Loading...
1986 10 14 PCA G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California October 14, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute 2. ROLL CALL 3. HEARINGS A. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361, A request to construct one (1), two-story, retail building (floor area of 2,683 sq.ft. ), with one (1), upper -level caretaker's residence (floor area of 2,382 sq.ft.) on a .23-acre site located at the southwest corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive; John Della, Applicant. 1. Staff Report. 2. Motion for Adoption. 4. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Public Hearing items. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form provided. Please complete one form for each item you intend to address and submit the form to the Planning Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of September 23, 1986. 4 AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 1986 Page 2. 6. BUSINESS A. TRACT 18765 - A request for the final Extension of Time on a 19.1-acre, 72-unit tract located on the south side of Avenida Fernando between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. 7. ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FOR STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION ONLY - OCTOBER 13, 1986 AT 3:00 PM 1. Discussion of possible change/cancellation of 10/27/86 Planning Commission Study Session. 0 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA TO; The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 14, 1986 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive APPLICANT: John Della REQUEST: Approval to construct one (1), two-story, retail building with a second -floor proposed as a caretaker's residence; a total gross floor area of 5,065 square feet. BACKGROUND 1. General Plan a. Site: Village Commercial. b. Surrounding Area: Village Commercial. c. Circulation Plan: Desert Club Drive is a collector with a proposed, 64-foot right-of-way; Calle Estado is a local street with a 100' right-of-way (improved). 2. Zoning a. Site: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial). b. Surrounding Area: South and East - R-1*++; North and West - C-P-S. 3. Existing Conditions The site is generally level and unimproved. A 20' alley right-of- way runs east/west along the south property line; the right-of-way is unimproved. Desert Club Drive is in varying states of improve- ment within its existing 50' right-of-way. Calle Estado is fully paved and has an existing curb along the northerly property line of the site, which does not conform to current design standards. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 2. The site is bordered on the south side of the alley by existing residentially zoned property, though these areas are not consistent with the land use designation of Village Commercial. Existing facilities are available to the site. Coachella Valley Water District is currently completing installation of deep sewer and water line along Desert Club Drive, which will be repaved to a 38' pavement width. 4. Environmental Assessment An Environmental Assessment has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The identified impacts which will be associated with this project are those usually associated with small scale infill development of urban- ized land. 5. Description of Request The Applicant proposes a two-story, retail and residential complex, designed as follows: a. First Floor: Building footprint of 2,883 square feet of retail space, with a net square footage of approximately 1,886, inclusive of any storage areas. b. Second Story: To consist of an approximately 2,200 gross square -foot, on -site, caretaker's unit, with two bedrooms, one den and one library room. (The second story, effectively, shows two (2), separate, residential units.) The upstairs, residential unit shall have stairway access to a two -car garage located on the first floor. A hallway leads to a second unit, which could incorporate a kitchen, and has a bathroom. The first floor incorporates four retail units, which are accessed via a raised, landscaped patio area along the Estado frontage. The units are oriented towards the Estado frontage in a "U-shaped" configuration. Unit #4 is set back 9' from the existing property line; Unit #1 is set back 6' along Estado to allow for a 6' sidewalk, and is not set back from the new right-of-way line for Desert Club Drive. Unit #1 encroaches approximately 4.5' into the corner cutback area required for dedication. The parking area for the retail areas provides seven (7) spaces. Two spaces required for the residential use are located in a proposed garage. Two-way access is provided off the adjoining alley at the southwest corner of the site. Stalls are 17' deep, with a 2' vehicle overhang into planter areas. A trash enclosure STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 3. is provided at the extreme southwest corner of the site, with gated access from the alley. Exterior design of the building is a Spanish style scheme, with wrought iron and the veneer treatments to be incorporated. Stucco color will be cream, with tan stucco accents. Roof material will be red concrete tile, and will be a hip style. A cupola treatment is shown at the roof peak, which provides mechanical equipment screening. The total building height to the roof peak is 24' from proposed, finished grade and 27' from surrounding elevations. The cupola is approximately 8' in height. 6. Agency Comments: a. City Engineer: City Engineer's comments related to standard engineering requirements. b. Fire Marshal: In addition to his standard comments and conditions, the Fire Marshal requested that the Applicant provide an integrated smoke detector and alarm system for the entire building. c. Community Safety: No comments. d. Building & Safety Division: No comments. e. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) : CVWD provided standard comments relative to flooding, provision of water and sanitation services and annexation. f. Chamber of Commerce: No comments. g. Riverside County Sheriff's Department: The Riverside County Sheriff's Department had concerns that parking would not be adequate, and indicated that the parking area should be illuminated. Comments were not received from Imperial Irrigation District, General Telephone Company, and Southern California Gas Company. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS General Plan Consistency: The proposed residential/retail use's consistency with the La Quinta General Plan's Land Use Element is subject to interpretation. The City is developing a downtown specific plan which will establish more definite policies and guidelines for permittable uses and design requirements. The commercial aspect of this proposal will more than likely be consistent with the specific plan and future area development with STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 4. regards to land use and design compatibility, as well as the intent to make the Village area pedestrian oriented. The residential component of this proposal is not addressed by the General Plan. The proposed patio area is a highly desirable design feature which should be retained. The rear elevation should be treated with similar embellishments as those incorporated into the front elevation. The firewall at the west end of the building should be eliminated, and the roof pitch adjusted to be consistent with the remainder of the building design. Site Plan Considerations: Zoning: The retail activity proposed is a permitted use in the C-P-S Zone classification. An accessory residential use is also permitted as "one, on -site caretaker's residence". Regarding the residential component, the design effectively incorporates two (2) separate apartment units, (although not stated as such in the request), which cannot be accommodated by the