1986 09 23 PCr
A 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
September 23, 1986
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Flag Salute
2. ROLL CALL
3. HEARINGS
7:00 p.m.
A. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023, a request for approval of a zone
change from SR (Special Residential), previously R-1 (One
Family Dwellings), to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) to
allow a dinner house restaurant on 2.79 acres; Robert Cunard,
Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING)
1. Staff Report.
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; Robert Cunard, Applicant.
(CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
1. Staff Report
2. Motion for Adoption.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of
September 9, 1986.
5. BUSINESS
A. Review of proposed conditions of approval regarding Tentative
Tract Map No. 21555 referred to the Planning Commission by
City Council.
1. Staff Report
2. Discussion
AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 2.
/B. Review of the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital
v Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal
Year 1986-1987.
1. Staff Report.
2. Discussion.
t,/C. Review for General Plan consistency a proposed project by the
Coachella Valley Water District to construct a force main to
transport sewage through the City of La Quinta via Washington
Street.
1. Staff Report.
2. Discussion.
✓D. Consideration and adoption of Resolution No. P.C. 86-003
amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures con-
cerning the order of business and the inclusion of a Public
Comment section.
1. Discussion.
2. Motion for Adoption.
6. ADJOURNMENT
ITEMS FOR STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ONLY - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986, 3:00 PM
A. /Additional items for Commission information and discussion:
V'1. Proposals for City-wide identification directions
(kiosk signs) in the public right-of-way.
V2. Concept for amphitheater at Lake Cahuilla.
Agh
ITEM NO.
DATE
0
9 Dn/1 OTION BY: BRANDT
SECOND BY: BRANDT
DISCUSSION: / d
54
ROLL CALL(9
CO*iIISSIONERS:
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED':
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
00 •' • /• 1 •'� I: 1
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
YES
NO
ITEM NO. .
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE: 21Z ?6 -o 2- 3 ; ie�� �'
MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING ViNLLING 7HOMMURGH
SECOND BY: BRANDT TIDIN MDRAN DRILLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*MISSIONERS:
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED':
AYE NO
YES
ABSTAIN
NO
ABSENT
PRESENT
ITEM NO.
DATE 3 ��
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN KULIW THORNBURG[i
SECOND BY: BPANDT STIDIN NDRAN W LLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COPAff S S IONERS :
D Q
•/• f
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
3,03,3
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: September 23, 1986; Continued from July 22, 1986
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023; AND, PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
LOCATION: East Side of Avenida Bermudas, Bounded by Calle Cadiz
and Calle Barcelona.
APPLICANT: Robert Cunard
REQUEST: (1) 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; and,
(2) Approval to Convert Existing Residential Structures
to a Dinner House Restaurant.
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan Land Use Designation: Village Commercial (REFER TO
ATTACHMENT NO. la)
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 is
contemplated to provide for an 8,8-foot right-of-way, four lanes
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 2.
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
driveways and a concrete block planter. There are also a number
of large trees which are located along the 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 the
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.
5. Project Description: The Applicant requests a zone change from
R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 1200-Sq.Ft. Minimum Dwelling Size,
17' 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 the Plot Plan.
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 another restaurant on Calle Tampico. The
Applicant will eliminate the existing swimming pool and a small
shed located south of Building "E".
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
September 23, 1986
Page 3.
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.
6. Comments From Other Agencies
a. City Engineer: Comments have been offered as to: standards
for public street dedication and improvement; grading plans,
soils investigation, and drainage facilities; City-wide
Landscape and Lighting District participation; and, consoli-
dation of individual project lots. Pertinent subjects have
been included in the conditions of approval.
b. City Fire Marshal: Has responded to fire protection measures
as required by City ordinance and other recognized protection
standards. Final requirements will be addressed in building
permit plan check.
c. Planning Department; Building and Safety Division: Notes that
the new use will require improvements to A-3 occupancy
standards.
d. Coachella Valley Water District: Advises that the area is
protected from stormwater 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.
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.
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.
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 4.
7. Comments from the Public: No written comments were received
on the request.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Future Specific Planning - Circulation and Street Improvements
The site is located within the Village at La Quinta area which was
redesignated on the General Plan Land Use Plan from Low Density
Residential to Village Commercial. It is the City's intention to
prepare a Specific Plan for the whole of the village commercial core
to guide future physical development. In the drafting of a specific
plan for this area, there may well be some recognition of existing
attributes, constraints and opportunities. The resulting design
scheme and/or criteria may not employ the same set of improvement
standards found in a conventional commercial project. For example,
it can be recognized that Calle Cadiz and Barcelona will not serve as
an intrical part of a City circulation system, but rather realigned
52nd Avenue, Desert Club, (and to a point) Avenida Bermudas and Calle
Tampico to the north, will address the movement of vehicles and
supply the perimeter circulation system for the immediate area.
Therefore, Calle Cadiz and Barcelona serve only the simple purpose of
access to the adjacent properties and may not have to be constructed
to conventional street standards. To the contrary, the City (by
design) may want to consider diminishing the importance of these
streets as a connector between Bermudas and Desert Club and arrive at
a special design that would be charactered more as an accessway to
parking facilities and businesses occurring on the adjacent
properties. In this instance, many of the existing aesthetic
attributes could be employed and enhanced. To require standard
improvements today, would limit more creative approaches in the
development of a specific plan and set the tone of the village core
as a place to drive through, rather than an arrival point.
Beyond the current projection of traffic volumes at City buildout,
there are a number of factors which could influence the need or
desirability of full right-of-way improvements on Avenida Bermudas
north of realigned 52nd Avenue. Some reservation of design options
for this frontage would also appear warranted. If this tact is
taken, reservations for future dedication and improvement (if need
dictated) could be stipulated in the conditions of approval.
General Plan and Implementing Zoning
With the inclusion of this property and the general area into the
Village Commercial land use category, the City may want to consider
action to bring zoning into consistency with this designation,
particularly for vacant properties. It may be appropriate,
initially, to allow existing residential uses to remain in their
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
September 23, 1986
Page 5.
present zoning category until conversion to commercial is desired,
thus avoiding zoning problems that may occur with a nonconforming use
status.
Whereas, the use of the subject property for a restaurant is deemed
consistent with the General Plan, the C-P-S Zone (Scenic Highway
Commercial), is the only commercial district inherited from the
County (by City adoption of the County's Land Use Ordinance) which
provides for the types of commercial uses perceived to be acceptable
in the Village Commercial core; although, it does contain a number of
other activities which may not be as deisrable. The City will need
to adopt its own zoning ordinance to implement the land use
designations created in the City General Plan, but until that time,
plot plan approvals may serve to evaluate the compatibility among
uses planned in this area.
On -Site Circulation and Parking
The Applicant proposes to extend the existing driveway on Calle
Cadiz, 15-20 feet to the west and provide valet parking for
restaurant patrons who will drop off their vehicles in front of
Building "F".
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.
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
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 6.
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, be permitted.
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 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 avail-
able for the Village Commercial land use designation.
4. The restaurant is an allowed use in the C-P-S Zone, which is
being requested for the site in the companion Change of Zone
Case No. 86-023.
5. The three public streets adjacent to the site currently have
widths and levels of improvement less than that required by the
City's adopted Circulation Plan, but the ultimate design and
improvement may be deferred to the Specific Plan process and/or
as future need dictates.
6. 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.
7. Land use compatibility with the adjacent residential uses cannot
be assured and this development may hasten the conversion of
those properties to commercial uses.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 7.
8. Development of the site can be accomplished in conformance 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. Plot Plan No. 86-343 as approved will not create a threat to
public health or safety.
4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse
impact on the environment.
Based upon the above Findings, it is recommended that:
1. Change of Zone Case No. 86-023 be forwarded to the City Council
with a recommendation of approval for a change of zone from
R-1*++ to C-P-S, for the lands described in the application and
as illustrated on Exhibit A; and,
2. Plot Plan No. 86-343 be approved in accordance with application
Exhibits A, B and C, subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
PREPARED BY: City of La Quinta Planning Department
MC:dmv
Atch: 1. Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibit "A", Plot Map
3. Atch. la, Land Use Plan
4. Atch. lb, Circulation Plan
5. Atch. 2, Zoning
E
4IP,.I
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED SEPTEMBER 23, 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 Planning
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 No. 86-343 shall comply with the provisions of the
La Quinta General Plan and the Village at La Quinta Plan, as in
effect at the 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 Fire Marshal
* City Community Development Department, Planning Division
* Riverside County Environmental Health Department
* Coachella Valley Water District
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned
agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time
of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated
herewith.
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.
0
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 provisions shall be observed in the operation of
the approved use:
a. Use of outdoor areas in conjunction with the restaurant use
shall be consistent with this approval as confirmed by the
Planning Department.
b. Plot Plan No. 86-343 does not include 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 accessory 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, or other approved method.
Streets Circulation, Parking and Grading
11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the
City Engineer. These conditions are based upon the development
of new development standards, which will be established with the
future Village at La Quinta Specific Plan.
