Loading...
1987 03 24 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 March 24, 1987 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute 2. ROLL CALL 3. HEARINGS A. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-006 (HIGHWAY 111); a request for approval of a Specific Plan for the area generally bounded by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel on the north, Jefferson Street on the east, 48th Avenue on the south, and the La Quinta City limits on the west. The plan establishes guidelines regarding land use, infrastructure, development standards, implementation methods and other pertinent measures (City Initiated). 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 No minutes available as there have been no Planning Commission meetings the past two, regularly scheduled meeting dates. AGENDA - PLANNING COMMISSION March 24, 1987 Page 2. 6. BUSINESS A. Master design guidelines for multiple home construction. A request from Coachella Valley Land Company, Ltd. to construct 20 single-family dwellings. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. B. Preliminary review of a commercial building. The prospective Applicant, Wendell W. Veith, AIA, requests Planning Commission consideration regarding parking requirements. 1. Report from Staff/Transmittal of Correspondence. 2. Commission Action to Receive and File. C. Review of ministerial and discretionary uses contained in zoning regulations. D. Commission Agenda Items; identification of future Agenda discussion items. 8. ADJOURNMENT e- .tea 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF STUDY SESSION OF THE LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled 3:00 p.m. Study Session to be held on March 23, 1987, has been cancelled. DATED: March 23, 1987 MURREL CRUMP PLANNING DIRECTOR BY: y Donna M. Velotta Planning Commission Secretary MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 ITEM NO. il. 4e O•�- DATE Z /% PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: &,LF' L, &C6,t, ;7 © /" ` MOTION BY: BTWW .r ECOND BY: BRANDT STEDING ROLL CALL oD°,*0 CO2!MIS S IONERS : ••• r• � ••+ is •h AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT t/ l✓ UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO ITEM NO. DATE 311 �f COMMMISSION MEETING �//,/�J RE: G'G c� /PLANNING /�Cuirt� % /'( 2, 76<-6eJfl MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN FTALLING THORNBURGi SECOND BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN %%LLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMKISSIGNERS: STEDING MORAN VQALLING THORMURGH AYE UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES LUG: ABSTAIN NO ABSENT It'll PRESENT TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lawrence L. Stevens, Planning Consultant DATE: March 20, 1987 SUBJECT: Specific Plan No. 86-008; Highway 111 Specific Plan LOCATION: Highway 111 area generally bounded by Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel on the north, Jefferson Street on the east, 48th Avenue on the south and the City limits on the west. APPLICANT: Initiated by City of La Quinta REQUEST: To adopt a Specific Plan establishing additional regulations and design guidelines for the subject area. BACKGROUND BSI, Inc. has prepared, after a series of public reviews, a hearing draft for the Highway 111 Specific Plan. These public reviews have included three (3) meetings with area property owners, study session discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council, contacts with appropriate utilities and public agencies and inptu by City Staff. This process has culminated in the Hearing Draft which was available for distribution on March 6. While the document is, for the most part, self-explanatory, a number of issues have arisen within the last week or so. These are primarily from the last property owners' meeting on March 16. The following comments are intended to facilitate decision making on these few minor areas of concern. It should also be noted that some additional written correspondence relating to the impacts of the plan or particular properties or proposed developments may be forthcoming. They will be transmitted to you as they become available. COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Use of Traffic Circles In general, it seems that there are concerns about traffic safety from area property owners about the proposed traffic circles. It was initially intended that these circles offer a unique, design - oriented focus which could serve as an attraction for the Specific Plan area. However, with the opposition expressed to date, it seems advisable to drop the traffic circle concept from the Specific Plan unless the Planning Commission feels strongly that the initial intent is still worth salvaging. MEMO - PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 1987 Page 2. 