENERAL PLAN AME
General Plan Land Use MixadnUselcommercial; aerelatedlgh
Density the City to designate Avenue 48and
ddams
request initiated by ill Bypass, and to upgrade
Adams Street as the Highway to Primary
M. B.
Johnson Properties, Applicant. He then
Street on the Circulation Plan from Secon ary
Arterial; sion called for the Staff Report.
hat
1• Director Stis is a
evens llanrmed the amendmento ors154-5tacres
proposed general p hlocated
enue
at the northeast corner of t familiar
arm liar with Street and s the
48. Everyone should be most fadrtentativestracthmap
site of the location of the approveDuring the course of
for the Isla Mediterranea project*
the General Plan hearings, this site retained its former
designation of High Density Residential, which would allow
8-16 units per acre (the project being approximately 10
units per acre), using the principal that approvals made
Applicant to main -
prior to the General Plan would be retained in force
Subsequent to the adoption of the
provided that it was the desire of the PP
tain those approvals.
the property owner has submitted a request to The
modl Y
plan, nation to Mixed Use Commerimarily
that land use designation was p
Ill area
Mixed Use Commercial land use category a relatively large
devised as a method to deal with the Highway
to introduce some residential
through the course of Way General Plan,
commercial area, that you may recall that we g
support. He stated licants would have the
said on large parcels that ApP development
opportunity, based upon market studies, for their
agreements, and master develoopmen�toflthe development linsa
of up specified, but
to include a maximum that was not
residential use with a density ive him more
which was to be justified on the basis of a market study -
residential y•
in this case, feels it would g Staff, in
The Applicant, his site and frankly, Staff,
flexibility in developing disagree with that approach.
its assessment, does not
Staff s feeling
request would bring this property into a condi-
Director Stevens stated that it is really
that this is ro riate in terms Of its providinglwhatnweip
tion that is more appropriate
yet still providing
to
with surrounding properties, ortant residential component
on
consider to be that imp
support the commercial devestaffndoesanot efeel lthat this
the Highway Ill Corridor. alter traffic or similar to the
request would substantially the schematic
patterns. Director Stevens Telicant showing fission
rendering Presented by the App
plan of intentions relative to development. The northerly
portion of the sitis
oofnthedsite isudesignarist tedrfor
ll
the southwesterly p
- 27 -
0
residential uses of mixed densities; and the southeast
portion of the site is designated primarily for health and
medical facilities and related activities. Director
Stevens emphasized that this plan is not part of any
approval that the Commission would be granting should you
approve the general plan amendment. It is only illustra-
tive of the Applicant's current desires for the site. Any
such plan would, obviously, have to come back to the
Commission for further approval. Given the General Plan
designation, that would probably be in the form of a
Master Plan of Development, a Development Agreement with
appropriate market study support. The additional map
that the Applicant has provided is entitled, Community
Design Features, and is attempting to demonstrate that a
lot of the design and amenity features that everyone found
so desirable within the Isla Mediterranea project will be
retained.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that one of the
assumptions that the Commission will have to make relative
to the Isla Mediterranea project is that, while its
approval would remain in effect for the remaining period
of the tentative map that you just extended - should you
approve this amendment - the tract map would not be able
to be extended again because of its lack of consistency
with the newly adopted general plan amendment. So, in
essence, if the Applicant opts to go back to the Isla
project, they basically have a year to record that map
and proceed with any requirements associated with that.
Given the current status, you should pretty well assume
that the Isla project probably would not proceed should
you approve this general plan amendment.
Staff's evaluation of the impacts associated with the
project indicates that they are not significantly
different from those that would occur to surrounding
property currently designated Mixed Use, nor are they
significantly different than that which would occur if
the Isla project were done. Staff's overall feeling is
that it is more consistent with the intent of the plan to
use the Mixed Use designation in this area. We probably
will have some concerns as to what the use mix is and
where some of the uses relate, and trying to emphasize
some of our Washington Street Specific Plan concerns in
this development. One of the other points raised as
part of the general plan amendment was that there is
within the adopted General Plan Circulation portion, a
requirement to evaluate the need for a Highway 111 Bypass
generally along the Avenue 48 alignment and connecting to
Highway 111 at an appropriate point within La Quinta. As
a result, we also raised the necessity to redesignate
Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111 as a
Primary Arterial as opposed to its current designation as
a Secondary Arterial. This would, in essence, change the
right-of-way needs from 88 feet to 100-110-foot width
associated with the Major Arterial. Staff feels that this
would accommodate any modest increases in traffic that
would occur and relate more appropriate to regional
traffic needs and some of the activities that have come
out of our recent meetings with the County and City of
Indio and surrounding cities on overall traffic needs.
It is Staff's recommendation, therefore, that you approve
the requested change to Mixed Use Commercial for the site
and that you also amend the Circulation Plan to designate
Adams Street as a Primary Arterial between Avenue 48 and
Highway 111. This concluded Staff's presentation.
There being no questions of Staff, Chairman Thornburgh
opened the public hearing at 9:55 p.m.
Steve McCormick, 31882 Camino Capistrano, San Juan
Capistrano, CA, of Tierra Planning - Spoke in favor of
the request; explained the conceptual plan drawing
displayed.
John Adams, Vice President of Psomas/Harrison, 3901 Lime
Street, Riverside, CA - Spoke in favor of the project; his
firm is the Applicant's engineer for the project.
Mr. Adams explained the compatibility of the revised
request and also the consistency with other area develop-
ment.
Before opening the hearing to public comments, Chairman
Thornburgh requested Director Stevens to explain regarding
this matter, that the Commission is only changing the
General Plan Land Use Element and is not approving a
particular designation, site plan, or zoning.
Director Stevens responded stating that we are not
approving a master plan, and we are not approving the land
use concept or the community design features. We are
merely approving a land use designation of Mixed -Use
Commercial on the 154 acres should that be the action that
the Commission takes, and the Council takes upon the
Commission's recommendation. We would also be changing
the designation on the Circulation Element for that por-
tion of Adams Street between Avenue 48 and Highway 111.
Chairman Thornburgh called for any additional public
comments.
The following persons were present and were heard:
- 29 -
Against the request:
Christine Clarke, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 650,
Los Angeles, CA - One of the principals of an upcoming
proposed project in the City of La Quinta spoke at length
against the Applicant's request.
Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA - Requested
the Commission to work on development of the downtown area
and then go on to other projects.
Joe Hammer, 677 Dry Falls Road, Palm Springs, CA - Owner
of large parcel located near Applicant's property spoke
at length against the Applicant's request.
George Marzicola, P.O. Box 47, Palm Desert, CA - Owner of
property at corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street
spoke at length against the Applicant's request.
Neil Liddicote, Gorton -Ashman Associates, 180 S. Lake
Avenue, Pasadena, CA - Representative for Mr. Marzicola's
firm who presented a preliminary analysis with regard to
traffic impacts which would result from the approval of
the Applicant's request.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Adams responded to some of the
comments presented by the above noted speakers.
There being no further comments, Chairman Thornburgh
closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. He then called
for the Commission's comments.
Commissioner Moran stated she would like to request this
matter be continued.
Commissioner Brandt stated she would like clarification
on the trip generations created by approval of this
request.
There being no further comments, Chairman Thornburgh
called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Chairman
Thornburgh, to continue this matter to their next regular
meeting of May 27, 1986, and directing Staff to provide
additional information regarding the traffic issues.
Unanimously Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next two hearing items, which
would be heard concurrently, as follows:
- 30 -
G. AMENDMENT TO LAND USE ORDINANCE, "SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL" ZONE,
A request for approval to amend the text of the Municipal
Land Use Ordinance No. 348, by adding the new zoning classi-
fication of "Special Residential" Zone; City Initiated.
(CONTINUED)
H. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-022, A request for approval to rezone
certain property located within the City as a "Special
Residential" Zone in order to bring the zoning into compliance
with the General Plan Land Use Plan; City Initiated.
(CONTINUED)
Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that rather than
give a protracted Staff Report, he would present the items
left from the last discussion regarding these matters to
see if they could come to a consensus.
After some discussion, there was a consensus of the
Planning Commission with regard to the issues presented
by Director Stevens on this matter as follows:
* To require concrete or clay tile roofing material
unless an adjustment has been approved.