(a) The Applicant shall dedicate, via an irrevocable offer of
dedication per the current City standards, all necessary
public street and utility easements as required by the City
Engineer, including a 44' half -street for Avenida Bermudas,
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 3.
and 30' half -street widths for
Barcelona. These dedications
or modified until the Village
completed.
Calle Cadiz and Calle
will not be accepted/rejected
at La Quinta Specific Plan is
(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. Said construction to be done upon resolu-
tion of the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan development
standards.
(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. Said plans to be done upon resolution of the
Village at La Quinta Specific Plan development standards.
(d) When any phase of site development occurs, the Applicant
shall have prepared a grading plan that is prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer, who will 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. '
0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 4.
(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.
(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
such time as public street improvements are required.
13. Parking shall be provided and improved in accordance with the
requirements 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.
14. 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
15. 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.
0
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 5.
c. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super
fire hydrant, (6"x4"x2-1/2"x2-l/21'), 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,
(6"x4"x2-l/21'x2-l/2"), 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,
Sections 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.
C�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.
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.
16. 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.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 6.
c. The project site shall be annexed into Improvement District
No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation
service.
17. 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.
18. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground in accordance
with City standards.
19. 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
20. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
submit to the Planning Department 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.
d. Location and design of sidewalks on -site.
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.
21. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting
materials shall be incorporated for inclusion into the landscaping
plans for the site.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
PLOT PLAN NO. 86-343
PAGE 7.
22. 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 Planning Department.
23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit fot 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.
24. Project phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements,
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Department.
25. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall
comply with the City's adopted requirements regarding
Infrastructure Fees.
26. 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.
If the Applicant desires occupancy prior to receiving final
approval of the appropriate lot merger procedure, he may have
recorded a covenant and agreement to hold the property as one
parcel (on forms provided by the City), pending approval of the
procedure for which an application has been made.
7j
to
i0
C
t+]
H
a.-.r•t r)
nEn�j8�3-
(D LQ F- � (D
F-, W
n N t5
(D w o
N o ((DD
�ro
(D M
nrmrt
0
(D rt M U
Fi r rt I
a F+- �l +
F rt r +
o1& 5 o
�lo51(D
ni n i
ia�l
Ul N F-
r r l
i�
DJmm
�Am
env D
0.
nrma
Dmo,
NDz
N
a-c
WNZ
0
n
D
r
r
m
AVENIOA SERMUOAS
W.
r
m
n
D
0
N
rnnncamr
-�o-zmr0
--Dizo�mo0)
m
T
I7Ctt
�¶D
or
a-
ro
rn-�ia
�
1A
m
A
mz
3)
o
�
m5D
z
°m
n
-�
;
D
ru
CALLE
TAMPICO
•,.ti •.
.•.'
RESIDENTIAL
VERY LOW DENSITY
0-2 dwellings/acre •'•••
'�
LOW DENSITY (
2-4 dwellings/acre ,•, ,','.
MEDIUM DENSITY
4-8 dwellings/acre
HIGH DENSITY
8-16 dwellings/acre'.•.•.•.••••••
COMMERCIAL
VILLAGE COMMERCIALEa
'•••'••
w� ••.•.•••••.
El
TOURIST COMMERCIAL
SPECIAL COMMERCIAL
EM M
00000,
MIXED COMMERCIAL
••
'
Em
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
®
COMMERCIAL PARK
_
...... ,.,
W _....•......:•:.. • .:•.•:
ACHMENT NO. la
GENERAL PLAN
Land Use Plan
I-
® ro
o
°
_m CIRCULATION PLAN
co
®3
MAJOR ARTERIAL
® 120-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
® AVENUE 50 m
®® ® ® ® ® ® ® PRIMARY ARTERIAL 0
In100-110 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
!B FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
COLLECTOR
CALLE TAMPICO1 El 04-72 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY
MID
wimo
wln AVENUE 52
® ! °��
1 ®/*A®
o i SITE
1 -
i 1
Iw .co
-> Ao
to in
i
.M W Iw
I3 -m DESERT CLUB DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE 64'
1= !Q AVENUE 50 WILL BE 100'
Iz �z
-w Iw
iw 1'a ^
i ICI
1 -
1 ,
1 -
- e'
A j ATTACHMENT NO. 1 b
1
i Circulation Plan
1
ITEM NO. --/- ,
DATE 3 %�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN WaIING 7HORNBURGH
SECOND BY: 1' / STEDING MORAN WLLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
,CO*MSSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT —
STEDING —
MORAN —
WALLING —
THOEMURGH —
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO
M I NUT E S
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
September 9, 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 called upon Commissioner Steding
to lead the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call; in the absence
of the Secretary, Associate Planner Gary Price called the
roll:
Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Walling, and
Chairman Thornburgh
Absent: None
Also present were Planning Director Murrel Crump, Associate
Planner Gary Price, and City Manager Ron L. Kiedrowski.
3. HEARINGS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of hearing as follows:
A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21880, A request to divide 417 acres
into 340 lots to accommodate 324 single-family residential
lots and an 18-hole golf course, with the remaining 314 acres
of the entire 731-acre site remaining in natural, mountainous,
open space; Sunrise Company, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM THE
8/26/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
At this point, Chairman Thornburgh turned the meeting over to
Vice Chairman Walling as he had a conflict of interest regarding
this matter. Chairman Thornburgh was excused from discussion
regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21880.
Vice Chairman Walling called for the Staff Report.
1. Planning Director Murrel Crump initiated the Staff Report
noting that it had been continued from the August 26 Planning
Commission meeting. He reiterated that the continuance had
been granted to consider the relocation of the maintenance
facility and the need for and access to "B" Street. Also,
0
that the Planning Commission indicated concurrence to revise
several conditions (Conditions Nos. 7, 11(c), 17(c), 20, and
two revisions to #22).
Director Crump advised the Commission that the Applicant has
submitted a revised map on 9/5/86 with information items
which are listed at the end of the Staff Report as attach-
ments.
Regarding the relocation of the maintenance facility to the
southwest corner of the project, Staff is concerned that the
actual entrance location (230' south of Calle Arroba) may
create a traffic hazard and has recommended that the entrance
be extended northward to directly line up with Calle Arroba
as a means of eliminating this situation. Director Crump
advised the Commission that with this modification the map
may have to be adjusted to accommodate an adequately sized
frontage road and a sufficient, landscaped setback area along
Bermudas. He further noted that the Applicant would need to
submit a separate plot plan application for review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
Director Crump addressed the elimination of "B" Street which
enabled the Applicant to add six (6) single-family lots to
the original subdivision. The only changes with regard to
the lot additions are technical modifications to the original
Findings (Nos. 3 and 6) and Conclusions (No. 4) of the 8/26/86
Staff Report. He also noted the addition of Conditions Nos.
44 and 45 which relate to a generalized address to the access
requirements to the front of the Desert Club and detailed
plans to relocate the maintenance facility entrance and
associated frontage road improvements.
In conclusion, Director Crump stated, with the resolution of
these matters and based on the revised Findings and
Conditions, Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 21880, Revision #1, subject to the conditions of approval.
Vice Chairman Walling requested any questions by the
Commission of Staff.
Commissioner Moran questioned if Staff had discussed the left
turn from the street to the entrance with the City Engineer.
Associate Planner Price responded that he had discussed this
matter with the City Engineer who stated that Avenida Bermudas
(Secondary Arterial) would probably accommodate four lanes
with parking on one side and room for an adequate center turn
lane. However, there was a concern with the width of the
frontage road and the ability of emergency and larger vehicles
to have an adequate turning radius into the project. The
- 2 -
iill
actual setback
frontage road,
way traffic.
required may not be adequate to provide for the
turning radius dimensions, and allow for two -
Commission Moran questioned whether a vehicle traveling at
45 mph down Bermudas would have time to stop for a vehicle
turning the corner onto Bermudas at this entrance.
Associate Planner Price replied that the City Engineer was
not at our City offices today in order to check the site in
this regard.
Commissioner Steding questioned Staff regarding the newly
added Condition No. 44, wondering if she understood Director
Crump correctly in his statement that the resolution of what
is required of the Applicant to abide by Resolution No. 85-38
does not directly impact the approval of the tentative tract.
Director Crump responded stating that it would be a condition
to be satisfied prior to a final map being approved. He noted
it is a condition of the tentative map and it would need to be
provided for you through a private agreement or the public
access from realigned 52nd Avenue prior to a final map.
Commissioner Steding queried if this is the same acreage as
has been indicated as "B" Street.
Director Crump responded that there could be a private agree-
ment that would not involve "B" Street which we would have no
knowledge of. If there was to be a public access provided,
then that could very well be what we described as "B" Street.
Vice Chairman Walling asked, if by providing this access,
would not the map have to be amended as it would for the new
egress/ingress for the maintenance building?
Director Crump advised that this was correct.
Vice Chairman Walling asked if he had heard Director Crump
correctly, in the presentation of the Staff Report, that the
access from 52nd to the Desert Club could be a private
agreement outside the jurisdiction of the City?