C-P-S ordinance provisions. Any residential provision would need to conform to the permitted use as allowed within the C-P-S Zone. For zoning consistency, the Applicant would have to redesign the proposal to eliminate the possibility of two (2) units. Another relative consideration is the fact that the C-P-S Zone is not adequate in addressing the concepts and uses envisioned within the Village area. It may be found desirable to introduce a mixed -use element into the Village, but specific zoning and development policies and standards need to be in place prior to the establishment of such uses. Interim permitted uses, such as office, could be incorporated into the upper story design, which could later be converted to a residential occupancy in conformance with adotped standards. Redesign of the project along these lines should be directed by the Commission. The Planning Commission should further consider the nature of this proposal as it relates to the Village area policies and guidelines, and the concept envisioned for this area. Setbacks are not required in the C-P-S Zone for buildings 35' or less in height (SEE ATTACHMENT #1). In the past, the City has required a 10' setback along Calle Estado and La Fonda, due to the fact that no parkway areas exist along these streets. The setback requirement was intended to provide a minimum 6' sidewalk and allow a 4' landscaped area between building(s) and sidewalk. The C-P-S Zone allows buildings up to 50' in height ( REFER TO ATTACHMENT #1 ), but has setback requirements for buildings in excess of 35'. The height of the building at 241, not including cupola, is compatible with past development in the Village area, which exist or were approved at heights ranging from 16' to 27'. The bank building was approved at a 25' height, while a retail office project on Desert Club Drive and Avenida La Fonda was approved at 27' (both measured STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 5. from finished grade elevation). In contrast, the commercial building on Estado was approved at 15.51in height. The Planning Commission may want to look at establishing interim height and setback policies in the downtown area. The building setbacks, as shown on the Applicant's plans, are permitted in the C-P-S Zone. The Planning Commission could make an interpretation that the landscaped patio area is a desirable amenity and would compensate for loss in planter area setback along Estado. The building must be set back out of the required corner cutoff area at the corner of Estado and Desert Club an additional 4.5' to 51. Parking/Circulation/Landscaping: The parking layout shows a total of nine (9) spaces; two of these will be exclusively for the residential use. Two residential units would require four (4) spaces. The required parking, based on the net square footage of the retail units is 7.5. Consideration of two factors is pertinent to the number of spaces: (1) Use of Off -Street Parking: In the past, the Planning Department has interpreted that off-street parking cannot be reserved exclusively for a particular use. This was applied to the Executive Office Building on the north side of Calle Estado. (2) Delineation of Storage Areas: No indication or delineation of retail unit storage area has been shown. It is safe to assume that these units will not be totally devoted to "sales and display area" only. Therefore, some of this space may be excluded from parking calcula- tions for the number of spaces. The Applicant should indicate these areas on detailed plans if he seeks to balance parking with floor area proposed. With regard to circulation, and addressing the plan as it is now configured, the area in front of the garage entrance would need to be designated as a "no parking" area, through signage or other means. Parking stall #1 should be increased 1' in width, to 11'. A 5'-wide planter strip is required along the east perimeter of the parking area. Relative to building design, the proposed "single-family" unit is actually designed to easily function as two separate units utilizing the same stairwell access. Although probably not enforceable, if the residential use (single -family -caretaker) is to be considered at this time, some form of deed restriction should be required to insure that the dwelling remains as permitted by zoning regulations. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 6. Site Layout: The general layout of the site provides for a two-way access at the adjoining alley, with parking along the rear, one-half of the site; the building footprint is sited on the front one-half. It appears that by redesigning the layout of the parking area and building units, additional parking could be accommodated, with better circulation, increased landscaping and setbacks, etc. Staff did identify this possibility at the preliminary review stage, but the Applicant has stated that his design is based upon the owner's needs and desires, and that several alternative designs were studied. The attached drawing prepared by Staff (EXHIBIT A) is one alternate redesign that could be considered; though it is not based upon hard, engineering criteria, it is provided to show an alternate layout can be created from a planning viewpoint. Staff recognizes that the Applicant must dedicate 7' of right-of-way for Desert Club Drive, and that the size of the site already is a limiting factor. The major considerations for the Planning Commission to address would be as follows: As the square footage involved requires eight (8) parking stalls for the retail uses, with seven (7) provided by the proposal, should some off -site street parking be allowed as credit for the balance of required on -site parking? 2. Should an interim policy regarding building height be established, or should this be addressed on a case -by -case basis? 3. Is the mixed -use concept proposed consistent with the General Plan designation of Village Commercial, and with the goals envisioned? 4. Given the small size of the site and the fact that setbacks are not required in the C-P-S Zone, to what extent should additional setback be required in this area; i.e., should there be a policy for setbacks along Desert Club Drive? Relative to this proposal, there are two options. The Planning Commission may continue the request indefinitely so that the project layout can be redesigned, or the project can be approved as submitted and subject to the proposed approval conditions. Staff has prepared suggested conditions should the Commission take the latter course of action. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed residential/retail use is subject to a determination of consistency with the La Quinta General Plan designation of Village Commercial. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 7. 2. The proposed use is not in compliance with the requirements of C-P-S Zone, as the residential component effectively provides for more than the one on -site, caretaker's residence. 3. The existing utilities are adequate or can be upgraded to provide for the needs of the proposed use. 4. Provided that the alley is improved, existing public roadways will adequately provide for traffic circulation. 5. The parking could be adequately provided by on- and off -site spaces, although the existing design will create some on -site circulation and parking problems. 