With regard to fencing, explicitly require the fencing
and walls to be view obscuring; prohibit chainlink type
fencing unless it is used in conjunction with a plant
or vegetation screen; and allow screens of plantings,
or a combination of walls or fences and vegetation, as
a means to comply with the fencing requirement.
Regarding building design guidelines for multiple
approvals, to require developers or applicants who
have obtained or applied for 20 or more approvals for
single-family houses to submit master design guidelines
to the Planning Commission for approval.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:55 pm.
Audrey Ostrowsky, P.O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA - had
questions of the Commission regarding her particular
lots with respect to their sizes and her ability to be
able to split them. Also, stated she would like to see
landscaping used more with regard to the fencing issue,
rather than the wood, chainlink and stucco materials.
Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 11:00 pm.
There being no further discussion, he called for a motion.
- 31 -
2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to adopt the amendment to the
Municipal Land Use Ordinance by adding the "Special
Residential" Zone; and to approve, in concept, the
Manual on Architectural Standards for Single -Family
Houses and the Manual on Landscape Standards, as
amended, to conform with the provisions of the "Special
Residential" Zone. Unanimously Adopted.
1. Moving on to the second matter of the two being heard
concurrently, Director Stevens advised that the Change of
Zone request involves the property upon which would be
imposed the Special Residential zoning. He referred to
the maps displayed showing the areas of the proposed
zone change.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 11:05 pm.
There being no public comments, he closed the hearing at
11:06 pm.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to approve Change of Zone No. 86-022,
rezoning certain property from R-1*, R-1*++, R-2*-4000,
and R-3* to SR (Special Residential), in accordance with
Exhibit "A", and adoption of the negative declaration for
the Environmental Assessment No. 86-045. Unanimously
Adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the Consent Calendar which
consisted of 9 requests for approval to construct single-family
homes. There was a brief discussion regarding a minor change in
a condition relative to Item No. 4.C. Item 4.J. (Minutes) was
excluded from the Consent Calendar as there were none available.
He called for a motion.
Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Brandt, to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Unanimously
Adopted on a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner walling abstaining due
to a conflict of interest regarding Item No. 4.I.
BUSINESS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as
follows:
- 32 -
r .. 4
0
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-285, A request for approval to construct a
6,000-square-foot, golf maintenance facility for Oak Tree
West at the northeast corner of Avenida Nuestra and Calle
Rondo; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the
Staff Report.
1. Planning Assistant Wallace Nesbit presented the Staff
Report. He referred the Commission to the wall render-
ings, explaining that this represented what the Applicant
proposes to build. The location of the project is at the
northeast corner of Avenida Nuestra and Calle Rondo at
Oak Tree West. Basically, Staff had some concerns rela-
tive to the compatibility of the building to the existing
residential subdivision to the west and also with respect
to access considerations as shown on Calle Rondo. Staff
recommends that the access be redesigned to access from
Avenue 52 and that, if necessary, the site be redesigned
to accommodate that access. Relative to the building
characteristics, the Applicant submitted this date the
elevations shown on the wall rendering, changing from
the original proposal of asphalt shingle, hip style roof
with 5 and 12 roof pitch, to a flat roof design. Staff
feels there is no problem with that design change, as it
would address some of the compatibility problems we had
with the original design as it exceeded the perimeter
height limit as specified in the Oak Tree West Specific
Plan's conditions of approval.
Relative to the access, the Applicant has moved the access
approximately 200' north, but still shows it on Calle
Rondo. Staff does not recommend any permanent, primary
access onto Calle Rondo due to that directing commercial
traffic down residential streets. Therefore, Staff is
keeping with their request to have the access from Avenue
52. This concluded Staff's report.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff would
have no objection to a condition that allowed temporary
access onto Calle Rondo pending the construction of the
Avenue 52 improvements. Also, support of the flat -roofed
building would be contingent upon an appropriate view
obscuring design, including berms, walls and/or mature
citrus. Staff would also not object to short delays in
the actual installation of the citrus based on weather
associated conditions provided there were appropriate
performance guarantees.
Issues discussed by the Planning Commission are as
follows:
- 33 -
* Whether access from Rondo should be allowed as
requested or should be changed to require access
from Avenue 52.
* The general location of the facility as it relates
to surrounding property.
* The need to reduce building height through redesign
and various site adjustments.
The Commission concluded that the Calle Rondo access was
acceptable due to the small amount of traffic and the
building and site design should be modified to more
effectively screen the structure.
Chairman Thornburgh called upon the Applicant for any
comment.
Brian Curley, P.O. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA - Landscape
Architect for Landmark Land Company - appeared in support
of the project, emphasizing the desirability of the Rondo
access and providing revised site and building design
alternatives.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the
Commission to revise the conditions of approval as
follows:
* To require redesign of the building to lower its
overall height and maintain a pitched roof more
typical of residential construction (Condition Nos.
7 and 13).
* To allow access via Calle Rondo, but with a
curvilinear design (Condition No. 12).
At this point, Mr. Curley noted his concurrence with the
revised conditions.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner De Gasperin, to approve Plot Plan No.
86-285, based on the Findings in the Staff Report and
subject to the conditions of approval, as amended, in
accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C. Unanimously
Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of business as
follows:
- 34 -
te, 4
6.
B. 1986 GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - CYCLE II. He called for
Staff's Report.
1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that Staff
recommends extending the land area to be considered
in this proposal as discussed in the study session.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Brandt, to approve the scope of consid-
eration for the 1986 General Plan Review - Cycle II
to include the following:
General Plan Amendment No. 86-012; consider amending
the Land Use Plan of the Community Development Element
for the land area requested by the Applicant, and also
for the 20-acre area located at the northwest corner
of Miles Avenue and Adams Street.
Unanimously Adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Walling to adjourn to a study session to be held at 5:30 p.m.,
May 27, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado,
La Quinta, California.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 11:45 p.m., May 13, 1986,
in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California.
- 35 -
M I N U T E S
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
May 27, 1986 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m. and led all present in the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; the Secretary
called the roll:
Present: Commissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling
and Chairman Thornburgh
Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L.
Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, and Secretary
Donna M. Velotta. Councilpersons Judith Cox and Fred Wolff
were also present.
Absent: None.
3. HEARINGS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing as follows:
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-274, a request to construct three, two-story,
retail/office buildings totaling 10,216 square feet on a .846-acre
site; John Feld, La Quinta, Ltd., Partnership - Applicant. He
called for the Staff Report.
1. Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens reminded
the Commission that this matter had been continued from
their last meeting to give the Applicant more time to submit
additional information on the project to Staff. The deadline
for that information to be submitted to the Planning Division
was May 22, 1986. He noted that as of May 22, 1986, no con-
tact had been made by the Applicant, nor was any information
received. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission table this matter until such time as the requested
information is received. At that time, the project will be
set for hearing and renoticed.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Brandt, to table Plot Plan No. 86-274 until such time that
the Applicant submits additional information requested.
Unanimously Adopted.
I!�p
E
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three hearing matters,
which will be heard concurrently.
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-009, a request to amend the text
of the Community Development Element by adding a new classifi-
cation, "Very High Density Residential" (16-24 units/acre), and
to amend the Land Use Plan on a 30.01-acre site from Medium
Density Residential (4-8 units/acre) and High Density Residential
(8-16 units/acre) to Very High Density Residential (16-24 units/
acre); Western Corporation, Applicant.(Continued)
D. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 85-020, a request for a zone change on the
30.01-acre site from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Dwellings, 3350
square foot net lot area per dwelling unit) to R-3 (General
Commercial); Western Corporation, Applicant. (Continued)
E. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-254, a request for approval of a 688-unit
apartment project on a 28.64-acre portion of the 30.01-acre
site; Western Corporation, Applicant. (Continued)
He then called for the Staff Reports.
1. Director Stevens reminded the Commission that all three
of the requests noted by Chairman Thornburgh had been
continued from their last meeting of May 13.
Relative to the General Plan Amendment, Director Stevens
advised that the Applicant is requesting an amendment to
the General Plan text, Community Development Element, to
create a "Very High Density Residential" Land Use Category
(16-24 units per acre); and is also requesting an amendment
to the General Plan Land Use Map near Calle Tampico and
Desert Club Drive from Medium to High Density Residential
to "Very High Density Residential".
At the last Commission meeting, they requested Staff to
prepare alternatives of various methods to allow the increase
in density requested by the Applicant. Director Stevens
reviewed four (4) alternatives prepared by Staff for their
consideration.