Director Crump replied that it would not be outside of the
jurisdiction of the City, but the resolution of access could
be by private agreement, acceptable to the City, but that
could be something other than a public access that is required
if an agreement fails.
Vice Chairman Walling indicated that this language was a
little confusing. He noted that at the time the Planning
Commission developed this resolution, it wasn't a matter of
- 3 -
the street being there. The issue of whether it was to be
public or private had to do with the location of the gate
into the then Crystal Canyon project. He believed that the
Applicant had talked about putting it 100' north of the
property line and this would cut off access to the Desert
Club. That is where the language distinguishing between
public and private comes in. He stated that at that time it
was going to be half public and half private depending on
where the gate went and if the two parties could not resolve
the matter, then it would all become public putting the gate
at the property line.
Director Crump responded that the way it is stated in the
resolution, it indicates that there shall be access provided
in accordance with City requirements to the Applicant, the
Desert Club owner, and City Council. It would not necessarily
need to be public in that instance as is stated in the resolu-
tion, but then if the agreement is not satisfactory, then it
would be public roadway.
Commissioner Steding, just to clarify, asked if she was
correct in her understanding that the intent was to have
public access at all times between the new 52nd and the old
52nd Avenues along the east border of the Desert Club.
Commissioner Walling responded that her understanding is
correct.
Commissioner Steding asked if she was correct in her under-
standing then that on the newly revised tentative map there
is no room for that in the proposal.
Director Crump responded that is correct as we would interpret
it applying.
There being no further questions of Staff, Vice Chairman
Walling opened the public hearing at approximately 7:45 p.m.
James L. Resney, Vice President, Sunrise Company, 75-005
Country Club, Palm Desert, expressed his concerns regarding
the large setback requirement at the corner of Avenida
Bermudas and the existing 52nd Avenue and the requirement to
retain "B" Street. Mr. Resney informed the Commission that
he agreed with the conditions as written; however, he felt
that Condition No. 44 was unnecessary as it is already a
condition of the street vacation. He requested that if the
Commission wants to revise that condition, he be allowed to
speak to the proposed changes.
There being no further public comments, Vice Chairman Walling
closed the public hearing at approximately 7:50 p.m.
- 4 -
Planning Commission discussion regarding access to the
maintenance facility:
Commissioner Moran felt the City Engineer should do a close
review of this area and make a determination of what is safe.
Vice Chairman Walling stated that per the Staff Report there
are certain parameters in which the -City 4ngineer must work
and from the Applicant's response, they would be able to
accommodate this so it is something that can be worked out.
Commissioner Moran stated as long as it can be worked out she
had no problem with it.
There was a consensus in this regard.
Planning Commission discussion regarding the 33% slope:
Commissioner Moran stated she would like to see rolling berm
rather than just straight up berms.
Commissioner Brandt felt the 33% slope was all right.
There was a consensus in this matter.
Planning Commission discussion regarding the recess in the
wall at the entrance location:
Commissioner Moran noted she would like to see a recess at
this location stating her reason being the same as her concern
regarding the landscaping that will happen along Bermudas, in
that this particular tract will have the most impact on the
Cove residents.
Commissioner Brandt agreed with Commissioner Moran's comments.
She further stated she would like to see the Applicant have
some flexibility regarding design consideration at this site.
Commissioner Brandt suggested that perhaps the condition might
be reworded.
Commissioner Steding agreed that they should not tell the
Applicant how to design this area, but to remind them that it
should be pretty.
Director Crump suggested revising the condition adding wording
such as; "....and give consideration to the former site of
the maintenance building." which would make it permissive, but
direct attention to it.
The Commission agreed to this revision.
- 5 -
Planning Commission discussion regarding the access from 52nd
Avenue to the Desert Club:
Commissioner Moran stated that the Commission approved
Resolution No. 85-38 and she reiterated the discussion at the
Study Session regarding how to interpret that. She commented
that her interpretation is that access shall be provided from
the realigned 52nd Avenue. She further commented that when
she voted for the resolution that meant at the entrance where
"B" Street is, not going down to Bermudas and giving access at
the old 52nd Avenue.
Vice Chairman Walling stated that was also his interpretation.
Commissioner Steding stated that the additional language in
Condition No. 44 does not need to be changed, but she felt the
minutes should reflect that the Applicant, when called upon by
her to state what their position was on the resolution, seemed
to have a completely different understanding of how they would
comply with the resolution. She wanted this noted in the
minutes so that the City Council will know. She further noted
that she was not holding the Applicant to it as the Applicant
cleverly side-stepped that point. However, the Applicant did
seem to think that the resolution was satisfied with traffic
flowing west on the new 52nd, south on Bermudas, and then east
on Desert Club. Commissioner Steding believed the
Commission's response to that is that we read the resolution,
and with the help of John's review of the minutes of his notes
of when that was created, we read the resolution as insisting
that there be access west on the new 52nd, south on the east
side of Desert Club, then west across the old 52nd to the
entrance of the Desert Club.
Vice Chairman Walling suggested that Condition No. 44 be
revised to require a road be put in along the east perimeter
of the Desert Club property.
There was a consensus regarding this revision.
There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Walling
called for a motion.
Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Brandt, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21880 with the
conditions provided at the last meeting and the changes in
these conditions provided in the second Staff Report from
the Planning Department revising Conditions #7, 11(c);
adding Condition #17(d) with the Commission's correction to
it noting a 33% slope; revising Condition #22 as recommended;
adding Condition #44 with the addition of the Commission's
very clear language of the intent; and, adding Condition #45.
Adopted with a 4-0 vote with one abstension.
At this time, Chairman Thornburgh returned to his seat. Vice
Chairman Walling turned the meeting back to him.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the items of Consent Calendar,
which consisted of one request for approval to construct a
single-family dwelling and the Minutes from the regular meetings
of August 12 and August 26, 1986.
After a brief discussion, he called for a motion.
Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Moran to approve Plot Plan No. 86-359 based on the Findings in
the Staff Report, in accordance with Exhibits A, B, C-1, C-2,
C-3, and subject to the conditions of approval, as amended; to
approve the Minutes from the regular meeting of August 12, 1986,
as submitted; and to approve the Minutes from the regular meeting
of August 26, 1986, as amended. Unanimously adopted.
5. BUSINESS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first item of business as
follows:
A. 1986 - GENERAL PLAN REVIEW - CYCLE III:
(1) General Plan Amendment No. 86-012, a request to amend
the Land Use Plan from Medium Density Residential to
High Density Residential on 27.5 acres on the west of
Adams Street between Fred Waring Drive and the
Whitewater River; J.C.C. Enterprises, Applicant.
Chairman Thornburgh requested Director Crump to explain the
General Plan Amendment procedure.
Director Crump responded to this request.
Director Crump then reviewed the request per information in the
Staff Report.
Chairman Thornburgh called for the Commission's comments.
Commissioner Walling questioned Director Crump if, by complete
application, he meant plot plan, tentative tract map, change of
zone, etc., so that the Commission would see a pretty detailed
concept of what the Applicant intends to do.
Director Crump responded affirmatively.
- 7 -
Commissioner Walling reiterated that the basic issues regarding
this particular matter are whether or not we are going to formu-
late a policy on averaging zoning on large parcels of land in the
community, and also how we will use the land.
Commissioner Steding stated she has strong feelings regarding this
particular request, as well as the last item under this subject on
the agenda. She stated as a resident of the geographical area
north of Highway 111, she is one of those persons who came into
the City of La Quinta by annexation. Citizens who live north of
Highway 111 were tacitly, if not directly, promised by the City of
La Quinta, in exchange for support in the annexation, that the
density in that area, as far as residential housing, would remain
low. She noted that then along came the General Plan last year
and to accommodate those promises to those persons living in that
area, and also in conjunction with some very serious conversations
regarding traffic circulation, the Land Use Plan was created in
its present form, both with compromise and serious concerns.
As a result, she stated she is not at all impressed with anyone's
attempt to, by averaging or by direct and overt requesting to
raise that density to high density. She stated a note for the
record - yesterday, Chairman Thornburgh inquired of Staff if the
Applicant was encouraging small businesses/neighborhood commercial
centers and Staff's reply was that this was not the request, but
it was a suggestion of Staff to accommodate or minimize the
increase in traffic; therefore, she would like to know, for the
record, that this type of neighborhood commercial center along
the three streets mentioned will be discouraged. She noted that
she would not support it.
Commissioner Steding further stated that because of the vagueness
of this Applicant's proposal, she sensed certain issues arising;
one of them the question of affordable housing. She senses that
from the fact that they are proposing a public golf course within
the confines of the property in lieu of a public park requirement,
that in the future there will be requests for some bonuses in
exchange for that, which might include density bonuses, which
would increase their request to beyond what it presently is.