2. Determination of Hotel Densities Concern was expressed that a method to calculate hotel room density be provided so that it was clear that the 16-unit per acre limitation did not apply. While I am not certain that this is necessary, the following alternative is available if desired. The following language could be added to "Density and Intensity" Section (Page 29): "Hotels and motels are considered to be commercial uses and are not subject to the 16-unit per acre density requirement. Their density shall be determined by compliance with applicable develop- ment standards including, but not limited to, building height, FAR (floor area ratio), parking, landscaping, setbacks, and the like." 3. Restaurant Parking Requirements Table VI on Page 34 proposes a new parking standard for restaurants of 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). Concern was expressed that this standard, which is the one recommended by the Urban Land Institute, is excessive. It is approximately 35% higher than our current standard (restaurants generally have about 67% serving area and 33% kitchen and accessory areas). As a comparison, the Institute of Traffic Engineers uses 14.1 spaces per 1,000 GLA for weeknights and 17.6 spaces per 1,000 GLA for weekends for high -quality, freestanding restaurants. The Commission should select an appropriate standard from these. Of course, the Commission should recall that the Specific Plan also provides for shared parking among uses which typically have different operating hours and different peak parking demands. 4. Implementation Via Redevelopment Agency Actions The Specific Plan does not discuss Redevelopment Agency actions as a possible implementation technique primarily because the Specific Plan area is located outside of the current Redevelopment Project Area and because of recent limitations in redevelopment law on declaring largely vacant land areas as "blighted" making them eligible for redevelopment. Some of the area owners feel that this may still be a viable option. As a result, language could be added to the Section on "Implementation Measures" briefly outlining this alternative and noting that it should be explored further. 0 MEMO - PLANNING March 20, 1987 Page 3. 5. Changes in Needed Infrastructures In addition to the traffic signal improvements shown in the Specific Plan, it is necessary to add a traffic signal at Jefferson Street and 48th Avenue since it and its estimated cost were mistakenly omitted. Further concerns were raised about including the Adams Street bridge (over the Stormwater Channel) and Stormwater Channel lining in the costs. Relative to bridges, it should be noted that several were not included in the infrastructure costs for the Specific Plan area. In order to be consistent, it is necessary to determine the appropriate level of bridge funding, if any, to be applied to the Specific Plan area. It is possible to allow the City's Infrastructure Fee Program to be the method of bridge funding (these owners will make at least some contribution to that program). In addition, it needs to be determined if other infrastructure (i.e., Stormwater Channel lining) is an appropriate infrastructure item for the Specific Plan area. Perhaps the best approach would be to identify all of the costs within or contiguous to the Specific Plan area and note that in the future decisions, on phasing and related matters, will determine what is included and when it is included. The addition of such language to the "Implementation Measures" Section may be appropriate in any event. 6. Internal Circulation/Local Streets The proposed circulation system is shown on Pages 18 and 19. These diagrams show additional secondary arterials and collectors which are needed and illustrates possible local streets within projects which may be needed. To avoid confusion regarding the local streets, it seems better to eliminate them from the diagram on Page 19 and substitute a written policy on Page 33 ("Circulation") regarding the provision of local streets when needed within developments. These should be determined at the Master Plan of Development stage. It also seems necessary to provide some flexibility on the precise location of the secondary arterials and the collectors. However, this flexibility should be limited to minor shifting since those roadways must be aligned with similar roadways located on adjacent property. In general, the secondary/ collector system is a ntia to handle the traffic generated and to allow for th deisred access limitations on Highway 111. MEMO - PLANNING March 20, 1987 Page 4. 