Director Stevens went on to the second component of the
application which is the change of zone request. He advised
the Commission that the Applicant is requesting a change of
zone to R-3 basically to facilitate the development, primarily
because the R-2 Zone has a limitation on density at 13 units
per acre based on the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan; and the
R-2 Zone also provides for some limits as to the maximum
number of units that can be in a particular building. The
R-3 Zone is a more general, apartment zone and should you
approve the project, the R-3 Zone would be an appropriate
regulatory device. Staff has prepared Findings for approval
of the change of zone should you determine that it is an
- 2 -
0
action. The R-3 Zone is the most suitable zone that we
currently have available. He further advised that, as had
been discussed previously, that we may in the future opt
for a different type of zoning district particularly for
affordable housing projects that may give us a better regu-
latory device for standard apartment projects.
Director Stevens addressed the last issue which is the
project approval. He described the proposed project's size,
density, location and content. He reminded the Commission
of their discussion of issues which were of concern to them
at the May 13 meeting. Staff has attempted to address thos6
issues and other concerns which they felt appropriate in
preparing Findings which would allow the Commission to approve
the project, should they wish to do so; and has prepared a
series of conditions for the Planning Commission to consider
if they desire to approve the plot plan. Director Stevens
reviewed the conditions of approval.
Lastly, Director Stevens reiterated to the Commission that
Staff's recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, the
Change of Zone, and the Plot Plan is for denial. This
concluded Staff's report.
There was a short discussion period between the Commission
and Staff.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comments
at 7:30 p.m.
The Applicant/Representatives who spoke in support of the
project are as follows;
* Tim Ealey, President - Western Corporation, 74-075 E1 Paseo,
Palm Desert, CA
* Craig Combs, Architect for project - 1535 Monrovia,
Newport Beach, CA
* George Parmenter, Project Traffic Engineer - J. F.
Davidson, 10200 S. Mt. Vernon, Colton, CA
* Mike Smith, Engineer - J. F. Davidson, 73-080 E1 Paseo,
Suite 103, Palm Desert, CA
The following persons spoke in favor of the project:
* Bruce Cathcart, P. 0. Box 346, La Quinta, CA
The following persons spoke in opposition of the project:
* Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA
* Kiki Haynes, 51-945 Avenida Velasco, La Quinta, CA
- 3 -
11
* Ann Young, 77-526 Calle Nogales, La Quinta, CA
* Dorothy Becker, 53-700 Avenida Diaz, La Quinta, CA
* Wayne Nordstrom, 78-094 Calle Norte, La Quinta, CA
* Gene Sheffner, La Quinta, CA
There are also several letters on file in the Planning
Division regarding this matter.
At this time, Tim Ealey of Western Corporation, spoke in
rebuttal to some of the public comments.
Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
There was considerable discussion among the Commissioners
on the General Plan Amendment application. Primary issues were:
- Reasons that the General Plan was adopted with a maximum
of 16 dwelling units per acre.
- Need for higher density to provide support for development.
- Benefits of a density bonus for affordable housing.
- Opportunity to encourage "good design" with density bonus.
- Need for flexibility in General Plan.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a Very
High Density or Affordable High Density Residential Land Use
Designation would not be appropriate, but that a density
bonus system with associated text modifications to the General
Plan would be the better approach to allowing some higher
density projects.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Walling, to approve General Plan Amendment No. 86-009 per
Alternative 2A set forth in the Staff Report, which retains
the existing Medium and High Density designations on the
30-acre site, but creates a density bonus system as follows:
* Up to 25% for housing affordable for moderate incomes.
* Up to 35% (not cumulative) for housing affordable to
low and very low incomes.
* Up to 10% for particularly desirable design amenities.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh
NAYS: Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin.
Unanimously Adopted on a 3-2 vote.
- 4 -
Moving on to the Change of Zone request, there was no
substantive discussions by the Planning Commission on
matters directly relating to the application.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
3. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Moran, to approve Change of Zone No. 85-020 based upon the
Findings in the Staff Report dated May 27, 1986.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling, and Chairman
Thornburgh
NAYS: Commissioner De Gasperin
Unanimously Adopted on a 4-1 vote.
Addressing the Plot Plan application, the Planning Commission
discussed it at great length. The primary items of discussion
were as follows:
- Appropriate density for the project, including the granting
of any density bonuses.
- Design of Tampico entrance.
- Building separation within the project.
- Adequate guarantees for mature landscaping.
- Appropriateness of three-story buildings.
- Adequacy of recreation facilities.
- Traffic and related on- and off -site road improvements.
After discussion of the conditions of approval, it was the
consensus of the Commission to revise them as follows:
19. - 633 apartments at 21.1 dwelling units/acre
20% bonus for affordable housing (96 units at
3.2 dwelling units/acre)
- 10% bonus for subterranean parking (57 units)
26. - 3 stories at maximum height of 36 feet
- 2 stories at maximum height of 25 feet
36. Community Development Department to approve plan.
40. 20% bonus for affordable housing.
45. Planning Commission review required.
58. 24-hour, manned gate and related security is required.
Both Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin dissented on the
approval of density bonuses and three-story buildings.
- 5 -
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
4. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-254 subject
to conditions of approval, as amended. Unanimously Adopted.
(Commissioners Brandt and De Gasperin dissented on the
approval of density bonuses and three-story buildings.)
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows:
B. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 83-001, AMENDMENT NO. 3, a request to amend
the "Duna La Quinta" project by decreasing the site from 246 to
180 acres, increasing residential densities within portions of
the project, and increasing the total number of dwellings from
1,146 to 1,2265 units; Landmark Land Company of California, Inc.,
Applicant. '(Continued)
He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that this request
relates somewhat to the Western project in that Phase 7 of
that project is the Western site. It does enter into some
issues for the entire Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The
Applicant and Staff are generally in agreement regarding the
density issue in that Phases 2 and 5 and Phase 3 be modified.
Staff is recommending a one-story (201) height limitation
within 200' of the project perimeter, except where the
existing channel is located, and within 200' of public
streets. The Applicant objects to this, so you will have
to determine what the appropriate height limit condition
would be.
Staff is also in disagreement relative to the dedication of
additional park land or in lieu fees. Staff is recommending
that a site be dedicated between 5-10 acres, similar to the
Oak Tree Plan. Director Stevens advised the Commission that
they may opt to go for the park condition proposed on the
Western project in lieu of this condition. If that would be
your desire, Staff can modify the language and reference the
plot plan. This concluded the staff report.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:15 P.M.
Kevin Manning, Planner for Landmark Land Company, the
Applicant, P. O. Box 1058, La Quinta, CA - spoke noting
concerns with the density changes, the building height limits
and additional park dedication.
Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 9:20 p.m.
In their discussion on this matter, the Planning Commission
considered the following issues:
Density - primarily as it relates to Phase 7 (Western)
and Phase 3 (the estate lots).
Building height limits.
Additional park dedication.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
De Gasperin, to approve Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment
#3, as recommended by Staff, revising the "Staff Recommended
Density Chart", and subject to conditions of approval, as
amended. Unanimously Adopted on a 4-0 vote, as Commissioner
Walling abstained due to a conflict of interest.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows:
F. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-011, a request to amend the General
Plan Land Use Plan on a 154.5-acre site from High Density
Residential to Mixed Use Commercial; a related request initiated
by the City to designate Avenue 48 and Adams Street as the
"Highway 111 Bypass", and to upgrade Adams Street on the Circulation
Plan from Secondary to Primary Arterial; M. B. Johnson Properties,
Applicant. (Continued)
He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens reminded the Commission that this matter
has been continued from their meeting of May 13, at which
time, questions were raised about traffic, as well as other
issues. Staff has contacted BSI concerning trip generation
rates and we have made some notes on the "Trip Generation
Comparison" chart submitted by the Applicant, for your review.
This concluded Staff's report.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:47 p.m.
The Applicant, M. B. Johnson of 74-140 El Paseo, Palm Desert,
CA; and a representative, John Adams of Psomas/Harrison,
3901 Lime Street, Riverside, CA, spoke in support of the
request noting past history, the proposed conceptual plan
and ongoing studies related to the site.
The following persons spoke against the request; one of whom
is a property owner in the corridor area, and one who is a
consultant for that property owner.
* Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta, CA.
* Maurice Kurtz, 1231 4th Street, Santa Monica, CA.
* George Marzicola, P. O. Box 47, Palm Desert, CA.