The next problem Commissioner Steding has with this request is the
concept of averaging. She noted that the Applicant is attempting
to request High Density in a smaller portion of the acreage than
they did in the past and then requesting to average, which then
means the overall averaging of the entire property would be High
Density. Commissioner Steding stated she is not in favor of
averaging, not inclined to accept a golf course in lieu of a
public park and, therefore, with respect to this General Plan
Amendment and whatever comes with it to the conclusion of the
hearings, the justification for the use of this property at an
overall High Density will have to be an enormous justification
before she would approve the project.
E
Chairman Thornburgh reiterated that it was the consensus of the
Commission at the Study Session that they were not in favor of
the neighborhood commercial centers on this or any other site.
There was a brief discussion regarding the density averaging
concept.
Commissioner Moran stated her agreement with Commissioner
Steding's comments. She further noted that she is happy with
the General Plan the way it is. The area under discussion was
meant to be of a lower density and she would like to see it remain
that way because there are some traffic concerns.
Commissioner Brandt stated she is particularly interested in the
traffic circulation study that will be prepared in conjunction
with this project, as well as the project to the west. She would
like to see specific numbers for the existing General Plan
traffic circulation as well as with the proposed General Plan
Amendment, and then the worst case scenario and the appropriate
mitigations for each of these actions. She reiterated that she
would like to see very specific numbers so that the Commission
would not be making any judgments in the dark.
Chairman Thornburgh felt by averaging we would be defeating our
zoning and agreed with Commissioner Steding that we should stay
as close as we can to the General Plan. He also felt that height
limits should be something else to consider. He felt a public
golf course would benefit our community and that the Applicant
should be given credit for it.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item under Section 5.A
as follows:
(2) General Plan Amendment No. 86-013, a request to amend the
Land Use Plan from High Density Residential to lower density
designations on certain properties in close proximity to the
"Village Pointe" apartment project, generally along Calle
Tampico and west of Washington Street; City Initiated.
Director Crump reviewed this request per information in the Staff
Report.
Chairman Thornburgh stated his concerns are two. First, he felt
we should consider that the people who own the property have not
been notified and the people around the property have not been
notified and are not here tonight. He noted we should also think
of how this property reacts to Village Pointe and also how it
reacts to Washington, Tampico, the traffic that will be on that
intersection, and to being Low Density right next to Village
Pointe. He felt there should be some density consideration here.
Chairman Thornburgh noted that he is not recommending anything
but felt this is a very heavy intersection and that the Commission
]
0
and Staff should be concerned with access next to the other
points.
Associate Planner Price informed Chairman Thornburgh that in the
Staff Report regarding the Village Pointe project, there is a
condition of approval that requires joint access use of the main
driveway entrance into that project with adjacent parcels.
Commissioner Steding commented that she is sure that public
opinion has motivated the City Council to cause this review and
she would like to hear from the property owners. She noted a
statement in the Staff Report - "In their evaluation, the
Commission has the ability to pursue a range of other alterna-
tives (i.e., mixing various land use categories on different
parcels within the general vicinity)...." Therefore, she stated
she would be interested in some discussion about mixed use on the
area north of Calle Tampico.
Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt mixed residential would be
appropriate here on the basis that it would be abutting a high
density project and abutting a main street.
Commissioner Steding commented she was not sure whether she would
be in favor of it, but would be interested in some variables here.
Commissioner Walling stated it seemed to him that we were creating
a special zoning district here. The most amenable solution is to
do something like that where we would have a mixed residential
usage, which we do not have in our General Plan as it is. He felt
it would be a wise solution to be able to somehow divide it up
into different uses and different densities to mitigate the
problems that have been brought up.
Director Crump responded to these comments by informing the
Commission that they could also designate this property as a
Specific Plan area.
The Commission agreed that a Specific Plan consideration should
be made on the property to the north of Tampico and on the corner
of Washington Street.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item under Section 5.A
as follows:
(3) General Plan Amendment No. 86-014, a request to amend the
Circulation Element to reclassify Miles Avenue from a
Secondary Arterial to a Primary Arterial; City Initiated.
Director Crump reviewed this matter per information in the Staff
Report.
- 10 -
Commissioner Steding commented that if two of the General Plan
Amendment Applicant's (J.C.C. Enterprises & C. Meisterlin) should
perhaps hear the comments of the Commission and decide to with-
draw their applications, then perhaps this particular request
would not be necessary at the City's expense at this time. But,
should the mentioned Applicants not withdraw, and the City still
feels that this is necessary, then she would agree to include
Dune Palms and Adams Street in the same review as this one.
Commissioner Brandt agreed with Commissioner Steding and stated
her comments made on the first General Plan Amendment request
would be appropriate here also as to what the traffic study
should address.
Commissioner walling felt that since Indio has decided to develop
Miles Avenue as a major thoroughfare, we will be getting a lot of
traffic generation not from our own doing; therefore, we should
widen it irregardless.
Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt the Commission's consensus is
to widen the street, but they would like to see the figures first.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item under Section 5.A as
follows:
(4) General Plan Amendment No. 86-015, a request to amend the
Land Use Plan from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
9.6 acres, generally south of 54th Avenue along the west
side of the All -American Canal; Cody and Brady, Applicants.
Director Crump reviewed the request per information in the Staff
Report.
There was a brief discussion regarding this matter. The consensus
of the Commission was to remove this request from the General Plan
Amendment Cycle III Review schedule and request the Applicant to
proceed with a change of zone and tentative tract map for the
entire parcel. The Applicant was present and verbally agreed to
this request.
Director Crump requested the Applicant to submit a formal notice
of withdrawal to the Planning Department as soon as possible.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item under Section 5.A
as follows:
(5) General Plan Amendment No. 86-016, a request to amend the
Land Use Plan from Medium and Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential on 71.42 acres at the northeast
corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue;
C. W. Meisterlin, Applicant.
Director Crump reviewed this request per information contained
in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Steding stated she would adopt her comments
previously made on the J.C.C. Enterprises project for this partic-
ular request as they all apply. Additionally, with respect to
the suggestion of an apartment development at that high density,
she stated she would underline her comments regarding density
and also note for historical purposes the thinking of the General
Plan. When we put High Density along the Whitewater Channel to
the south of this acreage, the intent was to have any type of
high density, apartment type concepts have that buffer of the
Channel and not the buffer of Washington Street or other resid-
ential properties surrounding it. This can only bring to mind
the project that is currently going up on Jefferson Street in
the City of Indio behind the Circle K, which has made a tremen-
dous impact on the La Quinta residents to the north. The idea
of another apartment complex in that same vicinity is not
appealing at this time.
Chairman Thornburgh stated he felt any comments previously made
on the J.C.C. Enterprises project would apply here.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last item of Business as
follows:
B. Consideration of an amendment to the Planning Commission
Rules and Procedures concerning the Order of Business and
the inclusion of a Public Comment section.
Chairman Thornburgh stated that this matter had been discussed
at the Study Session and requested Staff to put the matter on
the next agenda as an action item.
6. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn.
Chairman Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Walling, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held on September 23, 1986, at 7:00 p.m., in the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 9:05 p.m., September 9,
1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California.
- 12 -
0
RE:
0
ITEM NO. ;5;-,
DATE 2 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRMW TEDIN NnRAN VaMLING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: BRA= � I� VAL�LING THOOrMUftRM
DISCUSSION: C�`� `- dAi�
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COPJMI SSIONERS :
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED':
AYE NO
YES
ABSTAIN
NO
ABSENT
PRESENT
PM
o� z MEMORAND
K CITY OF LA OUINTA
CfA/ OF
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: City Council
DATE: September 23, 1986
SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT # 1
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-021
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Washington
Street
APPLICANT: Drew Wright and Associates
BACKGROUND: (Refer to Attached Memo to City Council Dated 9-16-86)
The above referenced requests were heard by the City Council at their
meeting of September 16, 1986. The following actions were taken at
the public hearing:
* Approved Specific Plan No. 86-007, Amendment #1 as outlined
in the August 12, 1986, staff report;
* Approved the Applicant's request for R-1 Zoning as per
Change of Zone No. 86-021;
* Continued hearing on Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, to
October 7, 1986; and requested a report from the Planning
Commission concerning review and finalization of recommended
conditions of approval.
A number of subjects were brought up in the Council's initial review
of the Tentative Tract Map. Several significant points were believed
to need further resolution through conditions of project approval.
Perimeter building height limits - The Applicant has requested
that draft Condition #19 be revised so as to allow a height of up
to 30' within 75' of the perimeter property line. The approved
conditions for the adjacent "The Grove" project specify the
following relative to building height:
" Building height shall be subject to height limitations specified
in the Specific Plan, except that no building exceeding one
story in height shall be allowed within 75-feet of any
perimeter property line."
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION/
September 23, 1986
Page 2.
The approved Specific Plan for "The Grove" sets forth a general
building height of 30-feet for the residential units. It does not
specify how high a one-story structure would be relative to a
two-story unit. A specific height limit should be established along
with a perimeter setback for the subject project, tacking into account
the general nature of the condition of "The Grove" project.
2.
Grading and pad elevations - Concern was indicated relative to
proposed site grading and pad elevations, and its effect on
building height (or the appearance of building height).