7. Review of Access for All Parcels It is essential that all existing parcels located on Highway 111 be assured of access by the alternate road system. For the most part, the proposed circulation system resolves this. However, there are four (4) areas where additional access via local streets or private easement easements may be needed. These areas are: * South side of Highway 111, east of Dune Palms (Lots 51 thru 54) - a local east -west street is needed off Link #32 unless these lots are assembled. * Southeast corner of Washington and Highway Ill (Lots 14 thru 21) - these small lots are mostly under common ownership, but should develop a shared access scheme from either Washington Street or Simon Drive. Direct access by each parcel onto Highway 111 is inappropriate. * North side of Highway ill, west of Washington Street (Lots 10 and 11) - no alternate access system is possible here so the lots should be restricted to one (1) driveway with acceleration/deceleration lanes each on Highway 111. * Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms (Lots 38 thru 41) - a local street proceeding west from Dune Palms may be needed if these lots are not assembled. It is necessary to review these local street needs at the.time of the first development submittal in each area. At that time, all affected owners need to be involved in the selection of an adequate, shared local access. Possible lot assembly would affect the need for and design of these streets. It should also be noted that the location of some secondary arterials and collectors needs to be on property lines to assure adequate access. In general, it is good policy to place center- lines of roads on property lines although alignment with roads across the street will occasionally be a more important considera- tion. For the record, it should be noted that no direct access to Highway 111 is allowed other than the noted exceptions. Other streets, including Washington and Jefferson, allow for right and left turns and median openings when the standards contained in the Specific Plan are satisfied. my 0 MEMO - PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 1987 Page 5. 8. Land Use Chart The following additions to the Land Use Chart on Page 10 should be made: Land Use Category Commercial General Mixed Park Commercial Commercial Amusement Services No Yes Yes Broadcasting Studios Yes Yes Yes Contract Const. Svcs. Yes No No Indoor Recreation Svcs. No Yes Yes Outdoor Recreation Svcs. No Yes Yes Personal Services No Yes Yes Public Assembly/Entertainment No Yes Yes Service Station No Yes Yes Skilled Nursing Facility No Yes Yes Warehousing Yes No No Wholesaling/Distribution Yes No No The definitions for each of these are already included in the Appendix. Conditional Use Permits The Specific Plan provides that all new uses and buildings require a Conditional Use Permit (a public hearing before the Planning Commission under current zoning regulations). This is intended to provide for needed discretionary review relative to design and related considerations. Some area property owners prefer a simpler approval process fearing that the Conditional Use Permit device can be abused by Staff and/or decision -makers. If the Commission concurs, a more detailed presentation would be necessary at the Master Plan stage in order to assure adequate Planning Commission review. 10. Additional Considerations The Specific Plan does not contain standards on two (2) areas which the Commission may desire to regulate. The first is signing. The Commission should determine whether or not to include detailed sign regulations in the Specific Plan or to leave them to the zoning ordinance. In any event, it would be appropriate to include a Master Sign Program with the Master Plan of Development. MEMO - PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 1987 Page 6. The second additional area of concern is whether or not a "preferred land use location" map or policies are needed. This could depict or describe the preferred location for various land uses; i.e., an auto mall near Simon Drive, a fire station along Adams Street, higher density residential nearer to 48th Avenue, etc. Beyond the issues raised here, the Commission may have additional concerns. It is appropriate to do this at the hearing. FINDINGS To be provided at the meeting. Adopt by motion the Highway 111 Specific Plan noting any recommended changes to the document. PREPARED BY: ��L�u-c—� C75 L wrence L. Stevens, AICP 090, � Planning Consultant LLS:dmv 20 March 19, 1987 Mr. Larry Stevens City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Stevens: r' nTTA MAR 2 0 1987 I would like to compliment you on your comprehensive efforts pertaining to the Hwy. 111 Specific Plan and feel confident the City is working on behalf of the property owners and the City respectively. I do have sincere reserva- tions about the plan excluding Hwy. 111 access to my property described as parcel #5 on page three of the Specific Plan document. Foreclosing my Hwy. 111 access makes useless usability of my property for an indefinite period of time. Your plan promotes cooperation between lots 50 through 54, or one ownership which cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, I request and will be satisfied with the following: 1) Allowing a common curb cut from Hwy. 111 on each side of the boundry line between parcels 51 and 52. 