The main issues cited by these people were as follows:
- 7 -
!I''J
- The change in land use from residential to Mixed Use
Commercial will generate substantially more traffic
than that created by High Density Residential.
- There is already sufficient area within the Highway 111
Corridor which is designated as Mixed Use Commercial.
- The General Plan Amendment should be processed concurrently
with a specific development proposal.
As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Thornburgh closed
the public hearing at 10:10 p.m.
During the Planning Commission discussion, the land use
consistency and traffic impacts of the request were noted.
Regarding land use, it was determined that the redesignation
would be a logical expansion of the Highway 111 Corridor
commercial area, and that this redesignation is consistent
with what the site would have been designated on the Land
Use Plan, if it had not been for the approved "Isla
Mediterranea" project. Regarding traffic, the majority agreed
that the provision of a traffic study at the time of the
submittal of the required master site plan will provide
adequate opportunity for the review of traffic impacts through
the approval of the type and size of land uses, and the on -
site development and circulation plans. Approval of the
master plan is required prior to approval of any land division
or use permit requests on the site.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to recommend approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 86-011, an amendment of the Land Use Plan from
High Density Residential to Mixed Use Commercial, in accordance
with Exhibit "A"; and to recommend approval of an amendment to
the Infrastructure Element and Circulation Plan designating
Adams Street/Avenue 48 as the "Highway 111 Bypass", and
reclassifying Adams Street as a Primary Arterial. Chairman
Thornburgh requested a roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioners De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and
Chairman Thornburgh
NAYS: Commissioner Brandt
Unanimously Adopted on a 4-1 vote.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next hearing item as follows:
G. PUBLIC USE CASE NO. 86-003, approval to expand an existing
private school from 35 to 150 students and to construct six
additional classrooms and one multi -purpose building; Marywood"
Country Day School, Applicant. He then called for the Staff
Report.
1. Director Stevens addressed this matter by first identifying
the location of this existing private school which consists
of Kindergarten through 6th grade, with approximately 35
students. There are related play areas, kitchen facilities,
administrative offices, etc., located on the site. The
proposal is to expand the site to allow for six additional
classrooms and other additional facilities, and to expand
the number of students to 150. Director Stevens used the
rendering to further describe the proposed project.
He advised the Commission that in the Staff Report, Staff
has addressed a number of concerns. Those concerns can be
categorized into two types.
- Adequacy of fire protection and water service: The
Applicant has been meeting with the Fire Marshal and
CVWD, but has yet to resolve these concerns.
- Land use and traffic concerns: the basic question
here is whether or not a private school facility of
this size is appropriate to and compatible with
surrounding residential uses.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that at the present
time, it is Staff's judgment that we do not have sufficient
information on fire flow or about the potential concern
from the Commission or neighbors on the traffic/land use
issues. It would be our recommendation, upon the conclusion
of hearing public testimony on these and other issues related
to this public use permit application, that the matter be
continued to at least the June 10 Planning Commission meeting
in order to obtain this additional information from the
Applicant. This concluded Staff's report.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:25 p.m.
The following persons spoke in support of the proposal:
* Mary O'Neill, Director of Marywood Country Day School,
La Quinta, CA.
* Jack Tiano, 15 Clancy Lane, Rancho Mirage, CA.
* Kathy Cole, 80-041 Avenue 50, Indio, CA.
* Judy Melcasian, Co-founder of school
The following persons spoke in opposition to the proposal:
* Robert Hamilton, 54-775 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA.
* Bud Seitz, 54-621 Avenida Juarez, La Quinta, CA.
* Audrey Ostrowsky, P. 0. Box 351, La Quinta, CA.
* Patricia Klimkiewicz, 54-880 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA.
* Jack Barth, 77-125 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA.
11
[I]
* Bob Griffis, 54-805 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, CA.
There are also a number of letters on file in the
Planning Division.
Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m.
After a brief discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh called
for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Moran, to continue Public Use Case No. 86-003 to the Planning
Commission meeting of June 10, 1986, to allow the Applicant
time to submit information on the provision of adequate fire
flow and to prepare and submit a revised site plan.
Unanimously Adopted.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Thornburgh identified the first item under the Consent
Calendar as follows:
A. STREET VACATION NO. 85-010, approval to vacate portions of Adams
Street between a point 1827.2 feet north of the Avenue 50 center-
line, southerly to a point approximately 2630 feet south of the
Avenue 52 centerline; City -Initiated and Landmark Land Company,
Applicants. He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that basically this
is a General Plan consistency determination. The Council
conducts a hearing and determines whether or not to approve
it and considers your report on consistency. Since we do
not show local streets and since we have approved a number
of specific plans, the consistency finding is obvious. We
may have some problems with an adjacent land -locked parcel,
but it can probably be resolved through conditioning the
vacation and the development of some adjacent sites where we
may want to extend some local streets that aren't otherwise
shown on the General Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that
the Commission determine the vacation to be consistent with
the General Plan and forward that recommendation to the City
Council.
Chairman Thornburgh requested that Director Stevens make note
of the land -locked parcel so that we do not lose tract of it.
With regard to Items J, O, and P, the Commission requested that
a condition be added requiring concrete or clay tile roofing
material on each of these single-family homes.
With regard to the minutes of April 22, 1986, Commissioner Moran
requested a statement be entered relative to Plot Plan No. 86-295
stating that the Applicant did not have an opportunity to review
Staff's revised parking plan prior to this meeting.
- 10 -
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Moran, to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 86-001 determining that
Street Vacation No. 86-010 is in conformance with the General
Plan; to approve Plot Plan Nos. 86-290 through 86-294, Plot
Plan Nos. 86-307 through 86-316, based on the findings in the
Staff Reports, in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C, and
subject to conditions of approval attached to each request, as
amended; and to approve the Minutes of April 22, 1986, as amended.
Unanimously Adopted with Commissioner Walling abstaining relative
to Item A of the Consent Calendar.
5. BUSINESS
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Chairman
Thornburgh, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held on June 10, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 11:01 p.m., May 27, 1986,
in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California.
M I N U T E S
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
July 8, 1986
1. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 p.m.
A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.; Commissioner Moran led the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; the Secretary
called the roll.
Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling and Chairman
Thornburgh
Absent: Commissioner De Gasperin
Also present were Community Development Director Lawrence L.
Stevens and Secretary Donna M. Velotta.
Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Walling, to excuse Commissioner De Gasperin. Unanimously
Adopted.
3. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR PLANNING COMMISSION
Director Stevens opened nominations for the office of Chairman of
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Walling nominated Thomas Thornburgh for this office.
There being no further nominations, Director Stevens closed the
nominations for the office of Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Brandt made a motion that Thomas Thornburgh be
reelected to the Office of Chairman of the Planning Commission by
acclamation. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion. Unanimously
Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh opened the nominations for the office of Vice
Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moran nominated John Walling for this office. There
being no further nominations, Chairman Thornburgh closed the
nominations for the Office of Vice Chairman of the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Moran made a motion that John Walling be reelected to
the Office of Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by
acclamation. Commissioner Brandt seconded the motion. Unanimously
Adopted.
4. HEARINGS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of hearing as
follows:
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-217, AMENDMENT #1, a request for approval to
construct an approximately 100,000-square-foot Office/
Commercial/Medical/Restaurant commercial complex; La Quinta
Medical/Commercial Plaza, Ltd., Applicants. He then called
for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that the Applicant
is requesting approval to revise the "Plaza Tampico"
Commercial Office Center. Although the site plan layout
is basically the same as the conceptual plan approved on
12/10/85, building size and design, landscaping and pedes-
trian amenities have been substantially changed. Rather
than conceptual approval, the plans have been revised to
incorporate many of the previous City related concerns for
specific construction approval of the entire office/
commercial center. He then described the building plans.
The project contains 101,383 square feet of building floor
space. Access to the site is from two main and two
secondary entrances on Desert Club Drive and Calle
Tampico.
Director Stevens stated that the main reasons this appli-
cation is again before the Commission are changes in the
exterior elevations and for the increase in floor area
and to familiarize you with the implementation of the
conditions that you have previously applied to the site
plan.
In general, Staff feels that the exterior elevations are
significantly better than the original proposal, particu-
larly the addition of the tower element. Director Stevens
stated there are a couple of very minor issues raised in
the Staff Report relative to building and tower height
that Staff is requesting you to make determinations on.