6. The Spanish style architecture and proposed building materials may be compatible with future development in the area. 7. Approval of the project will not result in any significant environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends that Plot Plan No. 86-361 be continued indefinitely, and the Applicant advised to prepare revised plans to address the following: - Revised parking plan and circulation layout; - Reevaluate layout of the building units, residential area, and design of the building relative to architectural treatment at the west and south portions of the structure and any policy interpretations directed by the Commission; - Provision of additional setback at the corner cutback area and on Desert Club Drive. Staff has prepared Findings and Conditions of Approval in the event that the Planning Commission decides to approve the proposal substantially as submitted. Atchs: 1. Attachment #1, C-P-S Development Standards 2. Exhibit "A", Revised Parking Layout Example 3. Proposed Findings E Conditions of Approval gh commer l area. An application to wa 0a Commercial Specific Plan shall be made in writing to the Planning Director, prior to filing an applioation for a specific plan, stating fully the reasons therefor and accompanied by a fee as set forth in Section 18.37 of this ordinance. The application shall be placed on the regular agenda of the Planning Commission as a discussion matter for the determination of the Commission. If the Commission approves the waiver, the applicant shall be permitted to file an application for any required plot plan, conditional use permit or land division. SECTION 9.53. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following shall be the standards of development in the C-P-S Zones: (a) There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particular area. (b) There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two (2) feet for each foot by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing street line un- less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. (c) All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet in height, unless a height up to 75 feet is specifically permitted under the provisions of Section 16.34 of this ordinance. (d) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of this ordinance. (e) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of 1,320 feet. ADDED EFFECTIVE: July 19, 1967 (Ord. 348.517) AMENDED EFFECTIVE: 5-30-74 (Ord. 348.1327) 6-20-74 (Ord. 348.1340) 7-25-74 (Ord. 348.1349) 11-13-75 (Ord. 348.1476) 12-10-75 (Ord. 348.1481) 9-4-81 56 4-21-77(Ord.348.1564) 4-12- 79 (Ord . 348.1688) 7-26-79(Ord.348.1702) 10-23-80(Ord.348.1879) 3-5-81(Ord.348.1926) 9-4-81 (Ord. 348.20v0) ATTACHMENT #1 N SCALE: ,' "I Exesrnw. ,v�ow� is�wo , CALVE Esraoo c EXHIBIT W REVISED SITING: PLOT PLAN 86-361 FINDINGS - PROPOSED 1. The proposal is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Land Use Ordinance. 2. The general building and site design is consistent and compatible with existing and anticipated area development, subject to the conditions of approval. 3. There will be adequate utilities and public services to serve the project. 4. Approval of the project will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment. L' J El CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 OCTOBER 14, 1986 SINGLE-FAMILY/RETAIL BUILDING JOHN DELLA, APPLICANT General 1. The development of the site and building shall comply with revised Exhibits A, B, C, and the color/materials samples con- tained in the Planning Department's file for Plot Plan No. 86-361, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the public use case. 2. Plot Plan No. 86-361 shall comply with the standards and require- ments of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years after final proceedings before the La Quinta Planning Director; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substan- tial construction of permanent buildings (not including grading) authorized by this permit, which construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant first shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: * City Engineer * City Fire Marshal * Planning Department * Riverside County Environmental Health Dept. * Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of appli- cation for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. Building Design 5. The buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Exhibits B and C contained within the Planning Department's file for Plot Plan No. 86-361, except where these conditions shall make any amendments. 6. The type and colors of the exterior building materials shall be in accordance with the approved colors and materials sample board. 7. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by the roof structure. Overall building height, not including proposed screening, shall not exceed 24' from finished grade CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 2. 8. The garage shall be 20' x 20' clear with no encroachments into the clear area. An additional 4' clear shall be provided if laundry facilities will be in the garage area. 9. A lighting plan for the building's exterior areas, including any proposed parking area lighting, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 10. The proposed firewall at the west end of the building shall be eliminated in favor of other fire code treatments and the west building wall shall incorporate aesthetic design treatments. Methods for provision of such shall be subject to Planning Department review prior to building permit. Streets, Parking and Circulation 11. The Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City Engineer: (a) The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required by the City Engineer, including the corner cutoffs at Desert Club and Estado, and 6' side- walk easement along Estado. (b) The Applicant shall construct street improvements for 1/2 of Desert Club; 1/2 of Estado, and the 20' alley from his west property line to Desert Club Drive. Improvements shall include necessary handicap ramps, sidewalks and cross gutters. (c) That the Applicant shall have street improvement plans that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, including traffic signs and markings, shall conform to City Standards as determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the LQMC. (3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base minimum for residential streets). Street design shall take into account the subgrade soil strength, the anticipated traffic loading, and street design life. (d) The Applicant shall have a grading plan that is prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who will be required to supervise the grading and drainage improvement construction; and certify that the constructed conditions at the rough grade state 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 3. (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 reports recommendations shall be incorporated into the 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 Professions 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 provi- sions of the City Master Plan of Drainage, including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. (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) An encroachment permit for work shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. (i) 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 subcon- tractors for the Planning, Building, or Engineering Divisions. (j) Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and Lighting District, and agrees to be included in that District. Assessments will be done on a benefit basis as required by law. (k) Applicant shall apply to the City for a parcel merger prior to building permit issuance. The merger shall have been recorded prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. (1) The final parking lot layout and design shall be reviewed and approved in conjunction with the grading plan, and shall conform with Section 18.12 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance, except where these conditions shall take precedence. 