2) Allowing a deceleration and acceleration lane with access to each parcel affected. I consider Hwy. 111 access so essential to maintain the usefulness of my property. If the access is not included in the preliminary and subsequent drafts, I will have to take the appropriate measures to effect access and or delay or prevent adoption of the Hwy. 111 Specific Plan. PM/sw cc: Ron Kiedrowski cc: La Quinta Planning Commission Signing for Mr. Shelton : Sincerely, George Shelton 73-280 E1 Paseo Suite 323 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Peter Mu ray AMES REAL ESTATE, INC. MAURICE KURTZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING March 19, 1987 Mr. Murrel Crump Planning Director City of La Quinta 75-105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 RE: Highway III Specific Plan - Hearing Draft - March 1987 Dear Mr Crump: Our firm represents the WASHINGTON SQUARE GROUP, owners of the 72 acre parcel located south-east of the corner of Washington Street and Highway III. This parcel has been planned as a mixed -use commercial center, Washington Square, and will soon be submitted to the City for specific plan and change of zone approvals. We have spent considerable time and money in the preparation of our master plan of development for the past several years. A copy of our plan has been submitted to the consultants along with a letter dated January 9, 1987. These both appear in the Hearing Draft dated March 1987, and are in response to the first preliminary plan report issued in December, 1986. We have reviewed this latest draft report and attended the public hearing held for property owners on Monday, March 16, 1987. On behalf of the owners of this parcel we wish to offer the following comments, concerns, and recommendations to the plan. We hope that this will be reflected in the forthcoming Tuesday evening Planning Commission hearing. 1. The Circulation plan shows a new north/south collector road (link no. 21) connecting Highway III with 48th Avenue. This road as shown on page 18, figure 7 "Recommended circulation system" bisects our planned development directly in half and makes the plan no longer workable. Although the 72 acres were made up of two parcels, they have always been treated as one for development of the commercial center. We are not opposed to the location of the proposed signal location and the full median break, since this will serve our development at approximately midpoint. ARCHISYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL A MARTIN . SPOHRER COMPANY 1231 FOURTH STREET SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90401 213-395-7088 CABLE ARCHTEM ARCHITECTURE/PLANNING/INTERIORS La Quinta PlanningCommission March 19, 1987 /RCS-1iSYS C15 1 Il i [ 13 Il A i 1 O 11 A L Page Two 2. We concur with the second traffic signal shown at Highland Palms on Washington Street. This is a requirement to serve the Happy Point Development on the west and has always been a part of our development plans. We request, however, the deletion of the planned east/ west collector street which crosses at the south end of our property. 3. Our project has been coordinated with potential developers and operators who are opposed to having a road system through the property to be used as a by-pass. We oppose these designated collector routes and request their deletion from the Circulation system. In future, if additional collector or local routes are necessary to serve the planned uses, we will build them. It may also be desirable in the future to connect Adams with Highland Palms as an east -west route, however, we feel that more study by our traffic consultants are necessary, and this could be evaluated when we proceed with our master plan of development, specific plan approvals, and tentative tract mapping. 4. Along Highway III our development should also be allowed another left turn and median break at Simon Drive. The distance between Simon Drive and Adams is approximately 2500 feet which would make left turns available at approximately 1/4 mile intervals. This left turn would also coincide with the already constructed Simon Drive and the existing automobile use. 5. we wish also to be allowed acceleration -deceleration lanes at additional points along the frontage of our development on Highway III to allow for right turn in and out movements. This is in the interests of good circulation planning to elevate bottlenecks at access and egress points. 