The main concern raised in the Staff Report is the parking
issue. Director Stevens presented a detailed report
regarding this matter.
- 2 -
Staff's recommendation is that the amended plot plan be
approved subject to the conditions contained in the Staff
report. This concluded Staff's presentation.
After a brief discussion, Chairman Thornburgh opened the
public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Skip Fonner - 521 24th Street, Santa Monica, CA, and
Peter Givas, Project Architect, of the firm Ogren, Juarez,
& Givas, Planners and Architects, 2017 "O" Street,
Sacramento, CA, appeared on behalf of the Applicant and
supported the Staff recommendation with only minor changes
to parking and architectural conditions.
There being no further public comments, Chairman
Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Discussion by the Planning Commission on this matter
included:
- Landscaped setback along Tampico
- Improvements to building architecture
- Review of building/tower heights
- Concern about the number of parking spaces
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that, with
minor changes to the conditions, the project should be
approved. The changes the Commission requested are as
follows:
* Change Condition #13(b), under Item #7 in the Staff
Report to add the following:
"Retail areas shall have approximately 20% of the
floor area for storage, restrooms and related needs."
*.Change Condition #13(c), under Item #7 in the Staff
Report to read as follows:
"A minimum of 398 parking spaces shall be provided,
including an adjustment not to exceed 12.5% to
accommodate multiple -use, shared parking. The
number of spaces required may be adjusted by the
Community Development Director as appropriate to
reflect minor changes in floor area and building
uses. Uses may be switched from the assignments in
sub -condition (a) above between buildings with
approval of the Community Development Director
provided that it is demonstrated that sufficient
parking is available."
- 3 -
II 1
0
* Change Asterisk #4, under Item #10 of the Staff Report,
to allow 30'8" building height with towers to be the
height as shown on plans submitted.
* Change Asterisk #5, under Item #10, to add the following:
,,If possible, the roof line....."
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, based on the findings in the Staff
Report, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-217, Amendment #1,
in accordance with all Exhibits A, B, and C, and subject
to conditions of approval dated 12/10/85, as amended.
Unanimously Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as
follows:
B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 86-012, a request to amend the
La Quinta General Plan Land Use Plan on 27.5 acres from
Medium Density Residential (4-8 dwellings per acre)
)tco
nsider
r
Density Residential (8-16 dwellings per acre);
and a possible amendment to the General Plan Circulation Plan
redesignating Miles Avenue, and/or those portions of Adams
Street and/or Dune Palms Road north of Highway 111, from
Secondary Arterials (88' right-of-way width) to Primary
Arterials (100'-110'right-of-way width); and to consider a
City -Initiated, related proposal to amend the Land Use Plan
on 17.4 acres located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue
and Adams Street from Medium Density Residential to High
Density Residential; J.C.C. Enterprises/City-Initiated;
Applicants. He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that included in
their packets is a letter Staff received onbMonday
from
the rawn from
Applicant requesting that this application
consideration during Cycle II and placed for reconsideration
during Cycle III, which is our next General Plan review. He
reuestedon to cept ter and take no
tonight.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Moran, to accept the Applicant's request for withdrawal of
General Plan Amendment No. 86-012 from Cycle II General Plan
Review and place the request for reconsideration during the
Cycle III General Plan review. Unanimously Adopted.
- 4 -
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt
to accept the Consent Calendar, as amended.
6. BUSINESS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as
follows:
A. ADAMS STREET REALIGNMENT DESIGN, a request for conceptual
approval of the design of the Adams Street realignment
between Avenue 50 and Calle Tampico; Rufus Associates,
Applicant.' He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens stated this is to advise the Planning
Commission of the proposed realignment of Adams Street
through the Rufus property to line up with the school
park entrance on the opposite side of the street. The
engineer has reviewed the design and it meets all the
appropriate engineering standards. Therefore, Staff
recommends that you conceptually approve the Adams Street
realignment.
Commissioner Walling informed Chairman Thornburgh that
he had a conflict of interest relative to this matter,
so he abstained from commenting and voting.
In discussing this matter, the Planning Commission
expressed concern that pedestrian/bicycle access be
provided at Avenue 52 and Calle Rondo to tie into this
link.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to approve the realignment of Adams
Street to match the park/school entrance road.
Unanimously Adopted on a 3-0 vote (Commissioner Walling
abstained due to conflict of interest; Commissioner
De Gasperin absent).
The last item of business was introduced by Chairman Thornburgh
as follows:
B. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-340, a request for approval to construct a
single-family house on the west side of Eisenhower Drive,
100' south of Calle Arroba; Deseret Homes, Applicant. He
call for Staff's report.
- 5 -
0
1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that Staff has a
particular concern with regard to the floor plan for this
single-family dwelling request. One of the bedrooms for
the facility opens directly onto a courtyard without any
direct connection into the remainder of the house. It is
Staff's judgment, in essence, that there will be a granny
flat or a rental. Therefore, not being an approved use in
a single-family zone, it is Staff's judgment that the plan
does not comply with development standards we have been
applying to other single-family developments in the area.
As a result, it is Staff's recommendation to continue this
matter and ask the Applicant to redesign the plan to inte-
grate that bedroom into the main dwelling in terms of its
access and design. This concluded the Staff Report.
Chairman Thornburgh asked the Applicant if he wished to
speak on the matter.
Skip Lynch, P. O. Box 2848, La Jolla, CA, spoke to the
Commission advising them that he has revised the plans to
comply with Staff's request. He then presented the
Commission and Staff with a copy of the revised plan.
Upon review, it was the consensus of the Commission that
the revised plans presented by the Applicant at this
meeting are in compliance with City standards and there-
fore they could rule on this matter at this meeting
rather than continue it to the next one.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by
Commissioner Moran, to approve Plot Plan 86-340 subject
to the revised plans and conditions of approval, as
amended. Unanimously Adopted.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Walling to adjourn to a special joint meeting with the City
Council to be held on July 14, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., in the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
The regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was
adjourned at 8:05 p.m., July 8, 1986, at the La Quinta City Hall,
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
ITEM NO.
DATE 7 Z Z 9'Z
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN ViALLING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN WALLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION: a h-Q-czv-j�
Q
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*AIISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT
DE GASPERIN _
MORAN
WALLING
THORNBURGH
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
Marywoo[d
Country 2)ay Jc400[a
pEVEISPyENr
C',Pr
July 14, 1986
Members, La Quinta Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-105 Valle I.Estado, La Quinta, CA,
Dear Board Members,
As you well realize, the expansion of Narywood Country
Day School was imperative. Since the city of La Quinta
could not assist us in our development, we found it
necessary to relocate our private elementary school
in Rancho Mirage, CA.
Please be advised that we will maintain our present
location as "The I,aryti:ood Kindergarten".
Yours truly,
Mary otiieill,
Founder, Director
MARY O'NEILL
DkWt . 77.224 Potrero
564-1344 P.O. Boa 627
Sa-4285 Le Oulnte, Ca. 92253
0 MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
5.14
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: PUBLIC USE CASE NO. 86-003
LOCATION: North Side of Calle Potrero, Between Avenida Juarez
and Avenida Madero
APPLICANT: Marywood Country Day School
REQUEST: Approval to Expand an Existing Private School from 35 to
150 Students and to Construct Six Additional Classrooms
and one Multi -Purpose Building.
The Applicant has withdrawn their request to expand the school use by
increasing the student enrollment and adding new buildings. The use
will continue in operation as an elementary school with a maximum of
35 students as allowed under the Public Use Permit No. 425-E, which
was approved by Riverside County in 1981.
No action is required by the Planning Commission on this withdrawal
of the request.
The letter from Coachella Valley Water District regarding improve-
ments to the Cove area water system is attached for informational
purposes only.
PREPARED BY: ;APPR VED BY:
2 Aelr
/Sandra L. Bonner Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Principal Planner Community Development Director
SLB:LLS:dmv
Atch: Letter from CVWD, Dated 6/25/86
Z
ESTA6lISHED IN 1916 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY1i"���JJJ �
411 y COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX io56 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS
RAYMONDR RUMMONDS. PRESIDENT
TWA K CODS AS VICE PRESIDENT
JOHN P. POWELL
MIA. W. NICHOLS
THEODORE J. FISH
Mary O'Neill
Marywood Country Day School
Post Office Box 627
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Ms. O'Neill:
Subject
OFFICERS
THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
SERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
NETTH H. AINSAORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUDITOR
REDANE AND SHERRILL ATTORNEYS
June 25, 1986
Marywood Country Day School
File: 0421.2
The Board of Directors has asked me to respond to your letter dated June 6,
1986, concerning the water supply for the Marywood Country Day School.