Sufficient data would need to be provided, such as a preliminary
grading plan, in order to adequately assess the relationship
between structure heights and pad elevations. This could be
subject to subsequent Planning Commission review as a business
item.
Interim access to Washington Street - Initially it was
conceived that access to the tract's west entry would require
some form of easement across the parcel which separates it
from the present Washington Street right-of-way. The under-
lying question to this situation is who should stand the burden
of paying for this parcel. Most likely the City would have to
go through condemnation proceedings to gain title, but since
it directly benefits the proposed project, some arrangement
for payment by the project developer would seem appropriate.
The Applicant has indicated a desire to construct Washington
Street improvements from Sagebrush to the tract entry, but it
may be more cost effective to do the entire project frontage
at one time.
Future Signalization at Washington & Sagebrush - If it is
determined that a signal is warranted at Sagebrush, at some
future time, it would also be appropriate to have the project
developer participate in the cost of installation.
Access to easterly parcel owned by Dr. Judd Marmor - The City
Council generally felt that adequate public access was served
to this property by an extension of Sagebrush Avenue, which
could provide an internal loop roadway system. However,
emergency access provisions need to be accommodated within
Tentative Tract No. 21555 to the easterly properties, with
an appropriate access easement granted over the interior
street system. To this end, either of the options proposed
by the Applicant at previous meetings appear to be acceptable.
6. Floor Plan/Elevation designs - Due to structural design
adjustments required as the project progresses, the Applicant
wishes to submit finalized plans at the time of final map
recordation. As many of the Conditions will be addressed
prior to final recordation, it would appear to be, acceptable
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 3.
to stipulate that this information be submitted prior to
recordation of the final map. Plans should be subject to
design review by City Staff and the Planning Commission.
The Applicant should also be given direction relative to any
specific design standards, such as those in the'Special
Residential Zone, which the Planning Commission may find
applicable to this project.
7�,fJperimeter Wall and Setback Detailing - Concern had been expressed
,by both the Commission and Council to review the details for
A, l%"individual lot walls and landscaping and the project boundary
"'treatment and dwelling unit setbacks. This subject may have to
„/ be treated in a similar fashion to Item No. 6 above.
The Applicant has responded to the Conditions of Approval as
presented with the initial staff report for Tentative Tract No. 21555
of August 12, 1986 (see attached letter from D. Wright & Associates
dated September 9, 1986). The conditions need to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission, and revised to address the primary issues
mentioned by City Council, as well as any other areas determined to
necessitate further revision.
NOTE: PLEASE BRING THE PERTINENT MATERIALS FROM THE PREVIOUS
MEETINGS WITH YOU TO THE SEPTEMBER 23, 1986 MEETING.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
Wallace H. Nesbit Murrel Crump
Planning Assistant Planning Director
WHN:psn
Atch: City Council memo of 9-16-86/�(
D. Wright & Associates letter of 9-9-86
' Y 6
4
�I
l'U
v �
,MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Planning Commission
DATE:
September 16, 1986
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT O1
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-021
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 21555
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Sagebrush Avenue and Washington Street
APPLICANT: Drew Wright 8 Associates
BACKGROUND: (Refer to Attached Staff Reports, Attachments 01-3)
The above referenced requests ware heard at the August 26, 1986 Planning
Commission meeting, following a continuance from the initial meeting of
August 12, 1986 (see attachment 04). At the August 26, 1906 meeting the
Planning Commission took the following actions:
a Recommended approval of Specific Plan 86-007(Washington Street
Corridor); Amendment O1 as outlined in the staff report dated
August 12, 1986.
a Recommended denial for Change of Zone 86-021 as requested; and
recommended R-2+s14,000 Zoning (Multi -family dwellings;
17-foot height limit; 14,800-square-foot minimum lot size)
over the entire site, as a preferred alternative.
a Recommended denial for Tentative Tract 21555 as it was found to be
inconsistent with the preferred density and zoning (see attachment
OS).
The City Council received a report of Commission action at their September
2, 1986, meeting; and, the Council ordered the Change of Zone Application
to be set for Public Hearing (along with the other two related matters).
The action of the Commission to deny the request wouldhave become final
if no action had been taken by the Council or if the Applicant had not
appealed. Indeed, the Applicant was prepared to advance an appeal, and
his fee deposit has been returned inlight of the Council's order.
0
11
STAFF REPORT
September 16,
Page 2
- CITY COUNCIL
1986
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the requested
amendment to the Washington Street Corridor Plan (Specific Plan No.
86-007) was offered on the merits of the amendment, notwithstanding their
action on the other Stems.
The Change of Zone action was based on the Commission's evaluation of the
request's consistency with the intent of the General Plan for utilization
of the Low Density Residential Land Use designation depicted in this area;
believing that within a range of 2-4 dwelling units per acre, the most
appropriate density for the project site was a maximum of 3 units per
acre. The commission indicated that an alternate zoning of R-2++14000
would be consistent with their interpretation of the General Plan.
The Tentative Tract Map supported development on the order of 3.94
d.u./a.c., and was, therefore, recommended for denial.
Mr. Don Cavin, a project manager with the Sanford 600dkin Group, made a
slide presentation relative to compatibility of the project with respect
to the planned " Grove" project to the north of the subject site. Wayne
6uralnick, the project attorney, spoke regarding access to the abutting
properties. Mr. Draw Wright also appeared in support of the project.
Appearing in opposition of the project were Me. Margaret Neale, Mr. Howard
Tons of the Montero Estates Homeowners Association and Mr. Jack Abels.
Also appearing on behalf of Mr. Judd Mormar, property owner to the east,
was Mr. Bob Lotito, of IWL Associates. He spoke relative to access to Mr.
Marmor's property from the proposed tract. No one else appeared on these
matters.
PREPARED BY:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WHN:psn
APPROVED BY,
Murrel Crump
Planning Director
Atchs: 0 1 - Specific Plan 86-007 Amendment O1 Staff Report
0
2 -
Change of Zone
86-021 Staff Report
0
3 -
Tentative Tract
21555 Staff Report
0
4
- Staff Report to
Planning Commission of 8-26-86
0
5
- 8-26-86 Notice
of Decision by Planning Commission
11
D. WRIGHT AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TO: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Planning Department Staff
FROM: D. Wright 6 Associates
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 21555
REFERENCES: a. Staff letter same subject dated 8-27-86
b. Staff letter same subject dated 8-12-86
C. Staff letter Change of Zone 86-021 dated
8-12-86
d. D. Wright 6 Associates letter appealing
the Planning Commissions' Recommendations
dated 9-2-86.
On August 12, 1986 the Community Development Department
herein referred to as Staff issued three memorandums
relative to 1) Amendment #1 to the Washington Street
Specific Plan No. 86-007; 2) Change of Zone No. 86-021;
(3) Tentative Tract Map No. 21555.
These documents are the culmination of many months of
hard work involving dozens of meetings with city officials,
staff, special consultants and other concerned agencies.
Staff, for the record did a "masterful" job and should be
commended accordingly.
In reviewing these documents in detail the developer,
D. Wright and Associates offers the following comments:
Re: Amendment #1 to the Washington Street specific
Plan, we concur with all of the staffs conclusions, findings
and recommendation for approval and in particular note
conclusion #8 wherein traffic studies show that the
improvements and extension eastward of Sagebrush Avenue will
adequately serve all of the needs in that area.
With regard to Change of Zone No. 86-021; here again we
concur with all of Staff's conclusions, findings and
approval recommendations for R-1 low density zoning.
The third memorandum relates to Tentative Tract Map No.
21555 and the developer concurs with Staff's conclusions,
findings and recommendations which clearly approve the
project and finds it in compliance with all of the cities
requirements relative to land use, density, lot sizes,
building sizes and other criteria. However, we feel it
would be appropriate to respond to the "Conditions of
Approval" on an item by item basis and have done so in
Appendix "A."
P. O. BOX 1876 1 INDIO, CA 92201 / (619) 347-5429
Subsequent to the issuance of the Staff reports, the
Planning Commission hearings were held on Aug. 12 with a
continuance to Aug. 26, 1986. At the Aug. 12 meeting
general agreement amongst the commissioners on all issues
i.e., Ammendment /1 to the Washington Street Specific Plan,
Change of Zone Case No. 86-021 and Tentative Tract Map No.
21555, except building heights and related set -backs plus a
required solution for Washington Street access for the
parcel of land east of the developer's property.
At the continuance hearing on August 26, 1986 the
Planning Commission approved Amendment it to the Washington
Street Specific Plan but completely shocked everyone by the
denial of the Change of Zone No. 86-021 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 21555. The Planning Commission's recommendations
are inconsistent, confusing, impractical and not in the best
interests of the city for the following reasons:
(1) In the Planning Commission hearings last fall
for the General Plan Land Use, they voted not once but twice
to recommend medium density 4-5 units/acre for the property
in question.