6. Most distressing of all is the lack of any traffic signals along Washington Street between Highway III and Highland Palms. This distance is approximately 2700 feet. We request two additional median breaks along Washington, one at Simon Drive and the other midpoint between Simon Drive and Highland Palm. The second would contain a mid -point traffic signal to serve what we consider as the major entrance to our center. Trip generation studies have indicated that most patrons will La Quinta Planng Commission — — March 19, 1987 A30-105v5 C15 1 Il T E 13 Il A T I O Il A L Page Three be coming from the Washington/Highway III intersection, and they will have missed our entire development when they reach Highland Palms. The Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan adopted by resolution last year does not indicate locations for these traffic signals and therefore we assume that the current specific plan deals with the allowed signal locations. We are also requesting additional right in and out turns be allowed. 7. Based on the latest Washington Avenue -Precise Alignment drawings currently being prepared, the right-of-way that is to be dedicated along our parcel will be approximately 60 feet wide totalling over 2.5 acres. It appears, however, that we are the designated "fall guys"; having to dedicate valuable frontage to allow for a beautiful landscaped boulevard and gateway entry to La Quinta, but not being able to serve our development. We understand that the present circulation plan is being prepared as a guideline for long-range growth with flexibility based on property -owner input and proposed plans for developments. We are concerned, however, that unless our arguments are stated now they will be difficult to change in the future. We urge you to delete those road links which bisect our development and allow us to include additional points of access and egress based on acceptable planning and development standards. During our submission for the specific plan of development, we shall include the necessary traffic data to warrant these needs. Sincerely, ARCHISYSTEMS INTEERRNATIIONAL Maurice Kurtz Director of Planning MK:mrs cc: Planning Commission Members John Lower, BSI Consultants Larry Stevens, Planning Consultant WASHIRGT®N SQUARE %T IFIC PLAN rA URCuca►11011 Sys1" v J wmgg _ 0 L t e: ggGRllg�' _ 7 - t. • is �. e n •.' iII ARCHISYST -MS I n i t. I. i I o n. l 1 Cmme t Cantor A.�w:aweie+. fNew./w/0.Ypi Maw.wn. Owns .M aWc41ry MUY 2 St10 Room Revert Ibtel - Colltvenee CYYmv 3 IM Room Solt.. Ho1.1 4 FamYy/Soe say Reetwant 6 CtReas- Gvgan Type O...w..Y FY...I. t.. m. C ...+..... c..Iw B YYtemutlorlal Reatwuns - Plaza IIa.R11 CIb a CMPIez - Theater Y Town a Counhy A st 10 Pvtarmap Ma Cevv 11 AParmisros - CwWo kIl zm I a, 6=5 qt 122 �\ 2aeR�cP=eta:- eP w cp po 'is 4s - fb'C��. roa ar M If g7 tJ WASHINGTON SOUARE UGuam. CaIIF A Reewt Village Center arla FasNm Plaza o...w../o...,. w..w�.• sw..., uY. - .eve c..... u.. FIGURE 1 la A;-zAJ64uI-r WASHINGTON SOUARE SPIMIFIC PLAN (ZECCIA MEN 0 Cl lZCu6rA7no M SYSMM E)t"wip 516Ma1. I C�dsl Cella FWw swap.. b[w.lw/bua l.ewmw. Oxwr.I.M OwciLM1Y P.iW Lff-F ` Y 200 Roan R..W Notal - CmW.. C~ Mt _\ A.? tl \4 �� 9 lw Roan &Mss NotN ���•^ w `�� 4 O fto/ p RaatevaM 6 OfMr BwarcMR,aan Typa L.. My cwwwuu.nm c.mw ' 8 kltm arl Rast"U . - P4is Health ore 3 i s posw s!**4gti/ ARCI-iISYSTEi 1 o n . L VELOM cv-mtol& WASHINGTON SOUARE U OUNTA, CMIF A �S Raswt VAaga Cantor ana Fashion Plaza as 0 b.Nepn�0.Mr. W.~M $.,.. U.-..0 .Lla. FIGURE 1 la ITEM NO. DATE 3 Z 4� A 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY.� STEDING MORAN VV LLING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT TIDING RAN W LLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE: �COXMSSIONERS: AYE/ NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT BRANDT STEDING - MORAN - WALLING THOWBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': YES NO Alk STAFF REPORT Date: Applicant: Project Location: Project: Zoning Designation: General Plan Designation: Environmental Assessment: BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 24, 1987 Coachella Valley Land Company, Ltd. 732 Williams Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 The area referred to as the "Cove". Master Design Guidelines for Multiple Home Construction (MDG No. 87-001) Special Residential Medium Density (4-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre) Categorically exempt. Section 9.03.034 of the Special Residential Zoning Ordinance requires developers who have obtained, or are requesting 20 or more approvals for single-family dwellings in the Special Residential Zone to apply for and obtain Master Development Guideline approval from the Planning Commission. To date, the Applicant has not received any single-family home permits. The proposed homes will be constructed by Thomas Starr Construction. ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes four (4) different exterior elevations using three (3) standard floor plans. The plans meet or exceed the minimum development requirements for this area. Further Staff review will be conducted at the time of precise plan application. The Applicant has not indicated if the units will be sold or managed as rentals. RECOMMENDATION The building information submitted conforms with the Master Design Review Guidelines. The Applicant should be permitted to construct the proposed homes (further review will be conducted under the precise plan review). PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT JH:dmv MDG87001 G©a L57 1 s/ale Gr skl ud11arl u%Jr 814c a 4 ��P % eaAadhrodL taa r� e Gl/i/1 Sr.