It appears the two members of your Board that met with me on May 23, 1986, to
discuss your proposed expansion and the water system improvement -needed for it,
did not fully inform you of our discussions.
The water system in La Quints. was constructed in the early 1930s when the County
of Riverside had not established any fire flow requirements for development.
Therefore, the subdivider was able to install a 2-inch diameter pipeline to
serve the lots adjacent to the Marywood Country Day School. At a later date, a
4-inch diameter pipeline was constructed in Avenida Juarez on the east side of
the school. Neither of these lines were designed to provide any significant
fire flow.
Over the past years, the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta have
established fire flow requirements on new developments. However, the mutual
water company and private water company which operated the La Quinta water
system prior to this District acquiring it in October 1985, did not upgrade the
system to meet these requirements. This was due to the high cost of replacing
all of the pipelines throughout La Quinta.
We acquired the La Quinta water system in October 1985. Since that time we have
committed over $3 million for the upgrading of the water system. Some of the
improvements are:
1. Construction of 13,500 feet of 30-inch diameter pipeline in Washington
Street, Calle Tampico, and Avenida Bermudas.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Mary O'Neill -2- June 25, 1986
2. Construction of a 5 million gallon steel reservoir to serve the Lower
La Quints Pressure Zone.
3. Construction of a new well to provide additional supply.
4. Construction of 3,000 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline in Calle Ensenada.
5. Construction of a 1.0 million gallon reservoir to serve the Middle La
Quints Pressure Zone.
6. Construction of 7,000 feet of 18-inch pipeline to connect the reservoirs to
the Middle and Upper La Quints Pressure Zones.
7. Construction of 2,700 feet of 18-inch diameter pipeline in Eisenhower from
Avenue 50 to Calle Tampico.
In addition to the above, we have budgeted the construction of a reservoir to
serve the Upper La Quinta Pressure Zone and the remaining pipeline to connect
it. We have also budgeted to replace the deteriorating pipeline in Avenida
oelasco and to upgrade the booster station which serves the Middle La Quinta
Pressure Zone.
The La Quints Cove water system requires replacement of almost every pipeline,
well, reservoir, and booster station in the system. We estimate that it will
cost $8,000,000 in order to accomplish this. We are committed to upgrade the
system, however, you must recognize that it cannot be done all at once. In
order to upgrade the La Quinta water system you must start by building new wells
to provide the supply, major pipelines to transport the water from the wells to
the community, and storage reservoirs to hold the water for fire protection and
emergency storage. We have implemented this improvement program as indicated
above.
Unfortunately, the Marywood Country Day School is located at the southwest
corner of the La Quinta Cove. This is at the opposite end of where we have to
start in order to upgrade the system by constructing wells, reservoirs and
pipelines.
We understand your frustration, however, it would not do us any good to
construct major pipelines in your portion of the Cove without having the
facilities to provide the water to them.
You refer to there being no pressure in the fire hydrant in April 1986 when the
Fire Marshall attempted to conduct a fire flow test. Review of our records
indicated that the system was valved off temporarily for repair of a leak in a
deteriorated pipeline. Naturally, as domestic water service is obtained from
this same pipeline, the period of disruption of service was very limited and the
systems were turned on again as soon as the repair was completed. As I am sure
you can appreciate with a 50-year-old badly deteriorated system, leaks do occur ..
and must be repaired.
COACHELLA VALLEY AATEO OISTHCT
Mary O'Neill -3- June 25, 1986
I think you can see from the above that the District is committed to upgrading
the water system in La Quinta and has been working very actively on achieving
this. We are committed to improve the system as rapidly as possible given the
available funds. However, it will require time to replace a system which should
have been replaced over the last 50 years.
During the meeting on May 23, 1986, it was indicated that with the upgrading
which the District currently has underway, increased fire flow would be
available to the Marywood Country Day School provided the school constructed a
12-inch diameter pipeline across the cove to the new pipeline that we are
constructing in Avenida Velasco. This pipeline would be approximately 2,400
feet in length and cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The cost of this
pipeline would be at your expense.
I hope that this information will resolve your concern about the District
meeting its commitment to upgrade the La Quinta Cove water system. We are
looking forward to working with you and the School in the future.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
TEL:ra
I COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
"M2i1Pd �• FIR.
ITEM NO. S ,
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN �[ViATLING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY. BRANDT DE GASPERIN MDRAN �V�F:LLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION: aG� ����
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*BETS S IONERS :
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
~ T
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: July 18, 1986
Subject: RESOLUTION/MANUALS RE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
HOUSES AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
The Resolution and Manuals in final form will be presented at either
the Study Session or at the regular meeting for final approval.
SUB TTE� p
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
LLS:dmv
MEMORANDUM'"
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: Manuals on Architectural and Landscape Standards for
Single -Family Houses.
Attached for your review and adoption are the resolution and design
manuals for single-family houses in the City. The manuals have been
revised to be consistent with the provisions of the "Special
Residential Single -Family" Zone which was approved for adoption by
the City Council on July 15, 1986.
No substantial changes have been made in the manuals from those
recommended by the Planning Commission at their May 13, 1986 hearing
on the related amendment to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance.
Staff is currently researching the following additional design
standards which will be presented at a later date to the Planning
Commission for their consideration for inclusion into the manuals:
Recommended plant species, sizes, and spacing for
materials to be used in vegetation screens.
Energy conservation methods for building and
landscape design.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the
recommends adoption of the Manual
Manual on Landscape Standards, in
Planning Commission resolution.
PREPARED BY:
AB�onner
Sandra
Principal Planner
SLB:dmv
Atch: PC Resolution No. 86-002
Community Development Department
on Architectural Standards and the
accordance with the attached
7awr�ence
OVED��-
L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 86-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MANUAL ON
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND THE MANUAL ON LANDSCAPE
STANDARDS.
WHEREAS, the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission have
recommended adoption of Ordinance No. 86-94 amending the Municipal
Land Use Ordinance No. 348 by adding the "Special Residential
Single -Family" Zone; and
WHEREAS, the "Special Residential Single -Family" Zone requires
the Planning Commission to adopt a Manual on Architectural Standards
and a Manual on Landscape Standards; and
WHEREAS, the manuals will provide necessary guidelines for site
and building design and development in accordance with the intent and
standards of the "Special Residential Single -Family" Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Manual on Architectural Standards will provide
guidelines for additional design treatment of the single-family
houses in order to improve the overall appearance, and also to
provide architectural variety within residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Manual on Landscape Standards will provide addi-
tional guidelines for water conserving methods for landscaping and
irrigation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, does hereby adopt the "Manual on
Architectural Standards for Single -Family Houses", and the "Manual
on Landscape Standards", copies of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though set forth at length.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
day of , 1986, by the
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 86-002
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
CITY ATTORNEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
- 2 -
SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ZONE
9.03.010 PURPOSE: The SR Zoning District is generally appropriate
where a density of between four (4) and eight (8) units per
acre is provided for in the General Plan of the City. It
is intended to provide development standards for single-
family residential uses and to assure high quality
development especially in the "Cove" area.
9.03.020 ALLOWABLE USES: The following uses shall be allowed in the
SR Zone subject to obtaining a Precise Plan approval as
provided by Section 9.03.040.A (Precise Plan):
A. Single -Family Dwellings
B. Accessory buildings and uses incidental to the
use of the property as a single-family residence.
C. Home Occupations (See Section 18.42)
D. Small and Large Family Daycare homes pursuant to
the State Health and Safety Code
E. Residential Care Facilities, where the number of
residents under care is six (6) or fewer, pursuant
to the State Welfare and Institutions Code
F. Temporary real estate tract offices located within
a subdivision, to be used only for and during the
original sale of the subdivision (Section 18.30)
G. Public Facilities and Utilities
9.03.021 CONDITIONAL USES: The following uses may be allowed in the
SR Zone subject to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit as
provided by Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permits):
A. Educational Institutions, not including trade or
vocational schools
B. Churches, Temples and other places of religious
worship
C. Second Unit or "Granny Flat" within a single-family
house pursuant to Section 65852.2 of the California
Government Code
D. Residential Care Facilities, where the number of
residents under care is greater than six (6),
pursuant to the State Health and Safety Code.