12. A 5'-wide planter area shall be provided along the easterly perimeter of the parking area. Space #1 shall be increased to 11' in width. El CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 4. PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 13. A masonary wall shall be provided along the southern perimeter of the parking area, per requirements of Section 18.12 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance. The Planning Director may defer this requirement, with an appropriate performance guarantee, pending a change in zoning for the area to the south. 14. Construction and color of the walled trash enclosure shall conform to that used on the main building. 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, or as may be otherwise approved by the City Fire Marshal as an alternate equivalent. (a) A fire flow of 2750 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. (b) The required fire flow of shall be available from a Super hydrant, (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/211), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building. (c) Applicant shall be encouraged to provide an integrated smoke detector and alarm system for the entire building, in accordance with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. (d) West wall of building shall conform to requirements of the Uniform Building Code, Sections 504 and 1709. (e) All occupancy separations shall conform to the requirements of Uniform Building Code, Section 503, 1982 Edition. (f) Applicant shall install fire extinguishers per NFPA Pamphlet No. 10. 16. Water service shall be provided in accordance with the require- ments of Coachella Valley Water District and the City of La Quinta. 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 should these lines become avail- able prior to occupancy. The Applicant shall connect to those facilities at that time. 18. All on -site utilities shall be installed underground. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 86-361 OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 5. Miscellaneous 19. 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 plant types, sizes, spacing, and locations. (b) Landscape irrigation system. (c) Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. (d) Location and design of sidewalks and walkways on -site and adjacent Calle Estado and Desert Club Drive. (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. 20. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. 21. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit, 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 limited to building name or directory type signs. All on -site traffic, directional or informational signs shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan. 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall comply with the City's adopted requirements regarding infra- structure fees. 23. The Applicant shall have prepared a deed restriction or other similar enforceable document, which shall expressly limit use of the residential apartment to the owner or caretaker of the project. Said documentation shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director and the City Attorney, and shall be submitted prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. r MI N U T E S 5.4. PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 23, 1986 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Vice Chairman John Walling called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.; he called upon Commissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Vice Chairman Walling requested the roll call; the Secretary called the Roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, and Vice Chairman Walling Absent: Chairman Thomas Thornburgh Also present were Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, Secretary Donna Velotta, and City Manager Ron Kiedrowski. 3. HEARINGS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the hearing items, which were heard concurrently, as follows: A. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 86-023, a request for approval of a zone change from R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on 2.79 acres to allow for the establish- ment of a restaurant; Robert Cunard, Applicant. (CONTINUED FROM 7/22/86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 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) Vice Chairman Walling called for the Staff Report. 1. Planning Director Murrel Crump explained the two requests concurrently per information taken from the Staff Report, a copy of which is in the files maintained in the Planning Department. In conclusion, Director Crump advised the Commission that based upon the Findings in the Staff Report, it is recommended that the change of zone request be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval to the C-P-S Zone as illustrated in Exhibit "A"; and, that the plot plan request be approved in accordance with Exhibits A, B, and C, subject to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Walling called for any questions by the Commission of Staff. Commissioner Brandt queried Director Crump regarding the use of existing cyclone fence and oleander hedge as being adequate for screening purposes in lieu of block wall screening. Director Crump responded that Staff anticipates the adjacent properties will be rezoned to commercial shortly, and is recommending, therefore, that other types of view obscuring fencing be permitted. Vice Chairman Walling questioned the use of shake roofing on the new construction. Director Crump responded that City codes do not require reroofing unless substantial additions are constructed; therefore, in this case, shake roofing can continue to be used. Vice Chairman Walling opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. The following persons spoke on these matters: 1. Robert Cunard (Applicant), 78-045 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal explaining that he intends to do something nice for the community in keeping with the "Village" concept theme. In response to Commissioner Brandt's question regarding the type of fencing being used, he explained that he plans to bring in some mature, low growing, citrus trees to plant around the perimeter as both a noise barrier and screening. Commissioner Moran quieried Mr. Cunard as to whether he planned to have outdoor dining, weather permitting. Mr. Cunard responded that they would like to do so in the future, explaining that the patio area does have room for approximately four tables. Vice Chairman Walling asked Mr. Cunard if there was enough room to expand the parking area in the future. - 2 - Mr. Cunard replied that there was room for expansion of the parking area showing the Commission the area by use of the wall rendering. 2. Audrey Ostrowsky, P. O. Box 351, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the proposal, but had some concerns. First, she explained that the first public hearing regarding these matters was continued without any discussion; therefore, there was no public comment input. This, then is the first open public hearing on these matters and no property owners were renotified of it. She felt the proposal will impact others in the area and they should be present to speak. Second, she felt the parking lot location should be changed. She noted that this meeting was the first time she found out where it would be located. Director Crump responded by advising Ms. Ostrowsky that the proposal for the parking area has been there since the application was made and has been highlighted since the first Staff Report. The case has always been open for public review. Commissioner Brandt queried whether Staff has received any written communications regarding these matters. Director Crump advised that there have been no written communications received. 