�9�U1 e �i�t it A 3� �2 B� /� �46 AA Ar 3 j LM 0 5It q� , I � E 0 I, I F ill ° " I o a Ii V r J ED O]Oo a OD tc �I 4 �II a z� 4 ..i Q i v � r i H tL p r Psrn L A, r ..� . ia 1. 41 ti F y -11 L r5 t, , _ -4<\ f,- I •••+. -'�„"' � ate- � _. , t e ♦. 4 t n Q � O � C �� � 1•Mikd � .I do e z _ I = o S 1 _ __.r7M-1 rl-i AlH— 13 M � ks O 0 Y S 6t U. JC I I ITEM NO. �• , DATE 3 Lf PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN WALLING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT STEDING � M LLING THORNBURM DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED. YES NO MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA �,' B, TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Preliminary Review of a Commercial Building (Parking Requirements); correspondence from Wendell W. Veith, AIA BACKGROUND 1. A prospective Applicant submitted a site plan for preliminary review in December, 1986. A courtesy review was conducted and a letter sent on December 11, 1986, which identified various development comments and suggestions (attached). 2. The contemplated project illustrates approximately 3,440 square feet with of building area no specific use identified other than retail and/or office. Based upon current ordinance requirements, 11 (office use) or 19 (retail use) on -site parking spaces would be needed. The project provided nine (9) parking spaces. 3. The Applicant was advised that, based upon recent Planning Commission direction (as well as ordinance mandate), all commercial uses must provide sufficient on -site parking. 4. Subsequently, the prospective Applicant has requested that the Planning Commission review this policy as stated in a letter dated March 9, 1987. 5. The prospective Applicant wishes to use public right-of-way parking areas (within the median of Calle Estado) to satisfy the ordinance on -site parking requirements. Again, the initial site plan concept is either 2 or 10 parking spaces short. OPTION ANALYSIS 1. The Applicant has five (5) apparent options available: a. Seek a variance - must justify hardship; b. Seek an amendment to the zoning ordinance to require less parking space requirements for office and/or retail uses; C. Buy more property on which to locate parking spaces; MEMO - PLANNING COMMISSION March 24, 1987 Page 2. d. Obtain a joint parking arrangement with other businesses in the downtown area; or, e. Construct a smaller building. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Commission receive and file the subject correspondence, directing that the prospective Applicant be advised of the options presented in this memorandum. JH:dmv ANk Ah ROBERT H. R I C C I A R D I A. I. A. & ASSOCIATES W E N D E L L W. V E I T H A R C H I T E C T A S S O C I A T E March 9, 1987 Mr. Jerry Herman Principal Planner City of La Quints, P. 0. Box 1504 La Quints, California 92253 Re: Commercial Building for Joseph Wambaugh on Calle Estado Assessor's Parcel No. 769-102-06 & 07 Dear Jerry: t�L:r MAR 91�087 COMM,,CITY C- 111 --. NI, 1CcVU� Mc NI D[ri The following is the letter as requested by you regarding the above project. We wish to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a preliminary basis, and ask that relief be given for the parking requirements because of the abundance of street parking, and the fact that other projects in the area that we have done were accounted this priviledge. We understand that the Planning Commission will be looking at this at their March 24th meeting. We will be in attendance at this meeting to discuss with them any ramifications of our proposal. Sincerely yours, b®®� W- V .Ul! WENDELL W. VEITH, A.I.A. WWV:jc 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 • TELEPHONE (619) 346-2223 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN L. aT Ilil7T' 0 \i 'I 78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246 December 11, 1986 Wendell Veith, Architect Ricciardi/Veith Architects 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 SUBJECT: Commercial Building on Assessor's Parcels 769-102-002 and -003 Dear Mr. Veith: The Planning Department has reviewed your proposed commercial building. The following comments are offered for your information. 1. The proposed building has a gross floor area of 3,440 square feet. A retail use requires one space for each 150 square feet of sales or display area and a professional office use requires one space for each 250 square feet of floor area, excluding public corridors and stairways. Based upon a retail use, 19 spaces would be required and 11 for an office use. This calculation uses 2,800 square feet of usable space. The proposal identifies nine (9) parking spaces which is under the minimum required. All commercial developments must be reviewed by the Planning Commission which previously has set policy of requiring commercial uses to provide, at least, the minimum, on -site, parking spaces as required by ordinance. The City will be undertaking a specific plan for the Village at La Quinta. Your property is located within the plan boundary. The plan may suggest that a private/public parking facility be constructed which may permit reduction or elimination of on -site parking requirements. The time line for the plan completion is about one (1) year. As an alternative, the parking requirements may be satisfied by obtaining a joint parking arrangement with other businesses in the area. I suggest you contact other property owners or real estate brokers, who may know of or have plans for a private parking facilities. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA. CALIFORNIA 92253 Wendell Veith, Architect Ricciardi/Veith Architects December 11, 1986 Page 2. 2. Other comments which you should be aware of are: a. The trash area might jointly incorporate the trash area/facility of the adjacent property by its location which could allow additional area for parking. The trash area/facility design should provide both truck access with gates and a separate pedestrian access, sometimes referred to as a "trap design trash enclosure". b. The specific plan for the Village at La Quinta is initially envisioned to be pedestrian oriented. Retail uses will be encouraged and professional office uses or uses relying mainly on vehicular access could be discouraged. Other limitations for use mix in the Village may also result from the Specific Plan. c. The parking lot location encourages use of the unimproved alley and may further create a traffic concern at the alley and Avenida Bermudas. As a mitigation measure, the alley should be paved to provide both east and west ingress and egress. d. A front elevation of the proposed building and the adjacent buildings will be required with the formal submittal. e. The current practice is to require a 5-1/2-foot sidewalk, plus a 4-foot building setback for a total of 10-foot setback from the face of curb to the building . The 4-foot is to be landscaped. The landscaping along the frontage should be increased. Street trees at minimum 40-feet on center will be encouraged. f. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your commercial project using the plot plan application process. The Plot Plan fee is $835.00, plus the Environmental Review fee of $250.00 plus $3.00 per gross acre. The fees identified are subject to change based upon the final project proposed. Wendell Veith, Architect Ricciardi/Veith Architects December 11, 1986 Page 3. I hope this information helps in your project development. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the undersigned at this office. Very truly yours, MURREL CRUMP PLANNING DIRECTOR J rry rman rincipal Planner JH:dmv cc: File, Pre -Lim File ALLEY ,00.o� _ --,r I TRASH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I I ' ai ELEC. L7 Fig TOILET �TOLLFT TCWT TOUT d ° a SPACE #E1\\ SPACE #E2 SPACE #'3 / SPACE #L4 I o 8 8 T 930 0. 930 sf. 920 M. seo b.f. 3 /> \\ \ 0 SPANISH FC JNTAI�1 -- - - ,00.0, CALLE ESTADO FLOOR PLAN vs• . r-0 NORTH ELEVATION va• - V-0 WEST ELEVATION vr.v-o SOUTH ELEVATION +n'. 'e, EAST ELEVATION +/.' • V ITEM NO. DATE r; L• �c PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN 4VJ�LING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN %1ALLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': AYE NO YES ABSTAIN NO ABSENT PRESENT MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Ministerial and Discretionary Uses Contained in Zoning Regulations The Planning Commission reviews all applications which require one or more of the following: 1. Change of Zone and zoning text amendment (Public Hearing). 2. General Plan Amendment (Public Hearing). 3. variance request from development standards (Public Hearing) (variances for uses are not permitted). 4. Tentative Tract Map (Public Hearing). 5. Plot Plan New Commercial Building, addition to an existing commercial building, and exterior remodel of commercial building regardless of zone (Public Meeting). In addition, the attached list identifies uses permitted in La Quinta by zone and the review process used by Staff or the Planning Commission. JH:dmv PCMEM01 U w F F G G F n n v v ro a a Y' n d o r o o r w n r Y' Y 3 F ro w O O O Y r x r w n Y 3 C r d n 'C 0 x O 0 0 o c n w N W ro Y Y Y ro n n m a x o n w q O r g r r x r n w r N 0w w C K ry N x o vro N a \ rt O v Y w O vn r q w G r ro n O o N O v O n W q w Y Y' N IE w w r n \ n \ w W N IvG F O r ry q R n ro n d N C O w w N O y p q d q O O O w q N C q m VW 0 0 n n n n n n n n n n n n n m m w m F c ry ry n Y' ID w w o m O H Y H S > m m w w w ry m o O P. 0 'J 9 c O m F Y' H 3 n n ry W E O w M rt M 3 !Y n w M ry O ryry m n m m Y 0 n m m O ry O 0 �C m ❑ N S p O O p 3 n m m E 0 Y' k w 0 N N m d O p Y, H m m m 0 w p Y n oa a a N w Y' Y m w S H ry N � N Y ry ON K Oa O n VI m N m 0 m Y M m 41 m H N rt N Y 3 N �J rt m p N N H m N rt N S m m N N N m Y 0 m m m m F' N 'O O m IY N .7 Y ry N m O m O N m ry m rt YO `J 0 .Y. m ❑ O F' \ m 33 W N Y' m .'J O ry N Ym p O F d n N S F ry O 3 ry H d 'C P. O m m M m Y' O '0 N p S p n O VI .