- 1 -
EXHIBIT "A"
E. Bed and Breakfast
F. Nursery Schools
G. Golf Course Maintenance Facility
9.03.022 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: These
projects are permitted in the SR Zone pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance and
the development standards in Section 18.5. In addition,
the design and siting of all buildings within a standard
subdivision shall be subject to review and approval in
conjunction with the tentative tract map.
9.03.030 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All uses shall comply with the
following development standards.
A. Minimum Lot Size: 7,200 square feet.
1. A smaller minim
pursuant to Sect
a cluster subdiv
tial development
density conforms
that appropriate
areas have been
um lot size may be established
ion 9.03.022 in conjunction with
ision or similar planned residen-
provided that the overall project
to applicable regulations and
common open space and recreation
provided.
2. Within existing subdivided areas consisting of
5000-square-foot lots, the voluntary merger of
existing lots of records into larger parcels
shall be encouraged.
B. Minimum Lot Dimensions:
1. Width: 50-feet width for interior lots, 55-feet
width for corner lots, 30-foot width for cul-de-sac
lots, except where smaller lot sizes are estab-
lished pursuant to Section 9.03.030.A.
2. Depth: Depth of 90 feet which shall not exceed
2-1/2 times the width of the lot, except where
smaller lot sizes are established pursuant to
Section 9.03.030.A.
C. Maximum Lot Coverage: The
covered by buildings shall
percent. This calculation
trellises, covered patios
unenclosed structures.
- 2 -
maximum area of the lot
not exceed sixty (60)
shall not include
and other similar
® 0
D. Setbacks:
1. Front Yard: All structures shall be set back
a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the nearest
point on front property line of the lot.
(a) Double Frontage Lots:
(1) Double Frontage Lot Requirements: A
20-foot front setback shall be provided
against one frontage, and a 10-foot rear
setback shall be provided adjacent to the
other frontage.
(2) Selecting the Setback Location: Where
double frontage setback locations are not
specified by subdivision requirements or
other applicable regulations, the
Applicant may select the front setback
street unless 50% of the lots on a double
frontage block are developed with the same
front yard orientation. In that case, all
remaining lots are to orient their front
setbacks with the majority.
2. Side Yard: All structures shall be set back a
minimum distance from the side property line as
follows:
(a) Interior Lots: Side yards shall not be less
than a width of 5 feet.
(b) Corner Lots: The side setback on the street
side of corner lots shall not be less than 10
feet from the right-of-way line.
(c) Zero Lot Line Development: A group of dwelling
units on adjoining lots may be sited so that
all units abut one side property line, provided
that:
(1) The setback has been eliminated through
the Subdivision Map approval; and
(2) The modified setback requirements for the
project are recorded as part of a land
division map, deed restriction, or other
enforceable restriction; and
- 3 -
L
(3) The side yard setbacks opposite the zero
setback property line are not less than
10 feet; and
(4) The side yard setback shall not be elim-
inated or reduced on the street side of a
corner lot.
(d) Common Wall Development: Any two dwelling
units and their accessory garages may be
constructed on adjoining lots without setbacks
between them, provided that:
(1) The setback has been eliminated through
subdivision map; and
(2) A common wall or party wall agreement,
deed restriction or other enforceable
restriction has been recorded; and
(3) The side yard setbacks opposite the
common wall property line are not less
than 10 feet; and
(4) Common wall construction is in compliance
with the Uniform Building Code and
Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire
Code.
3. Rear Yard: All structures shall be set back a
minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line of
the lot.
4. Interior Setbacks:
(a) Detached Accessory Structures: In addition to
the general front, side and rear yard require-
ments, the following shall be complied with:
(1) No detached accessory building shall be
located closer than 10 feet from the
principal or main building.
(2) No detached accessory building shall
encroach upon the front half of the lot;
however, this setback shall not exceed
75 feet from the front property line.
(b) Residential Buildings: A principal residential
building shall not be located less than 10 feet
from another principal building when both
structures are one story in height, and not
- 4 -
less than 15 feet when one or both structures
are two stories or higher in height.
(c) Swimming Pools: Private swimming pools shall
not be located nearer than five (5) feet to
any dwelling excepting as provided by Section
18.25.
5. Exceptions to Setback Standards: The minimum set-
back requirements shall apply to all uses, including
accessory structures and mechanical equipment,
except as provided by the following:
(a) Fences or walls six -feet or less, excepting the
twenty (20) foot corner cutback area where
fence height shall be limited to a maximum of
3-1/2 feet above the top of curb, or 3 feet
above the nearest pavement surface where there
is no curb (Section 18.40).
(b) Private swimming pools may be located no nearer
than five (5) feet to any property line
(Section 18.25). When a swimming pool is
located within a front setback area, the
appurtenance mechanical equipment may also be
located within the front setback area, provided
that the equipment is located no closer than
five (5) feet from interior side yard property
lines and it is enclosed within a masonry
block noise attenuating enclosure.
(c) Outside stairways or landing places, if
unroofed and unenclosed, may be extended into
a required side yard for a distance of not more
than three (3) feet and/or into the required
rear yard a distance of not more than five (5)
feet.
(d) Cornices, canopies, bay windows, chimney chases
and other similar architectural features not
providing additional floor space within the
building may extend into a required side yard
not more than one (1) foot and into a required
front or rear yard not more than two (2) feet.
(e) Eaves may extend three (3) feet into a required
yard, unless otherwise restricted by the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
(f) Concrete flatwork may extend to the property
lines.
- 5 -
(g) Satellite receiving and similar communication
dishes and devices six (6) feet or less in
height when installed and located within the
rear setback or rear yard area only.
E. Maximum Building Height:
1. Maximum Building Height: The height of structures
shall be limited to seventeen (17) feet or one story
in height, whichever is less.
2. Measurement of Height: The height of the structure
shall be measured as the vertical distance from the
;highest point of the structure to the point where
the exterior walls touch the finish grade. For the
determination of structure height, finish grade
shall be the minimum pad height as required by the
Uniform Building Code or applicable City Ordinances
relating to flood hazard management.
3. Exceptions to the Height Limitation:
(a) Chimneys and roof vents extending no more than
two (2) feet above the height limitation speci-
fied in this section.
(b) Radio and television receiving antennas of the
type customarily used for home radio and
television receivers, when five (5) feet or
less in height.
(c) Solar collectors not more than five (5) feet
above the height limitation specified in this
section.
9.03.031 BUILDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: All single-family residen-
tial uses shall comply with the following development
standards, unless an adjustment is approved pursuant to
Section 9.03.040.B.
A. Minimum Gross Livable Area: 1200 square feet, excluding
the garage, as measured from the exterior walls of the
dwelling.
B. Bedroom Dimensions: A minimum of ten (10) foot clear
width and depth dimensions, as measured from the
interior walls of the room.
C. Bathrooms: There shall not be less than 1-1/2 baths in
one or two -bedroom dwellings, and not less than 1-3/4
baths in dwellings with three or more bedrooms,
excepting that 1-1/2 baths may be permitted for the
r In
L'
latter provided that both bathrooms have bathing
facilities.
D. Garage Dimensions: Each dwelling shall have a two -car
garage with interior dimensions not less than twenty
feet square (20' x 20'), which space shall remain clear
of mechanical equipment, appliances, or other improve-
ments which conflict with its purpose to store vehicles.
An additional four (4) feet shall be provided to the
width or depth if mechanical equipment or appliances,
including but not limited to washer, dryer, and forced
air unit, are ground mounted within the garage interior.
A water heater is permitted without additional interior
garage area being required provided that it is located
so as not to conflict with vehicular parking or pedes-
trian access.
E. Access Between House and Garage: A separate pedestrian
door into the garage shall be provided as either an
interconnecting door providing direct access between
the dwelling and the garage, or a pedestrian door
leading outside to a paved walkway area which is
sheltered by a minimum 36-inch roof eave, enclosed
within a secured, walled area and provides direct
access to a keyed entry into the dwelling.
F. Mechanical and Related Equipment: Heating and cooling
mechanical equipment, including satellite receiving
and similar communication devices, shall be ground
mounted, or completely screened from all sides by the
roof structure.
9.03.032 SITE DESIGN STANDARDS: All single-family residential uses
shall comply with the following design standards unless an
adjustment is approved pursuant to Section 9.03.040.B.