(2) The considerations by both the Planning
Commission and the City Council at the time were that a
well -planned community development for upper middle class
families near the "downtown" area and the new school would
be highly beneficial to the city. The clientele expected
will be full-time residents (voters) such as young
professional doctors, lawyers, bankers, administrators,
managers, small business owners and other families with
incomes in the $50-60,000 yr/range.
(3) Other considerations are $500,000 towards
Washington and Sagebrush Street improvements and appropriate
sidewalks, landscaping and walls which does not include
$100,000 worth of dedicated land for these improvements.
The developer will be paying all of the usual city
infrastructure, Building Department, School Mitigation, and
inspection fees. These fees when combined will amount to
several hundred thousand dollars for the City's benefit.
(4) Another plus for the city will be the
solution of the access problem created by the abandonment of
Adams St. The "problem" relates to the 31 acre parcel east
of Tentative Tract No. 21555. Although this problem was not
created by the applicant, we are willing to provide in
addition to the Sagebrush access, a second access to
Washington Street through our project. We have advised
"Staff" of two locations either of which is acceptable to
US. Other conditions for this access are that our streets
remain private and any users pay appropriate maintenance
fees.
(5) In recent meetings the question of building
heights and set backs have been discussed. The developer
has proposed single story and multi -level houses with set
back and height limits similar but less than those specified
for the Grove. The Grove limits are "all residential
structures will conform to a height limit of 30 ft within 75
ft of any perimeter property line. The tallest unit
proposed by D. Wright 3 Associates is 27.ft.
(6) Another consideration of the Planning
Commission is the compatability with the surrounding areas.
We wish to reiterate that low density, less that four units
per net acre, is completely appropriate and in conformance
to the General Plan Land Use Map. For some unknown reason
our objectors refuse to face reality. To the immediate
south of the proposed project are the Desert Club Manor
homes on 50' X 100' lots on 50' streets with no curbs,
gutters or sidewalks. They are there and are not going to
disappear. The proposed project will provide a buffer to
other projects to the north and will tend to upgrade the
entire area. To the southeast is an elementary school under
construction. It seems highly desirable to have single
family homes with children near the school. To the east is
31 acres zoned R-1. To the southwest are Villa Vista and
Duna La Quinta Condominium resort projects which have houses
similar in size to those proposed for Camelback. These
condominium resorts are not suitable for families with
children and pets. Immediately to the west are the Montero
homes and Washington Street Villas. The houses being
proposed by D. Wright and Associates will be equal to or
larger in size than those on the east side of Avenida
Montero. The houses in Camelback will be superior to those
on the east side of Montero because they will all be on
large pool size lots, fully enclosed with elegant block
walls, private patios, tile roofs, beautiful landscaping and
many other amenities. The lot sizes in Camelback average
8628 sq. ft. whereas those on the east side of Montero
average considerably less. The Washington Villas do not
compare with anything in the area since they are high
density condos on 40 x 110 ft. lots. To the north of
Camelback is the proposed Grove project with which we cannot
make many detailed comparisons because no data is available.
(7) D. Wright S Associates has designed Tentative
Tract No. 21555 with eleven cul-de-sacs to enhance the
beauty of the project and in particular to provide a custom
home low density image along Washington St. and the northern
boundary with the proposed Grove Project.
(8) To again address the building height question
we wish to point out that a building height limit of 17 ft.
is not consistent with those established for the Grove
Project as noted on page 11 of the Staff Report.
Furthermore, the single story 17 ft. height limit is
,,
inconsistent with the city's desires to have large elegant
homes with vaulted ceilings, attractive elevations with tile
roofs. Elegant architecture with stylish interiors and
exteriors demand heights greater than 17 ft.
In conclusion, we find the Planning Commissions' Zoning
recommendation of R-2++14000 inconsistent with all previous
hearings, all projects in/or proposed for the area,
completely impractical architectually and economically
unsound. La Quinta needs residential housing for the upper
middle class future community leaders. It needs these homes
(families) in a nice area convenient to the "Downtown"
businesses. The marketing studies by the best experts
available say that the project is right for the area and
will greatly benefit the city for years. The financial
consultants and lenders strongly endorse the project as
conceived. They flatly say condominiums or anything more
grandiose will not sell and they will not support such a
project. They also unanimously say that a similar project
north of highway 111 in the "wind belt" will not benefit the
city. If there are any other concerns please advise.
CC: Mayor Pena
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
Councilmember
President
Allen
Bohnenberger
Cox
Wolff
APPENDIX A
The following comments are made in response to the
"Conditions of Approval" for Tentative Tract Map No. 21555
dated August 12, 1986 and are numbered accordingly.
GENERAL
1. The developer, D. Wright 6 Associates, Inc. fully
intends to comply with the requirements and standards of the
State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land
Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified.
2. The two year expiration of tract map approval is
acceptable.
3. Tract phasing plans, including phasing of public
improvements will be submitted to the appropriate city
agencies for approval.
4. The developer will obtain all of the necessary
permits or clearances from all of the listed public agencies
prior to starting any construction.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
5. The developer will utilize appropriate dust
control measures.
6. The developer will engage an approved, licensed
and registered civil engineering firm to prepare the plans
and supervise the grading and drainage construction efforts.
All permits and certifications will be obtained in the right
sequence and in a timely manner.
7. A geological and soils engineering report will be
submitted and the required certifications obtained.
8. The developer will coordinate with the City
Engineer 6 Coachella Valley Water District to provide the
necessary drainage disposal systems or facilities.
Appropriate fees will be paid.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
9. With regard to the City Engineers street
requirements:
a. The developer will dedicate the improvements
on Washington and Sagebrush Streets but wishes to retain all
interior streets as private streets.
b. The applicant will construct the Washington
and Sagebrush St. improvements as requested but desires that
the interior streets only meet the requirements for private
streets.
C. All streets will be properly engineered and
constructed to meet the city's requirements.
d. All utilities will be installed and trenches
compacted to city standards prior to street construction.
The necessary compaction test and reports will be provided.
10. The proposed median break at the intersection of
Camelback Drive and Washington will be deleted.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes will be provided on
Washington St.
11. The median break at Sagebrush Ave. is acceptable.
12. The developer intends to build the easterly half
of Washington St. from Sagebrush to the northern extremity
of Tract No. 21555, and use it as a two way access until the
rest of the Washington Street improvements are made.
Appropriate signs will be provided.
13. Applicant will provide access rights to Washington
Street to the parcel of land east of Tract 21555. This
access will have agreed upon limitations and conditions.
14. We agree that the Desert Club easements should be
vacated. Furthermore, City approval of the access
arrangements noted in item 13 will be obtained.
TRACT AND BUILDING DESIGN
15. The developer will comply with all of the
Community Development Departments Exhibits and Standards as
they pertain to this project except we reserve the right to
make design changes and resubmit them for approval at a
later date.
16. a. The average 20' landscaped set -back will be
designed by a renown landscape architect and a
meandering wall is anticipated.
b. The landscape setback areas on both Washington
and Sagebrush Streets will be established as
separate common lots and appropriately maintained.
C. A Landscape Maintenance and Lighting District
0
may for formed if the city so desires. The
alternate would be for the Camelback Homeowners Associates
to maintain the area.
17. The developer will submit for approval all
proposed materials and colors since the controlling of these
items are major concerns and advantages of a planned
community.
18. Building setbacks will conform to the R-1 Zone
requirements. Setbacks on Washington and Sagebrush will be
based on the landscaped perimeter wall location.
19. The developer requests that the building height
and setback requirements agree with those specified for the
Grove Project which is "No units in excess of 30' in height
shall be located within 75 ft. of the tract boundary."
20. a. The garage floor plans have been changed to
provide 20 ft. X 20 ft clear.
b. The floor plans do not contain any bedrooms
with dimensions less than 10 ft. in the primary areas.
Alcoves or sitting areas may be less.
21. If a three -car garage is included with any of the
units appropriate setbacks will be maintained.
22. The siting plan showing setbacks, unit mix and
other data will be submitted for review and approval.
23. No roof -mounted mechanical equipment is
anticipated. The ground -mounted equipment will be shielded
in an approved manner and will not encroach into set -back
areas.
24. All minor changes in unit mix, building colors and
materials, lot lines, or street alignments will be submitted
for approval.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITES
25. The developer will comply with the requirements of
the City Fire Marshall:
a. The fire protection system will be designed
to meet the conditions specified.
b. Cul-de-sacs longer than 150 ft. will have a
turning diameter of 90 ft.
C. The water system plans will be certified by a
Registered Civil Engineer and will be submitted to the ,Water
Department and Fire Department for approval.
26. The developer will comply with the requirements of
Coachella Valley Water District.
a. The water and sewage disposal systems will
meet the City and Coachella Valley Water District standards.
b. Tentative Tract No. 21555 may be annexed to
Improvement District No. 55 of the Coachella Valley Water
District for sanitation services.
C. If any conflicts arise with the
Coachella Valley Water District the city may withhold
permits until they are resolved.
27. The developer has already received "will serve"
notification from the Imperial Irrigation District Power
Division and all designs will comply with their
requirements.