3. Dr. George Fisher, 78-030 Calle Cadiz, La Quinta; spoke in favor of the project and stated that he could not see where anyone in the area of the proposal has not known about it since its inception, as Mr. Cunard has been keeping everyone updated. Dr. Fisher advised that he lives across the street from the proposed project and feels it will not create much of an impact at all. In rebuttal, Mr. Cunard stated that since the concept of this proposal some two years ago, he has contacted his neighbors and discussed every part of this project. There being no further public comment, Vice Chairman Walling closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Planning Commission discussion regarding these matters: Commissioner Moran questioned how future road improve- ments will be done and the monies acquired. - 3 - Director Crump advised that suggested conditions of approval provide for irrevocable offer to dedicate street right-of-way based on the ultimate specific plan. Conditions of approval also provide for a map exercise, at which point, improvement requirements could be speci- fied such as participation in a general assessment district. Vice Chairman Walling asked if there is an assessment district for the entire Village are under consideration. Director Crump responded that it is not defined, but there could be. Commissioner Moran asked if wood shake roofing is in violation of Condition No. 15(i). Director Crump replied that he would have to defer to the Fire Marshal as far as what retrofitting would be required. He stated that the Applicant might have to install fire sprinklers and other fire retardant systems that the code requires for this occupancy. Commissioner Moran stated she is glad to see this proposal getting off the ground and to see the City trying to keep the "flavor" of the area as it is. Commissioner Brandt agreed and stated she is excited about this proposal going forward. She also felt there has been adequate public notice given; throughout the General Plan process, commercial uses have been identi- fied for the area and having not received any written communications, she felt comfortable with the project tonight. Commissioner Steding stated she was in favor of the proposal. - 4 - 0 Vice Chairman Walling stated that this is really the culmination of our reasoning for redesignating the Land Use Element for this area from the beginning. He felt this to be a great project and hopes it will set the pace for the remainder of the downtown area. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to recommend approval to the City Council for Change of Zone No. 86-023 to C-P-S for the lands described in the application and as illustrated on Exhibit A; and, to recommend approval to the City Council for Plot Plan No. 86-343 in accordance with the application Exhibits A, B and C, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Unanimously Adopted with a 4-0 vote (Chairman Thornburgh being absent). 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Chairman Walling introduced the Consent Calendar which con- sisted of the Minutes for the regular meeting of September 9, 1986. There being no discussion, he called for a motion. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to approve the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning Commission for September 9, 1986, as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Vice Chairman Walling introduced the first item of Business as follows: A. Review of proposed conditions of approval regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 referred to the Planning Commission by City Council. He then called for the report from Staff. 1. Planning Director Crump reiterated City Council action at their meeting of September 16, 1986, advising the Commission that they have approved Specific Plan 86-007. Amendment #1, and Change of Zone 86-021, but continued the Tentative Tract Map No. 21555 requesting a report from the Planning Commission concerning review and finalization of recommended conditions of approval. He briefly explained the major points that the Council believed - 5 - needed further resolution through conditions of project approval. These major points included: - Perimeter building height limits - Grading and pad elevations - Interim access to Washington Street - Future signalization at Washington/Sagebrush - Access to easterly parcel (Dr. Marmor's property) - Floor plan/elevation designs - Perimeter wall and setback detailing Director Crump noted that the conditions need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and revised or added to to address these primary issues. This concluded Staff's report. Vice Chairman Walling reiterated that this is not a public hearing, but the Applicant in this matter (Drew Wright) had informed the Commission that he had further informa- tion to present to the Commission. Drew Wright, President of Drew Wright & Associates, P. O. Box 1876, Indio, CA - presented the following information: a. Developing their half -width of Washington Street along their entire frontage and use it as a temporary frontage road; b. The pad heights will be built to the minimum prescribed standards; c. Dr. Marmor's property to the east will be provided with one access; however, Dr. Marmor prefers more; d. The floor plans have been revised to the minimum required; and, e. The lots along the perimeter should be specified for one or two-story units. Discussion regarding the information provided by Mr. Wright: Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if the entire median, along Washington Street, would be on the Applicant's property. Mr. Wright stated it would have to be determined by a survey. He noted that they are dedicating 65' and their half -width is only 601. Vice Chairman Walling asked the Applicant if they plan to develop the entire median at this time (both sides). 0 Mr. Wright responded that they would be developing the median to the satisfaction of the City, which may require development of both sides. Vice Chairman Walling asked Staff if this could become a potential problem and how it could be resolved. Director Crump responded that he felt it amatter of what interim improvement will function and he did not know if that has been thoroughly worked out. Vice Chairman Walling stated that what he understood Director Crump to say then is that if it is the Commission's intention to require this as a condition to develop that area, including the median, the City should go ahead with acquisition of that piece of land. Director Crump responded affirmatively. Vice Chairman Walling asked Director Crump if, at such time that this comes back for the final tract, the Commission will have review of it in terms of pad heights, etc. Director Crump responded that the Commission would not see a final tract map, it would just go to Council. The Commission may, however, request this information prior to the approval of the final map. Vice Chairman Walling queried the Commission whether they wished to address any other than the issues raised by the City Council. There being none, he opened discussion to the first issue which related to perimeter building height limits. Commissioner Steding stated she felt the recommendations should be consistent with those previously approved for "The Grove" project; she preferred to have Washington Street corridor kept clean of two-story structures; and permit multi -story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. story structures along the east and south perimeters as long as they are under 30' in height. Commissioner Moran felt that the Commission has made strong statements in the past on the Washington Street Corridor. Therefore, she had some mixed emotions regarding this matter, especially if the public was to look at the rear elevations of the homes along Washington. - 7 - 0 Commissioner Brandt stated she was interested in the Applicant's comments making height limits applicable to lots as opposed to a 75' setback (or 200' setback). She agreed with Commissioner Steding regarding allowing multi -story homes along