A. Landscaping:
1. The front yard of all lots, and in addition, the
side yard of corner lots, shall be landscaped to
property line.
2. The landscaping shall include trees, shrubs and
groundcover of sufficient size, spacing, and
variety to create an attractive and unifying
appearance. Landscaping shall be in substantial
compliance with the standards set forth in the
Manual on Architectural Standards and the Manual
on Landscape Standards as adopted by the Planning
Commission.
- 7 -
l{
3. An irrigation system shall be provided for all areas
required to be landscaped.
4. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in
a healthy and viable condition.
B. Screening: Refuse containers and bottled gas tanks
shall be concealed by landscaping or other means.
C. Underground Utilities: All electric services, overhead
wires, or associated structures must be installed under-
ground.
D. Driveway Materials: The driveway shall be surfaced with
concrete and have an asphaltic concrete connecting pave-
ment edged with a 2" x 4" header to the existing street
pavement, constructed in accordance with City Standards.
E. Lighting: All exterior lighting shall be located and
directed so as not to shine directly on adjacent
properties or otherwise create a nuisance.
F. Fencing:
1. Rear and side yards shall be completely enclosed
and screened by view -obscuring fencing, walls,
vegetation -planted screens, or combination thereof.
2. Fences, walls, and vegetation screens shall
generally conform with the design standards and
typical layouts contained within the Manual on
Architectural Standards.
3. Vegetation screens must consist of planting
materials of a suitable type, size and spacing, so
as to provide a view obscuring barrier within a
reasonable time of planting as set forth in the
landscape plan approval, and shall be watered by an
automatic irrigation system. The planting plan
shall be approved by the Community Development
Department.
4. All walls and fences shall be continuously main-
tained in good repair, and vegetation screens shall
be continuously maintained in a healthy and viable
condition.
9.03.033 BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS: All single-family residential
uses shall be determined to be in substantial compliance
with building standards set forth in the Manual on
Architectural Standards as adopted by the Planning
Commission unless an adjustment is approved pursuant to
Section 9.03.040.B.
A. Manual on Architectural Standards: The Planning
Commission shall, by resolution, adopt a Manual on
Architectural Standards to be used as a guideline in
reviewing architectural style, exterior building
materials, colors, and similar features.
B. Architectural Variety: When houses using similar archi-
tectural styles are located within 250 feet of each
other, exterior building elevations shall make
provision for architectural variety by using different
colors, styles, roof treatments, window treatments,
garage door treatments, and similar methods.
C. Roof Material: Except for flat roof designs, roof
material shall be limited to clay and/or concrete
tile.
D. Adjustment: The Planning Commission may approve an
adjustment to a Precise Plan allowing use of archi-
tectural styles, exterior building materials, colors,
and similar features not set forth in the adopted
Manual when the Planning Commission determines that
the adjustment will be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
9.03.034 BUILDING DESIGN GUIDELINES - MULTIPLE APPROVALS:
Developers or Applicants who have obtained or applied for
twenty (20) or more approvals for construction of single-
family houses within the City shall comply with the
following:
A. Master Design Guidelines: Submit master design guide-
lines to the Planning Commission for approval,
containing plans and information specifying the
methods for varying the exterior appearance of the
single-family houses. This shall include, but not be
limited to, variations of architectural styles, roof
types, window treatments, entry treatments, and siting.
B. Compliance with Guidelines: Precise Plan approvals
for the single-family houses shall comply with the
design guidelines as approved by the Planning
Commission.
9.03.035 LIMIT ON APPROVALS: A maximum of five (5) unsold houses
may be under construction by a single Applicant at any one
time unless an adjustment has been approved pursuant to
Section 9.03.040.B.
9.03.040 APPLICATION PROCEDURES:
A. Precise Plan: The following procedures shall apply to
all applications for approval of a Precise Plan that is
required by any section of this ordinance.
1. Filing: Applications for consideration of a Precise
Plan approval shall be made to the Planning
Director. The application shall be accompanied by
four (4) complete sets of plans consisting, as a
minimum, of the site plan, floor plan and exterior
building elevations, a deed showing the Applicant's
ownership of the subject property or a letter of
authorization from the property owner consenting to
the submittal of this application, and a filing fee
of twenty-five ($25) dollars.
Determination of Completeness: The Planning
Department shall make a Determination of
Completeness at the time of submittal of the appli-
cation and shall not accept for processing any
application which is not complete. This deter-
mination shall be based upon a written checklist,
a copy of which shall be provided to the Applicant
if the application is determined to be incomplete.
3. Required Plans: The plans shall be drawn to scale
and shall indicate clearly, and with full dimension-
ing where applicable, the following:
(a) Name and address of the Applicant.
(b) Name and address of all property owners.
(c) Legal description and assessor's parcel
number.
(d) Lot dimensions.
(e) Location of adjacent streets, drainage
structures, utilities and other features
that may affect the use of the property.
(f) The use and dimensions of all proposed
buildings and structures, (including existing
structures proposed for retention) and their
setbacks from property boundaries and between
buildings.
(g) Location and construction of proposed driveways
and off-street parking areas.
- 10 -
(h) Exterior building materials and colors.
(i) Landscaping plan for the front yard and for
the side yard adjacent to the street for
corner lots which shall indicate the size,
species and location of all materials.
(j) Location and type of materials for all fences
or walls, including retaining walls.
(k) Grading and drainage plan showing existing
elevations at one -foot contour intervals,
proposed elevations, adjacent roadway eleva-
tions, finish floor elevation of garage, finish
elevations at each building corner and flow
lines of surface water on and off the site.
4. Findings Required For Approval: No Precise Plan
shall be approved unless the Planning Director
determines that it complies with the following
standards:
(a) The proposed use and design conform to all
applicable requirements of the La Quinta
General Plan and any other applicable specific
plan adopted by the City and in effect at the
date of approval.
(b) The proposed development complies with the
requirements of the zone in which it is
located.
(c) The architectural aspects of the development
will be compatible with, and not detrimental
to, the present and future logical development
of the surrounding property. These aspects
shall include but not be limited to the
structure's size, shape, width, bulk, height,
materials and architectural style.
(d) Approval of the development shall not be a
detriment to the public's health, safety and
welfare.
(e) The design takes into account the existing
physical characteristics of the site, including
tonoaraphv, drainage, and trees.
(f) Approval of this development does not exceed
the maximum limit of five (5) unsold houses
under construction by a single Applicant at
11
B.
any one time, unless an adjustment raising
this limit has been approved.
5. Review of Application: Within two weeks after
acceptance of a complete application, the Planning
Director shall approve, conditionally approve, or
deny the Precise Plan application; or shall advise
the Applicant that an adjustment must be requested.
Term for Approval: A Precise Plan shall be approved
for a period of time not to exceed six (6) months,
by which time a building permit shall have been
obtained. Upon securing a building permit, time
limits set forth in the Uniform Building Code shall
apply.
Adjustments Procedure: Where provided for in this
Chapter, an Applicant may request an adjustment to
certain design and development standards.
1. Filing: Applications for the consideration of an
adjustment shall be made to the Planning Director.
The application shall be accompanied by six (6)
complete sets of plans consisting, as a minimum,
of the site plan, floor plan, and exterior building
elevations, a deed showing the Applicant's owner-
ship of the subject property or a letter of
authorization from the property owner consenting to
submittal of this application, a listing of all
property owners within a 150-foot radius of the
subject property, and a filing fee of seventy-five
($75) dollars.
2. Determination of Completeness: Same as Section
9.03.040.A.2.
3. Required Plans: Same as Section 9.03.040.A.3.
4. Findings Required for Approval: Same as Section
9.03.040.A-4.
5. Review of Application: Within 30 days after
acceptance of a complete application, the applica-
tion shall be presented to the Planning Commission,
who shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny
the adjustment application. The Planning Commission
may continue consideration of the application from
time to time.
6. Notice of Planning Commission Review: A notice
shall be mailed a minimum of seven (7) calendar
days prior to the Planning Commission meeting to
- 12 -
all property owners within a 150-foot radius of the
subject property.
7. Term of Approval: Same as Section 9.03.040.A.6.
C. Appeals Procedure: An Applicant or any other interested
party may appeal, in writing, stating the reasons there-
fore, the decision of the Planning Director to the
Planning Commission within fifteen (15) calendar days of
the date of decision, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 18.30 (e).
- 13 -