28. All utility improvements will be installed on/or
underground.
29. The developer will pay appropriate School
Mitigation fees to the Desert Sands Unified School District
prior to the issuance of building permits.
WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING
30. The developer intends to engage a renown landscape
architect for the project. He will design and submit plans
for approval for the landscaping, irrigation system, walls,
walks and exterior lighting system. The landscaping of the
exterior areas, the model complex and the largest flood
water detention area will all be completed prior to the
occupancy of any dwellings. In addition, the entire
perimeter wall will be constructed prior to any occupancy of
the homes. The landscape architect will also develop a set
of standard designs for the front yards of each dwelling and
an allowance will be given each homeowner so that he can
choose and acquire the landscaping of his choice. The
homeowners will be allowed 60 days to achieve the desired
results.
31. The type of plants and other materials will be
specified by the architect and will be appropriate to the
area.
32. The developer will make adequate provisions for
maintenance of the landscaping and related features until
the Homeowners Association is in a position to assume
responsibility.
33. As previously noted, 'an appropriate wall will be
designed and submitted for approval.
34. The lighting systems will be designed to minimize
glare and lighting impacts to surrounding property and will
be approved by the Community Development Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
35. Plot Plan approval will be secured,prior to
establishing any construction facilities, sales facilities
or signs on the subject property.
36. The applicant acknowledges that the city is
considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District and
will cooperate with any result.
37. A qualified archaeologist will be contacted
immediately if buried remains are encountered. Appropriate
measures will be taken as necessary.
38. Mitigation fees for the Fringe -Toed Lizard
Habitant Conservation Program will be paid.
39. The developer will comply with the city's
Infrastructure Fee Program when building permits are issued.
40. The developer will pay the appropriate processing,
plan checking and inspection fees in a timely manner.
41. Plans for street lighting will be submitted for
approval.
42. An appropriate noise impact study by a licensed
Acoustical Engineer will be made and submitted for review
and approval.
43. The developer will not grant any easements without
prior approval of the city engineer.
OURALMCK, McCLANAHANUNDEL
A PARTTER3.� CONSISTM OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIONS
•�l
WAYNE S. QLIRALNICK -
LEOOTTMCCLANANAN
I. SCOTT ZUNDEL
CRAM E. ZVNDEL
C14RISTOPMER R. PATRICK
Ai�w omoFv�i.rw
SENT VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
August 21, 1986
Dr. Judd Marmor
10889 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 909
Los Angeles, California 90024
TA SFP /014WAY 111
WLIITE A4
PµM DESERT, CALFORNIA FZZSO
0191340Q 1815
PLEASE REFER TO ME . 8 4- 3 0 4. 3
Re: Access Through the Camelback Project for Your Property
Directly East Thereof
Dear Dr. Marmor:
This office is general counsel for D. Wright and Associates, the
proponent of the proposed Camelback Project in LaQuinta,
California. At the last LaQuinta Planning Commission Hearing
(related to the public hearing on my client's project), you
raised concerns over limitations of access to your property. In
order to show my client's good faith in addressing these access
issues and to further comply with the suggestions of the Planning
Commission, we provide you with the following proposal:
1. You will be provided an easement for ingress and egress
over and upon the private roads within the Camelback
Project (Tentative Tract No. 21,555). The dominant tene-
ment of the easement would be your 30-acre parcel located
directly east of the Camelback Project and the servient
tenement would be my client's property. Access between
the Camelback Project and your property would be through
either Lot 52 or Lots 48 and 49, as determined by the
directives of the LaQuinta Planning Commission and City
Council.
2. An Easement Agreement would be entered into between the
respective parties. The easement would be appurtenant to
both Tentative Tract No. 21,555, as well as your property.
The Easement Agreement would further require that the
owner of the dominant tenement (your property) pay a
pro -rota portion of the cost in maintaining the private
roads and access gates within the Camelback Project based
on a ratio between the number of units to be built on your
property as opposed to the number of units within the
Camelback Project. Moreover, contribution for the main-
tenance of the streets and gates would only commence at
the time that you desire to use same. Finally, the use of
the easement would be limited to the residents, guests,
GtMAIMCK, McMN4NAN & MDEL
A LAW PARTHUMW
Dr. Judd Marmor
August 21, 1986
Page Two
tenants and invitees of those owners who purchase a por-
tion of your property. In other words, your project must
be a private subdivision. If it is open to the public,
then the easement would be extinguished and you would have
no access into the Camelback Project.
If the foregoing is agreeable to you, please note your approval
of same in the space so desiganted below. Thereafter, I will
prepare a formal Easement Agreement for execution by the parties
and proper recordation in the County Recorder's office.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and courtesy.
Sincerely,
GURALNICK, McCLANAHAN and ZUNDEL
A Law artnership
BY: '
WAYNE GURALNICK
AGREED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT.
Dated: August 21, 1986
Dated: August , 1986
WG:le
Enclosure
cc: D. Wright and Associates
D. WRIG TNS OCIA ES, INC.
By: �/ /.l
DREW W IGHT
DR. JUDD MARMOR
i
L0
N
Imo•.
J
/
�I
0
wal t ■ 090 Ott Ilf NN
,'
�
�a J
�•'�r ' �') !I
�
�-G
t_.
j
�1�,� �
17`' I�
—_ ,»ff �„_!
':•f•�p,l'-"=
�cl
`�t.��-�.�-
�.
'I.
�.'-0.
� � 9 ,tea
�'1
i
j
�
tNp1UYf-/0002i.11f MA • ••e.•Tr
pfYlfwlY 0000 11 101 1"01
§IRAINI
A►ARTHERCoo/17sT1 AN►ROFA$$gN TXONS
WAYNE 0. GURALNICK '
L SCOTT MC0LANAMAN
A SOOTT A NDEL'
CRAIO E. RMDEL
ONRIOTOFNEM R ►ATIDCR
'\A"Z118 RI,
TA "0 /gNWAY I I I
IIIFTE M
PALM DESERT. CALFCR14 022M
019111O 151 E
August 21, 1986 ►LEASEREFERTOFLE/ 84-304.3
Montero Estates Homeowners
Association
c/o Mr. Howard Tons
Post Office Box 715
LaQuinta, California 92253
Re: Confirmation of Meeting Between the Association and the
Proponent of the Camelback Project
Dear Mr. Tons:
This letter will confirm our conversation of Thursday, August 21,
1986, wherein it was agreed that you would meet with my clients,
D. Wright and Associates, related to your concerns over the pro-
posed Camelback Project.
The meeting shall take place at LaQuinta City Hall on Monday,
August 25, 1986 at 10:00 a.m. If there should be any change in
plans, please contact my secretary, Linda.
Sincerely,
GURALNICK, McCLANAHAN and 2UNDEL
A Law Partnership
BY: L `.
AAYNE GURALNICK
WG : l c
cc: D. Wright and Associates
I
i�tITK
MMCK, McCLANAHAN NDEL
�Y APAPRTERYVOON"TMOFPP40FESgONAL JNS
't
01ATNEO.OURALNICK'
74']aa KO0 AY 111
LOCOTTYCCLANANAN'
SUrtE M
a.000TT rJkVgL
PALM DESERT. CALFORIAA 07ta0
CRA10 E. WN01L
CNN TOPNER R. ►ATWCK
•1a 340.,E I
August 21, 1986
PLEASE REFER TO FILE 84-304.3
Mr. David Howerton
C/o Robert Lamb Hart
260 California Street
San Francisco, California
94111
Re: Proposed Meeting
Between My Client, D.
Wright and Associates
(Proponent of the
Camelback Project),
and Your Firm as the
Representative of
The Groves Project
Dear Mr. Howerton:
This letter will confirm our conversation of August 21, 1986
wherein it was agreed that a meeting between my clients, as the
proponent of the Camelback Project, and your offices, as the
representative of The Groves Project, would take place sometime in
early September when you come down to the Coachella Valley on a
business trip.
In this regard, my client is more than willing to fly to San
Francisco if your plans do change. In the meantime, we will await
your further communication to refine the date, time and place of
the meeting.
For your further consideration, my client it anxious to work with
you and your representatives in discussing any concerns or issues
you have with the proposed Camelback.Project. For example, we
would like to have your input related to landscaping, perimeter
wall and any other factors which might affect The Groves Project.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and courtesy.
Sincerely,
URALNICK McCLANAHAN and 2UNDEL
G
A Law Partnership
BY z
WAYNE GURALNICK
WG:lc
cc: D. Wright and Associates
ITEM NO. (Q.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE:
MOTION BY: BRRAANDTT STIDIN
SECOND BY: jBRAl'ii/ STEDING
DISCUSSION: % — G
• N I: t1 1t1
e•• g r• Ix
ri•:h�i
ROLL CALL VOTE:
NCO*MSSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT —
STEDING —
MORAN —
FIIiIS,ING
THGtMURGH
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
BACKGROUND
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
SL
The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
Planning Department
September 23, 1986
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENC
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT'S
FISCAL YEAR 1986-87.