the east and south perimeters. Commissioner Moran reiterated her earlier statement that the Washington Street corridor should not be fronted with multi -story homes. Vice Chairman Walling felt no multi -story should be built along Washington Street, as it is our Image Corridor. He suggested that a condition requiring review of those lots on a lot -by -lot basis, when there is more information available. Commissioner Brandt asked Staff if a corner of the lot should be within the 75' setback, does that mean that no building on that lot can exceed two stories. Director Crump responded no, that the way it is structured is a lot could occur within 75' and that portion of the lot within the 75' could not have a building. Vice Chairman clarified that this means the setback is to the building rather than the lot. After substantial discussion, it was the Commission's consensus to revise Condition #19 to generally reflect the intent of the following: "Dwelling units in excess of 21' (one story) shall not be located within 75' from the tract boundary wall along Washington; dwelling units with heights of up to 28' (two story) may be permitted along the north, east, and south boundaries subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission." At this point, Director Crump advised the Commission some of these issues could be addressed, as stated earlier, to a generalized condition advising that prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for Commission review and recommendation, the following items, etc. It was the consensus of the Commission, therefore, to add a condition stating something similar to the following: "Prior to approval of a final tract map, the Applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission, the following items: a. Dwelling unit floor plans, elevation designs in final form. b. Tract grading and final building pad elevations showing cross sections through the tract. c. Individual dwelling unit setbacks along with lot fencing/wall enclosures and landscaping on indi- vidual lots. d. Tract boundary wall and landscape details. e. Revised map to provide for a minimum of one emergency access point along eastern tract boundary or through street access to eastern property arranged by private agreement. f. A final siting plan delineating all setbacks, unit mix and other applicable information." Vice Chairman Walling requested comments regarding the interim access to Washington Street. Commissioner Steding was in favor of the Applicant's proposal of creating a frontage road to Sagebrush. Commissioner Moran stated that they were told previously that this sliver of land was not going to be a problem. Now it looks like it will be a problem. City Manager Ron Kiedrowski spoke to the Commission stating the Council was concerned as to whether it is the City's responsibility to purchase this parcel, or is it this project's property owner and the adjoining property owner to somehow purchase that sliver to create the ultimate right-of-way. The Council did not come up with a solution, but wanted him to bring this concern back to the Planning Commission. He stated some of the options available are: 1. Require one or the other project to purchase it or to make sure it gets into public domain with the Planning Commission saying that they would pay their share and the other would get their share back as you would recondition the second one. 2. City acquires the parcel and that they pay their appropriate share on acquisition. City Manager Kiedrowski stated that the concern that the Council had is that if you go forward ignoring this sliver of land, then how does the design engineer of this project, The Grove project, and the City Engineer for the rest, design this ultimate road without having control of the additional parcel. We want this to be part of the ultimate 130' with the landscaped median. Commissioner Steding asked if it was not the Washington Street Specific Plan which straightened the bow, thereby creating this parcel, and thereby causing the problem to have been created by the City. City Manager Kiedrowski replied that you could look at it in this way or you could look at it so that in order to develop those parcels, they would have to obtain that bow or they would never have direct access to the existing Washington Street. Commissioner Steding commented that the City, as the condemnor, would be able to buy the property at a lessor fee than the other property owners who would then have to dedicate the land back to the City. To summarize, Director Crump stated what we see here is a sliver of privately owned land and we could say that its public acquisition would benefit this property, The Grove property, and the general public in that it would allow the Washington Street Plan to be implemented. Commissioner Steding preferred that the City condemn and thus acquire the property at the lowest market value and then seek contribution from The Grove and Drew Wright at a minimum of one-third each. Commissioner Moran asked if we could do this to The Grove project, as it has already been approved and this was not an issue at that time. Director Crump advised that The Grove has a development agreement, so it may be a little more difficult. He advised that he did not know if the Commission could require another condition of The Grove. Commissioner Brandt stated she would like to see a recommendation go forth saying that they want the City to exercise its eminent domain powers to condemn this sliver of property and to have the City participate in one-third of the acquisition cost and the remaining developers to participate in the remaining two-thirds to be divided proportionately as to the amount of land fronting their properties. There was a consensus for this recommendation. - 10 - The Commission additionally added that they did not want this acquisition credited toward the Infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding the signalization of Sagebrush: The Commission reiterated that previous developers have been required to provide signalization which was over and above Infrastructure Fees. Commissioner Moran questioned whether, when discussing the initial adoption of Infrastructure Fees, this signal was under consideration. Director Crump responded that this signal, if there is to be one, is a product of amending the Washington Street Specific Plan. Commissioner Steding queried if any development which may occur on Dr. Marmor's property would also participate in the cost of such signalization. Vice Chairman Walling stated he felt there should be an equitable participation over and above Infrastructure Fees. Discussion regarding access to Dr. Marmor's property to the east of this proposed project: Commissioner Steding stated her basis premise is, and apparently the City Council generally agreed with her, that there is adequate public access. Particularly, if Sagebrush is extended around to create an internal loop into Dr. Marmor's property and back out again onto Sagebrush. Commissioner Moran stated the Commission did grant this Applicant the right -turn access to Washington and she felt not to allow development on Dr. Marmor's property access through that access way was not quite fair. But, not knowing what the agreement is between the Applicant and Dr. Marmor, it is difficult to make a decision. She went on to state she did not feel two accesses to the Marmor property were necessary. But, if Dr. Marmor is willing to pay a percentage of the upkeep, through a homeowners' association for private roads for one access, she felt they should grant him that. Director Crump addressed the Commission stating they could compromise between the two positions here by providing for a minimum situation, which is to be an emergency access and allowing for a private agreement to be reached that allows a full access between properties. So, the new condition would provide one emergency access and then, by agreement between owners, that the emergency access could be opened to a project -to -project access. The Commission agreed to Director Crump's statement. Commission discussion regarding perimeter wall and setback detailing: Vice Chairman Walling stated he felt the 20' setback for the wall should be changed to a 20' average so the Applicant could have more design flexibility. There was a consensus in this regard. After further discussion regarding this matter, the Commission agreed to request review of this matter and others mentioned previously prior to the final map rather than require a plot plan review. Commissioner Moran asked if there was going to be any sort of grade at the entrance to Sagebrush as far as the landscaping area was concerned. Director Crump advised that it was not discussed, but that the Commission could specify a maximum 33% grade for any berm occurring in the landscaped area. The Commission was agreeable to this suggestion. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Steding made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to recommend to the City Council that they approve the conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 21555, prepared August 12, 1986, subject to the appropriate changes and additions made by the Planning Commission this date. Unanimously Adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the next items of business to be heard concurrently as follows: B. Review of the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87; and, 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. - 12 - He then called for the report from Staff. 1. Director Crump addressed these matters per information provided in the Staff Reports. He advised the Commission that as far as a formal response, Staff recommends that the Commission, by a minute motion, determine that these matters are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. There being no questions or comments, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, that the Coachella Valley Water District's Capital Improvement Program for the City of La Quinta for Fiscal Year 1986-87, and their construction of a force main to transport sewage through the City of La Quinta via Washington Street are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously adopted. Vice Chairman Walling introduced the last item of business as follows: 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. Director Crump addressed the Commission explaining this is a resolution amending the Planning Commission Rules and Procedures by adding a Public Comment section, which thereby also amends the order of business. Commissioner Steding queried the remark that public comment is encouraged on items other than on the agenda. Does this include discouragement of public comment on things that are on the Business or Consent Calendar sections of the Agenda. Director Crump stated this would be at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested the public could use the comment time for matters other than public hearings. The Commission agreed to this suggestion. Commissioner Steding asked if the Commission should limit the time allotted for the public comments. Director Crump suggested that the Chairman set time limits at the meeting. Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion. - 13 - Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to adopt Resolution No. P.C. 86-003. Unanimously adopted by a 4-0 roll call vote ( Chairman Thornburgh being absent). At this point, there was a brief discussion regarding items discussed at the Study Session regarding City-wide identification signs and the concept for an amphitheatre at Lake Cahuilla. These items were not a part of the Agenda for this meeting. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Walling called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Steding, to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on October 14, 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 9:00 p.m., September 23, 1986, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. - 14 - TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Department October 14, 1986 FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 18765 South Side of Avenida Fernando between Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Obregon Landmark Land Company Consideration of a final, one-year extension in which to file a Final Map. Tentative Tract Map No. 18765 was originally approved on November 2, 1982, as a portion of the Santa Rose Cove, Specific Plan No. 121-E. The Applicant has subsequently gained tentative map time extension approvals from the City on a yearly basis since November 3, 1983, in accordance with Section 66463 of the California Government Code (State Subdivision Map Act). A revision to the map was made and approved on December 4, 1984, to reduce the number of dwellings from 108 to 72 and increase the number of tennis courts from 21 to 36. To date, the first two phases of Landmark's Tennis Villas have been completed consisting of 48 dwelling units. The final phases provide for 24 additional dwelling units for a total project buildout of 72 units on 19.1 acres. Pursuant to the State Subdivision Map, the life of a tentative tract map, given maximum time extension abilities, is five years. Landmark Land Company is requesting a final one-year extension to record the remaining final map; the tentative map will expire on November 2, 1987. EXISTING CONDITIONS The remaining unrecorded portions of this development involve Phase 3, consisting of 24 units, and Phase 4, consisting of the tennis club with no units. Regarding existing street and utility improvements, access to the site is from Eisenhower Drive on Avenida Fernando. Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan are secondary access roads to the adjacent Santa Rosa Cove development. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 2. Avenida Obregon is a service road for the La Quinta Hotel and the main access to the tennis club. All necessary utilities have been extended to the site. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential (4 to 8 units per acre) with an overall density of 3.77 units per acre. The approval is also consistent with the policies and guidelines of all other portions of the General Plan. CONSISTENCY WITH MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES The Municipal Subdivision Ordinance permits tentative map extensions of up to two years. However, this ordinance is superseded by the State Subdivision Map Act by allowing one additional year of extension. The development is consistent with the requirements of all other provisions of the Land Use and Land Division Ordinance. No changes in the conditions of approval are required. CONCLUSION Significant progress has been made in the completion of development and improvements contemplated by Tentative Tract No. 18765 with the vast majority of the project complete (67% of the dwellings, 95% of the tennis club facility, and the majority of the private streets are installed). It is evident that these improvements will eventually lead to ultimate project completion. The tentative tract map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and related municipal ordinances. Therefore, a final request for extension is appropriate for consideration. At this point, requiring the processing of a new tentative tract map on the remaining portion of this development would not be productive. FINDINGS 1. The Applicant has made substantial progress in complying with the requirement of approval necessary to record the remaining final maps. 2. A substantial portion of the project and related improvements are complete. 3. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision in accordance with the recommended conditions is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 4. The development is consistent with the requirements of the La Quinta Land Use Ordinance (R-3 Zone). STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 3. 5. The site is physically suitable for future development in accordance with the subdivision design. 6. Approval of the request is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish and wildlife of their habitat. 7. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause public health problems nor would they con- flict with existing public easements. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of the third and final, one-year extension in which to record the final maps for Tentative Tract Map No. 18765 to November 2, 1987, subject to the conditions of approval as attached. Atchs: 1. Exhibit "A" 2. Conditions of Approval CCNDITICNS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18765, REVISION #1 OCTOBER 14, 1986 General 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 18765, Revision No. 1, shall oomply with standards and requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of Ia Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire two years after the date of original approval by the La Quinta City Council (November 2, 1982), unless approved for extension as provided for by the City of Ia Quinta Land Division ordinance. 3. Tract phasing plans (if any), including any proposed phasing of public improve- ments, shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Community Development Department for review and approval. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any use oontenplated by this approval, the Applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearances from tie following public agencies: ° Riverside County Environmental Health Department " City Engineer " City Fire Marshal Planning Division " Comunity Development Department, o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use omtecplated herewith. Project and Building Design 5. The develOPMent of the site and buildings shall comply with approved Exhibits A, B and C, as contained in the planning Department's file for Tentative Tract Map No. 18765, Revision No. 1, and the following conditions, which conditions shall take precedence in the event of any conflict with the provisions of the tentative tract map. i 6. All mechanical heating and cooling equipment shall be ground mounted or screened from view by the roof structure fram adjoining streets. Streets, Grading and Drainage 7. The Appl icant shall carply with the following Tequirements of the City Engineer: a. Avenida Obregon shall be fully improved to City standards excepting the installation of sidewalk with a full width of 24 feet. Avenida Obregon shall be adequately designated for "no parking". b. All driveways and parking spaces shall be constructed to City standards. c. d. e. Revised grading, sewer and water plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The Applicant shall suhnit the final map to the City Engineer for review and approval. curb and gutter shall be subject to review and The request to eliminate >n conjunction with his review of drainage approval by the City Engineer plans for the subject area. Agh CCNDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18765, REVISION #1 OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 2. 8. The Applicant shall oamply with the following requirements: a. A minimum 24-foot wide, unobstructed travelway on driveways and private streets shall be maintained at all times. b. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Cacm=ty Development Department for review and approval a plan for the group driveways and private streets, including designation of any "no parking" areas and the method for identifying them. c. Prior to the final inspection or the issuance of Certificates of occupancy for the dwellings, the approved parking control devices shall be installed. Public Services and Utilities 9. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal in accordance with municipal Ordinance No. 7 as follows: a. Install a water system capable of providing a potential fire flow of 2500 GPM and the actual fire flow available fran any one hydrant(s) shall be 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration in addition to danestic or other supply. The computation shall be based upon a nununnn of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. b. install Riverside County super fire hydrants located at 330-foot intervals along frontage beginning at intersections. (1) Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrc me yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. (2) Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction fran each hydrant. c. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the Riverside County Fire Department for review. d. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company with the following certification. "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 18765 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 10. The water and sewage disposal systems shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the City and of Coachella Valley Water District. 11. The Applicant shall provide all necessary easements for public utilities. All on -site utilities shall be placed underground. 12. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements of ITperial Irrigation District. a. prior to issuance of building permits, Applicant shall provide written clearance to the City Ccnvnity Development Department that Imperial Irrigation District can provide service to this development. p • I CONDITIONS - TENTATIVE TRACT ® MAP NO. 18765, REVISION #1 OCTOBER 14, 1986 Page 3. 13. As mitigation for the impact on the public schools, the Applicant shall comply with the following: a. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Applicant shall complete a school impact mitigation agreement with Desert Sands Unified School District. b. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for construction of dwellings, the Applicant shall provide the City Community Development Department with written clearance from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that the per -unit impact fees have been paid. Management 14. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval management documents, including but not limited to the CC&R's. Miscellaneous 15. Desert or native plant species and drought -resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscaping plans for the project and the public street parkways. 16. The Applicant shall utilize dust control measures in accordance with the Municipal Code and the Uniform Building Code and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 17. The Applicant shall comply with the requirements and provisions of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program, including the payment of drainage fees, in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 18. The Applicant shall provide park and recreation facilities or related contri- butions in an alternate manner consistent with policies of the Parks/open Space Resources portion of the La Quinta General Plan, subject to the review and approval by the City Council. 19. Thirty (30) days prior to the approval of a Final Map, the Applicant/Subdivider shall have submitted to the City Manager any and all claims or requests for credit toward Infrastructure Fees attributable from the development of this tract. The City Manager's report shall be made a part of the City Council's deliberation on a Final Map, and the action of the City Council in the acceptance or rejection of any such claim or request shall constitute the complete understanding between parties as to the disposition of Infrastructure Fees as it may relate to any future credit.