� 0 m H m w % 0 n c m O m O % M. 0 O W m 0 M N O Y M 33 n O M m ry w � W Y ■■n■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ c� n m m m m m m m m W d n n O Y Y' H w N ymom 3 g G 9 A Y' Y O n n Y�3 0 A w O W W '� n n ry n X c< o d n w o n W W Y 0 o W w n \ n n W o❑ ry o 0 0< o N N A \ w d W O 0 N 0 N O m O ✓ w Y ry d w 0 O m N '0 A d 0 G n N ✓' W W n 0 O O 0 x O 0 Y " W O ry m n 0 W Y 0 A M (p Y. O N x 1-' Y Y A •t d !t ro n N W 0 a m n N o r n w x x r H Y' O m N G 7 M' ✓' 0 a 0 r N O 0 O Q 0 3 N m 0 H 5 N w o m N 0 N N loss ■■I III ■■■■■■■Usimi■■■■ ii■ l logo ■■� ■�■11■■■ ;111■■■■■■■1, II■ ■ loll ■■ ■■■:,1■1■11 `■11 ;11■■■ rt� W I0a WV CR ONC ORN O E R N 3N N O o q 0 D r roON 3 W i0 rt a O ry 3 ry d A M ry O W ry Y' rt a ry 7 7 S N n O a w a n M W ry M H Y N R y Y. O C Y Iyp d W O w O x rt h1 �+1 C N Y S R a N H ry M a rt S w ry O O a M Y Y ( O M R O N N W N O r d '1 w S W ry O O d N r a O N S N 4+ N O IG n N VI N F • W O - r O N Y N C �q \ N m O O O O N 0 O '1 Y' 2 R N s N Y. ro N FWF N N R O o a 7 b P 3 n ryd m r E rt M .+ b N S m rt ry N y o F• 0W N N N o ry o n „ Y� � a X N O 5 ry N R A ry N rt � O N 9 W R N Y d S \ W N V a rt N d w a rt N S N 0' �+ I n ID •� F- M �+ N N N ry U G ro ro M R a ry R ry F i 7 N nH V 5N 5r yN mT C 'p r y M V RJ V M r N M p�OIR Y N n N N Y' n e. K3� n 9 Y' E ro ro ro ro ro ro ro O O 0 Z Z Z % Z 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 3 Y H S W W W W O P.M F F C O N F 0 0 O O H H H N W O O n E H Y m Y M H Y 0 H O N H ro n -• W O N O W W 0 0 F Y Y O M 5 a O O Y % 2 H '0 H H 0 N W W N 0 0 Z W N L N W H W M Y O W 'tl O .'1 W Y H W O Y O O Itl0 T' N O 0 O H W H '0 P '0 rt Y O W NI N H 0 O W 3 ID N n 3 W '0 m N O S N 0 O Y H 0 0 n O 0 0 W H N W N 0 H W N 0 S ❑ N C �C ro n 0 0 Y' r F 14 S G N O Mm N W H 0 O ✓ ro ✓ 0 W N v O W . 0 N 0 0 d 0 p W N N W 0 {�J O H N H rt W rt F N O Iq O n d A d N N S R \ ro 7 rt R N W H ',J O Y O l9 Y H d M R F r p' H 3 11 y O W ID \ W J O N W H H R W W N N N N N H 0 Y Y N R 9 W N 0 �1 0 N d x 0 0 d N M E M W fn N G Y H' 3 Q O F O 0 a R H d H O M Y f/I Y M. 0 n n 0 0 p O 0 O H 0 N H F n O N . Y W R G N M R �G IO H H ID H C F N N H I- ro In R1 N O R n n R 0 O W H C O 0 O 0 O H O M R N •• O O H IG N H F N 0 H W IO H N Y N '0 C H 0 0 O N n M N W O \ N O 0 O 1J ro n rt N O 'O O 0 O rypryp � S A O N R O N O N O O N H H b 0 H m M N N ry IO W 3 r N L M E N v 0w w Al #f ro w x z z z z ro ro w O P.d W N d N d d N N w d F F Y a a % % % M n n n w w a n Q Q % d Y n Y Y n n n O a O a d a a d O d n O w O H N b O �O ❑ N N % w d a m m O 0 O n n O W n w N E O C ro n 1 W 0 n d O o �O w w Y d a n w GI n n A w n w w N w . O ' O Y % N H O n ro N' • d % n Ip ❑ W n O n O d Y' w r d N W N M % Y n n '.] O w % w w d F• O H n Q �O O n O I w Q n P. n P. n n h^ M M O w m G n O n O n n m �' �' w % n n ❑ d d W % rt O O % % H 7 O n 7 N D n M p O F m ry P N r n n S % O , m 'C O W O— M O1 ro ro ro ro ro Q O V L v C n N N A n n n r n a r m 3 v 3 n H n F rt n n S r X Q W X n O % d Z M O Z O n G C n W n Y d N L � N 7 tton Y' 7 b $N I r K, 11 0 0 m 0 m m m Y� % n w n m w a m N Y m Y n z R Y ro o a S N O N N W W S n O o n o n w 0 n o N M N ro W W a S 'O N ro 0 O O W M O Y \ ro z F1 ro R O ro a N P. O 0 % N n W n N a r n Q a G M n W Y n n n W O_ W Y O W N W d a n Y R W z a n a o Q �G r n W c7 n n H n i- N a Y C w y � N W M n r- N N N N N N N N N N N N rt n r r ro 'O Y Y S a' O 0 o w w w w o o a w o o S W o O O n a a W Y W S N F n N m G] a a a a n \ a m W n N n W a n N W M iO ^1 O a O Y r W n G] ?I F m ryry W n \ d n N 3 . n tD D! N w m w a Yn O w N N N N a C N W n n 3 N S 0 'WO 3 n N d }f W m Y O O N O Y W YW N W N W n n a R d W a VI \ Y W w O w O m Y 0 o Y a W w n Y W O n M O a .3 W .• a w W Y G Y a a n n W n w a S N N Y N N m 0 O W yOy 3 Y W F r N G GµY r3 V u £ £ £ £ C y y y y y y y a w w w p n n n n n n n o a n r .• a F F w w a w w m Y n 7 n M E X X G a n W Y �- % r W m Q O Yn H W YH H Y Y J m n a W Y d a % 0 n N N O m w W % m N m Y� 0 w 0 m x ,T N < Y Tl O N n d W 2 F W A ' N \ 0 X Q Y n fI W N r N a Y n F• N Y N < W Y 0 0 n 7 3 a a a N! N W \� W w n r O O a Y• 7 a E ITEM N0. �1 DATE PLANNING COMMISSIIOppN,, RE: ��MEETING MOTION BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN M LUNG THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT STEDING MORAN VALLING THORNBURGH ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: was UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED': AYE NO YES ABSTAIN NO ABSENT PRESENT