City -Wide
Y
REVIEW OF PROPOSED COACHELLA
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
Coachella Valley Water District
Review General Plan Consistency of Coachella Valley
Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the
City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-1987.
Pursuant to Section 65401 of the State of California Government Code,
government bodies and special districts are required to submit a list
of public works projects proposed to be undertaken during the ensuing
fiscal year to the appropriate governing jurisdiction for General
Plan consistency review. Attached for your review is a list of
public works projects (Capital Improvement Program) for Fiscal Year
1986-87, proposed by the Coachella Valley Water District (refer to
Exhibit "A"). A map of the actual plan is available for review at
the Planning Department office and will be displayed at this
Commission meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The plan proposes an upgrade of the City's water system in the Cove
as well as an overall improvement to the City's water distribution
system. Relative to consistency with City planning, the program
complies with the La Quinta General Plan addressing the following
policies:
Hazards Element:
Policy 3.3.1 "More adequate fire protection should be assured by
implementation of new facilities as soon as feasible including water
system improvements and adequate staffing."
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
September 23, 1986
Page 2.
Infrastructure Element:
Policy 7.1.2 "Upgrading of the water system for the Cove area will
require:
- Replacement of all undersized and unlined distribution pipes
and establishment of a grid system.
- Replacement of the Cove area wells with new wells, with an
output of approximately 1500 GPM each; and
- Addition of a large capacity elevated reservoir.
FINDINGS
1. The Coachella Valley Water District's proposed list of public
works projects for Fiscal Year 1986-1987 is consistent with the
adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. The proposed list of Coachella Valley Water District public works
projects for Fiscal Year 1986-1987 will promote the health and
safety of La Quinta residents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends
that the Planning Commission, by minute motion, determine that the
proposed list of public works projects for Fiscal Year 1986-1987
proposed by the Coachella Valley Water District, for the City of La
Quinta is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY:
6 0-� W , 41W
Gary W. Price Murrel Crump
Associate Planner Planning Director
GWP:MC:dmv
Atch: Exhibit "A", Letter from CVWD Dated 8/25/86
cc: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Comm. Dev. & Redev. Admin.
Bob Weddle, City Engineer
Roger Hirdler, Comm. Safety Director
NATEq
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
�ISTRIC�
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1o58 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE 1619) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
RA DIRECTORS
R. RUMMONOS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
TALUS ND R. KAS.RUM VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
OWELL KERH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAG ER/AUDITOR
JOHN P. F
PALL W. OWELLS - REDvNNE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH August 25, 1986
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
kf�R
r �4
SEP 7366
COM'HLIN,71-DE'A UINT, DEPT
File: 1150.14
In accordance with the provisions of Section 65401 of the Government Code, this
District hereby advises your agency that it proposes the following projects in
the fiscal year 1986-1987 in your jurisdiction:
Replacement of 5,000 feet of 10-inch main
with 12-inch ACP on Avenida Velasco between
Calle Ensenada and Calle Tecate.
Upgrade Booster Station 06650.
Reservoir 6631.
Installation of 4,00 feet of 12-inch main in
Eisenhower from Calle Tampico to Calle Ensenada.
Relocation of Reservoir 5705 Tank to Reservoir 6632
site and construction of 18-inch transmission main
between Reservoir 6631 and Reservoir 6632.
Enclosed is a map indicating the locations of the proposed projects.
BAS:rs
Enclosure/as
Yours very truly,
`/ C; �
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY /
EXHIBIT A
RE: C2
ITEM NO.
DATE Z Q6
PLANNINNG-- COMMISSION MEETING �A
U
MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN ViAIlING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: C� STEDING� MORAN VALLING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
COWISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT -
STEDING -
LORAN -
MULING -
THIOUNBURGH -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED" YES NO
ono MEMORANDUM
K CITY OF LA OUINTA
CfwOFN�O
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: September 23, 1986
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW OF PROPOSED COACHELLA
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT PROJECT
LOCATION: Washington Street between Interstate 10 and 50th Avenue
APPLICANT: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
REQUEST: Review General Plan Consistency of a Proposed Force Main
to Transport Waste Water through the City of La Quinta
In accordance with the requirements of Section 65402 of the
California Government Code, the Coachella Valley Water District has
notified the City that it proposes to construct a force main to
transport waste water from an existing sewage lift station at
Interstate 10 and Washington Street (Riverside County Jurisdiction)
to another existing lift station on 50th Avenue and the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel (refer to the attached map exhibit). According to
the District, the pipeline is an interim facility to serve existing
and future projects including those in La Quinta. The facility is
anticipated to consist of an 18" line for carrying raw sewage.
Ultimately, the line will be replaced with a deep line gravity flow
system as was recently constructed along 50th Avenue.
The State Code requires the City to review the location, purpose and
extent of the proposed facility for conformity with the adopted
General Plan.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The proposed sewer project is consistent with the goals and policies
of the La Quinta General Plan. The project will provide the oppor-
tunity for new and existing development along Washington Street to
be connected into the system in accordance with Policy 7.2.1. of the
Infrastructure Element:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1986
Page 2.
- Policy 7.2.1. "All future development projects should
be connected to the existing interim wastewater system
in order to facilitate ultimate connection to the
regional treatment facility."
The project proposal could also be considered an expansion of sewer
services which will eventually be extended to the Village and Cove
areas of La Quinta in accordance with Policies 7.2.3. and 7.2.4. of
the Infrastructure Element. These policies basically encourage
extension of sewer services to these areas.
The Coachella Valley Water District, the designated Lead Agency under
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, has
determined that this project will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed force sewer main from lift stations at Washington
Street and Interstate 10 and 50th Avenue and the La Quinta
Evacuation Channel, through the City of La Quinta, is consistent
with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General
Plan.
2. The proposed project will promote the health and safety of
La Quinta residents.
3. The project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact
on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above findings, the Planning Department recommends that
the Planning Commission, by minute order, determine that the proposed
Coachella Valley Water District forced sewer main project is consis-
tent with the La Quinta General Plan.
El
Gq
STAFF REPORT
September 23,
Page 3.
PREPARED BY:
- PLANNING COMMISSION
1986
w
Gary W. Price
Associate Planner
GWP:MC:dmv
Atch: Exhibit Maps
APPROVED BY:
Murrel Crump
Planning Director
cc: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Comm. Dev. & Redev. Admin.
Bob Weddle, City Engineer
Roger Hirdler, Comm. Safety Director
WASHING TON STREET
_ ET
FORCE MAIN
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
NO. 1
81-01 LIFT STA.�=
G I �
_ a
_ S
g�I y
v
N
N W y 1 1 1
0
4 MILES TO WRP 7ZZ
1i
H 0 9
� &tmWa
f
RING DRIVE
M UWnm rtwb Wwp. NM.
Mmef+ Nm mY Pam SMn{f n
LlO.en mdnm i6 ,
7z
'4 �3
�--� x��••
- 15 MILES TO WRP
4
SIT
VENUE 5 0
..erue
5501 LIFT STA. 1
r
nL
il"�. �' f U QUINTA
W/ ffSf_ ING ■ ON STREET
I. FORCE MAIN
19 TION MAP
ITEM NO.
DATE
923a�_
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING \ VALLING THORNBURGi
SECOND BY: BRANDT STIDING MORAN WALLING THORNBURM
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
NCO*!MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT
STEDING
MORAN
ViALLING
THOiMURGii v -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO
RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 86-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RULES BY ADDING A PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION
TO ITS REGULAR MEETINGS AND CHANGING THE ORDER OF
BUSINESS.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of'the City of
La Quinta, California, that the Commission's Rules and Procedures for
meetings and related functions and activities, as adopted by
Resolution No. P.C. 82-002, are hereby amended by adding a Public
Comment section thereby changing the Order of Business (Section D.S.)
of any regular meetings thereof as follows:
D. Meetings
5. (a)
Call to Order
(b)
Roll Call
(c)
Hearings
(d)
Public Comment
(e)
Consent Calendar
(f)
Business Section
(g)
Adjournment
APPROVED and ADOPTED this
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
day of
, 1986, by
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
yl ATEq
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
��STRICZ
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN P. POWELL KEITH H. AINSWORTH, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/AUDROR
PAUL W. NICHOLS - REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
TH EODORE J. FISH September 9, 1986
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quints, California 92253
Gentlemen:
REcE,IVC7®
SEP
CITY
atilt ni OFnL ;QU(A'T,1
File: 0710.1503.02
In compliance with Section 65402 of the Government Code, this District
hereby notifies your agency that it proposes the Washington Street Force Main.
The project consists of the construction of a force main to transport sewage
from an existing sewage lift station at Interstate 10 and Washington Street to
another existing lift station on Avenue 50 and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel.
Project and general location maps are enclosed.
No environmental impact report is enclosed, none having been prepared as
this District has determined that this project will have no substantial
impact on the environment.
BAS:rs
Enclosures/as
Yours very truly,
cll*�
Tom Levy
General Manager -Chief En ineer
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY