The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 05 12 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 I. CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute II. ROLL CALL III.HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROJECT: May 12, 1987 - 7:00 p.m. PLOT PLAN 87-380 - RETAIL/OFFICE BLDG. ROBERT C. MONROE ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF CALLE ESTADO, 250 FEET EAST OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-STORY, 8,220 GROSS SQUARE FOOT RETAIL OFFICE BUILDING 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comment 3. Commission Discussion 4. Hearing Closed 5. Motion for Commission Action IV. 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. MR/AGENDA.PLC El V. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetings of April 14 and April 28, 1987. VI. BUSINESS A. Item: Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment 87-001 Applicant: City of La Quinta Location: City Wide Project: Add New Section 16.7 Pertaining to Procedures for Parcel Mergers 1. Staff Report 2. Commission Discussion 3. Commission Comments B. Item: Plot Plan 86-274 Applicant: John Feld Location: Generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, between Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Navarro Project: Review building architecture/design revisions 1. Staff Report 2. Commission Discussion 3. Motion for Commission Action C. Commission Agenda Items: Identification of future discussion items NOTES: 1. NO STUDY SESSION MAY 25, 1987 - MEMORIAL DAY 2. JOINT COUNCIL/COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ON VILLAGE PLANNING - JUNE 1ST AT 3:00 P.M. VII.OTHER Discussion Items: A. Specific Plan 86-006, Highway 111 - Update VIII. ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ITEMS FOR MONDAY, MAY 11, 1987, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION "DISCUSSION ONLY" 1. Presentation on Architectural Design Detailing 2. Specific Plan 86-006, Highway 111 - Continued Discussion MR/AGENDA.PLC DATE: APPLICANT: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZONING DESIGNATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 12, 1987 Robert C. Monroe Along the north side of Calle Estado, 250 feet east of Avenida Bermudas Plot Plan 87-380 - Construction of a two-story, 6,660-square foot retail/office building. Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) Village Commercial An Environmental Assessment has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The initial study evaluation has determined that the project will not present a significant adverse impact and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Required/Permitted Setbacks: Front - None Side - None Rear - None Building Height - 35' Building Coverage - 100% Parking Spaces - 21 1st Floor Retail: (Sales/Display Area) 1974 - 250 = 8 2nd Floor Office: 3108 - 250 = 13 Provided 10 Feet which includes a six- foot sidewalk West: 3 Feet East: 69 Feet 30 Feet 35 Feet 24 % 25 MR/STAFFRPT.004 Lot Size: No Minimum 15,000 Sq.Ft. Proposed Landscaping: Perimeter landscaping provided with street trees. Interior parking lot landscaping also provided. Proposed Colors/Materials: Red Clay tile roof, San Simeon stucco exterior wall, dark brown on exterior wood trim, metal doors and railings. ANAT,VSTS 1. The project is located in the Village at La Quinta. The concept is to provide a pedestrian -oriented downtown. The proposed project does not meet this concept. Pedestrian movement is potentially in conflict with the driveways and auto movements. 2. Pedestrian -Oriented Concepts There are varying approaches and levels of design which could be proposed in the Village which may range from implementing the contemplated pedestrian orientation, to that of ignoring it all together. Three such approaches are broadly categorized below: a. The first level of design which would attempt to be consistent with the Village concept may employ the following techniques: (1) Structures located to occupy the principal street frontage (avoiding placement of parking lots along key street frontages). (2) Structures with setback variation, entries and arcades to draw the pedestrian into the project. (3) Development of street frontages to avoid or minimize pedestrian conflicts with vehicles, which might include access to parking via an alley or common use of existing or planned driveways, by means of reciprocal ingress and egress easements. b. A second level of design might consider the following: (1) when absolutely necessary to locate a parking lot along a key street frontage, mitigating measures would be employed, such as: (a) Avoiding direct access from the street; (b) Increasing the parking lot setback and MR/STAFFRPT.004 providing visual screening; (c) Employing a combination of landscape, hardscape and street furniture to maintain the pedestrian continuity and flow (including such items as landscaping for shade and beauty, interesting path and surface treatments, fountains and seating areas). In contrast, the least successful design effort might do the following: (1) Devote a significant amount of prime street frontage to parking lot use. (2) Provide for access to parking facilities through principal pedestrian ways (thereby establishing discontinuity and conflicts). (3) Limit the pedestrian experience by minimizing pedestrian walk areas along the site. 3. Architectural Design/Building Elevations The proposed building design is a combination of Spanish/Mediterranean and Modern, in that the window/door openings and treatments are out of character with the principal design approach. Probably one of the most frustrating evaluation points (and often one of the most ignored) is that of producing what might be described as a complete and consistent architectural statement. There is a tendency to lose continuity in an attempt to replicate historic architectural styles. The difference between a building which has faithfully used detailing of the architecture and one which has not is, visually, quite dramatic. In this type of evaluation, it is not necessary to wander into subjective areas of what is "good" or "bad" architecture. The question is rather simple and within the powers of observation by a lay review body; either the proposal represents a complete architectural approach, or it does not. On a more positive note, there has been an effort in this proposal to provide some variety and movement in building planes, and to break and vary the roof line with projections. Elevations can further be enhanced by the texture treatment of walls. Again, this goes back to an appropriate and consistent approach to building detailing. A standard stucco finish may be the most commercially economical finish today, but it adds little to objectives for continuity and quality. A landscape plan has been provided. The major tree forms are of a type that provide very little shade for a pedestrian -oriented downtown. The use of canopy -type broad -leaf evergreens would be more appropriate, especially as street trees. MR/STAFFRPT.004 VTMn TMrC 1. The request is not consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The request does not facilitate the objectives of the Village at La Quinta Design Concept. 3. Further opportunity should be provided to the applicant to consider redesign of the project, incorporating the Village Pedestrian Concept. Continue for redesign/restudy, consistent with design objectives for the Village at La Quinta. MR/STAFFRPT.004 gl� a• >� N I I li laaaa lltt '� 3i 4 yyl! 9p9p S F ZZ vial al1l ee Jil I� 7 � K1Dn 1 C1:1 a, J F ICI ,��Illli, nu C.1111 ,0� a al '�eiiY C 0 II� I_ .1 y W 0 p pb6�� J a� 2� 3 4 t n ,n in • O 1 IL Z �m ➢ In i Y I � ,8 Y s ,t rn 1-< r rn r i I10 2 11 G 51. MEN $ALLDNY LLto"OINcR SACOND FLOOR FLAN ��G_ SzYLP� II'I I v —i Hill ® 0 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. April 14, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. Chairman Thomas Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Moran. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested roll call. Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Vice Chairman Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh. Members absent: None. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman. Councilmember Stan Sniff was also present. III. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced hearing items as follows: A. Continued Public Hearing on Specific Plan 86-006, Highway 111. A request to approve a Specific Plan to establish guidelines regarding land use, infrastructure, development standards, implementation methods, and other pertinent measures. This application was City initiated. The Hearing has been continued from the March 24th Planning Commission meeting. 1. Planning Director Murrel Crump reviewed the status of the Specific Plan and further, for the record, identified the recommendation of the Subcommittee that was discussed at the Study Session on April 13, 1987. Mr. Crump further identified a modified Specific Plan with all the dollars and other unrelated information that could be placed in an appendix or a supplemental report as the new review document for the Planning Commission members. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comment. Members of the public who addressed the Commission were: Maurice Kuntz, Chris Van Gohren and George Shelton. MR/MIN4-14.DFT ® 0 There being no further public comment, Chairman Thornburgh opened the matter for discussion by the Planning Commissioners. The Commission discussed the options available regarding the preparation of a market study and the continual review of the amended document dated April 1987. 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Brandt and seconded by Commissioner Walling to continue the public hearing on Specific Plan 86-006, Highway 111, to the May 26th Planning Commission meeting and to have the new revised document dated April 1987 before the Commissioners at Study Sessions. Unanimously adopted. B. Public hearing on Tentative Tract Map 21641, the request of Landmark Land Company to approve a land sales subdivision to create 15 residential lots and one landscape perimeter lot on property generally southwest of Avenue 54 and Madison Street. Principal Planner Herman reviewed the request per the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 1. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comment. A presentation was made by Steve Robbins of Engineering Services Corporation who are representing the Applicant, Landmark Land Company. There being no further public comment, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. He then opened the matter for Planning Commission discussion. The Commission members discussed the request as submitted and identified the need to include cable television within Condition 14 A. 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Walling and seconded by Commissioner Moran to adopt the Planning Commission Resolution and recommend to the City council approval of Tentative Tract 21641, subject to the conditions attached, with Condition 14 A to include cable television. 3. A voice vote was called for: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Vice Chairman Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh all voted yes. IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None. V. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VI. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of business as follows: MR/MIN4-14.DFT 11 A. Plot Plan 87-379 - Circle K Market, a request to remodel the existing facade and incorporate a roof -mounted sign for the Circle K Market located at 78-110 Calle Tampico. 1. Planning Director Crump reviewed the request per the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Thornburgh requested comments from the Applicant. Mr. Bob Adair, Store Engineering Manager of the Circle K Corporation, addressed the Commission and stated that a proposed mansard roof with tile could be substituted. 3. Chairman Thornburgh opened the matter for Planning Commission discussion. The Planning Commission reviewed the options available as identified in the Staff Report. Discussion centered around tabling the request to permit the Applicant time to present information with regard to providing a site plan deliniating planting materials, including street trees, a garden wall to screen the parking area, a new monument sign, a red tile mansard roof, and a suggestion that a canopy be installed over the gas pump island; or indefinately continuing the request; or denying the request as submitted. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran, seconded by Commissioner Steding to continue this matter until the May 12, 1987 Planning Commission meeting to allow the Applicant time to resubmit a detailed site plan addressing the parking area landscaping, mansard roof with red tile, and a new monument sign along the frontage. Unanimously approved. B. Identification of Future Agenda Items The presentation by the Fire Marshal on fire flow in The Cove will be on the next Study Session. VII. OTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS The Commission Transportation Facility Standards Manual and a letter from a group of citizens concerned with future widening of Avenue Bermudas. The Commissioners accepted the items as informational. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Steding, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to adjourn to a regular meeting on May 12, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:15 p.m., April 14, 1987. MR/MIN4-14.DFT 13 0 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. April 28, 1987 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. Chairman Thomas Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Steding. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested roll call. Present: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Steding, Vice Chairman walling, and Chairman Thornburgh. Members absent: None. B. Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump, Principal Planner Jerry Herman, Department Secretary Mariellen Ratowski, and Fire Marshal Mike Brown. III. HEARINGS Chairman Thornburgh introduced hearing items as follows: A. A request by Landmark Land Company for two maintenance facilities, one located on the north side of Avenue 58, approximately 3,900 feet west of Madison Street; and the second on the west side of Madison Street, approximately 400 feet south of Avenue 54. Planning Director Murrel Crump reviewed the request per the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 1. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comment. Mr. Forrest Haag, representing Landmark Land Company, addressed the Commission. There being no further public comment, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. He then opened the matter for Planning Commission discussion. The Commission members discussed the request as submitted, and Commissioner Moran identified the need to have the facilities adequately screened from the street and voiced concerns over on -street parking by workers. MR/MIN04-28.DFT 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Walling and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve, by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 87-378, subject to the attached conditions, with Condition 6A amended to require the landscape plan to include an interim living fence on the north and east sides of the site, and that a Negative Declaration be filed in conjunction with this project. 3. The motion was unanimously adopted. B. Public hearing on Tentative Tract No. 22432 - a request to subdivide 48+ acres into 14 residential lots, one perimeter landscape lot, and related street lots, for the purpose of constructing 257 condominium units. Principal Planner Jerry Herman reviewed the request per the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 1. Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public comment. Jim Resney, representing the Sunrise Company, addressed the Commission. There being no further public comment, Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing. He then opened the matter for Planning Commission discussion. The Commission members discussed the request as submitted. Commissioner Moran disapproved of the pool parking requirement. Planning Director Crump was asked to further clarify that particular condition of approval. Chairman Thornburgh suggested that the Planning Director research other existing projects to determine parking consistency. Commissioner Steding expressed concern over the allowance of parking on both sides of 32-foot wide streets. Fire Marshal Mike Brown responded to Commissioner Steding's request to comment on acceptable street widths. 2. A motion was made by Commissioner Brandt and seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-04 and recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 22432, subject to the attached modified/additional conditions, with condition 13 reworded to allow closure of emergency access road when permitted by the City, and condition 14C modified to require submission of plan for parking along one side of local private streets, and condition 14D to include an alternate program as approved by the Fire Marshal. 3. A voice vote was called for: Commissioners Brandt, Moran, Walling, and Chairman Thornburgh all voted yes. Commissioner Steding voted no. MR/MIN04-28.DFT ® 0 IV. PUBLIC COMMENT None. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion was made by Commissioner Brandt, seconded by Commissioner Moran to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 24, 1987 as submitted. Unanimously adopted. VI. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the item of business as follows: A. Plot Plan 87-379 - Circle K Market, a request to remodel the existing facade and incorporate a roof -mounted sign for the Circle K Market located at 78-110 Calle Tampico. Chairman Thornburgh opened the matter for Planning Commission discussion. Since the Applicant chose not to continue with the exterior modifications, Chairman Thornburgh made a motion to deny the original request, seconded by Commissioner Brandt. The motion was unanimously adopted. B. Identification of Future Agenda Items 1. Highway 111 Specific Plan Standards. 2. Discussion on 32-foot wide streets. VII. OTHER A. A presentation of fire flow in the Cove was given to the Commission by the Fire Marshal. It was agreed to send a letter to the City Council identifying the Commission's interest in this matter. B. The Commissioners reviewed the Coachella Valley Transportation Study and accepted the report. C. The Commissioners reviewed a status report on the Sunterra Master Plan (Indian Wells Convention Center) and accepted the information. VIII. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Chairman Thornburgh, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to adjourn to a regular meeting on May 12, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:39 p.m., April 28, 1987. MR/MIN04-28.DFT ® 0 Vl A MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 12, 1987 SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-001, ADDING NEW SECTION 16.7 MERGING OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS BACKGROUND The City adopted the Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance No. 460, effective on August 29, 1982. Subsequently, the County amended Ordinance No. 460 effective 06/30/83 to allow property owners an opportunity to merger their adjoining lots. The process is used when four or fewer lots are to be merged. The State Government Code provides for both a City -required lot merger process (Section 66451.10) and a property owner -initiated lot merger process (Section 66499.203/4). The City, informally, is using the adopted County format and procedures when reviewing proposed lot mergers. Within the City General Plan, the following policy has been adopted: Policy 6.2.3 "The City should encourage, using appropriate incentives, the voluntary merger of existing, smaller residential lots -- particularly those typical of the Cove area." It is further noted that the Special Residential Zone, in Section 9.03.030 A.2., states: "Within existing subdivided areas consisting of 5,000-square foot lots, the voluntary merger of existing lots of record into larger parcels shall be encouraged." The existing body of City policy and Zoning Ordinance direction lay the foundation to adopt a formal procedure for parcel mergers. MR/MEMOORD.001 11 11 PROPOSED AMENDMENT SECTION 16.7 MERGING OF CONTIGUOUS PARCELS A. Notwithstanding the preceding sections, four or fewer contiguous parcels under common ownership may be merged without reverting to acreage, provided that the merge is approved by the Planning Director and an instrument evidencing such merger is recorded with the County Recorder. B. Applications to merge contiguous parcels shall be made to the Planning Director on forms provided by the Planning Department, and shall be accomplished by a fee as set by City Council Resolution, and the following: 1. An exhibit, drawn to scale, delineating the existing parcel boundaries and the location of existing structures and easements. 2. Copies of grant deeds for the existing parcels. 3. An exhibit, drawn to scale, delineating the boundaries of the parcel after the merger. 4. A legal description of the new parcel as merged. 5. Preliminary title report. 6. Written consent of all owners of record interest. C. The Planning Director shall transmit a completed application to the City Engineer for review and recommendation and shall grant approval of the request for merger if: 1. The parcels to be merged are, at the time of merger, under common ownership and written consent has been obtained from all record owners. 2. The parcel as merged will be consistent with the zoning of the property. 3. The parcel as merged will not conflict with the location of any existing structures on the property. 4. The parcel as merged will not be deprived access as a result of the merger. 5. Access to the adjoining parcels will not be restricted by the merger. 6. No new lot lines are created through the merger. D. The Planning Director shall submit to the County Recorder for recordation the new legal description and exhibit after it has been approved by the Planning Director. MR/ORDDRFT.001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental Assessment 87-071 was prepared in order to assess environmental impacts. As no significant environmental impacts were identified, a negative declaration shall be prepared. ANAT,VSTS The City does not require parcel mergers unless a homeowner wants to build an addition which crosses a property line, or wants to build an accessory building (garage or pool) on an adjacent lot, or wants to build an addition closer than the minimum required setback. The proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance is the same procedure currently being used by staff and the County. Somehow this procedure was implemented at the City level without a formal Subdivision Text Amendment. ACTION The attached Parcel Merger Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance is presented to the Commission as an informational item and does not require formal action; however, any comments generated will be forwarded to the City Council. MR/MEMOORD.001 ® 0 VI B STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: May 12, 1987 APPLICANT: John Feld PROJECT: Plot Plan 86-374 Review building architecture/design revisions PROJECT LOCATION: Generally on the north side of Avenida Montezuma, between Avenida Bermudas and Avenida Navarro BACKGROUND The Planning Commission conditionally approved the project on August 26, 1986. The City Council, however, at their September 2, 1986 meeting, referred the matter back to the Commission in order to address the following concerns: 1. Building Setback: Additional setback should be provided at the northwest corner of Bermudas and Montezuma; no specific standard was identified. 2. Building Architecture: The architecture of the three buildings was not considered an appropriate model for the downtown area; the buildings' exteriors need restudy/revision. Building Architecture The Development Review Committee meeting with the Applicant on February 6, 1987, determined that the proposed revisions should be referred to Council at a study session to obtain direction in accordance with the Council's original concerns. The Council, on April 6, 1987, reviewed the Applicant's elevations only, and determined that the proposal did not provide the contemplated Spanish/Mediterranean architectural style and was unacceptable. The Applicant has subsequently submitted second revision dated April 24, 1987. This revision provides a more Spanish/Mediterranean appearance. Building Setback The Applicant has increased the setback along Avenida Bermudas by five feet. Therefore, the building at the intersection has a 10-foot setback along Avenida Bermudas and Montezuma. Also, other internal landscape areas have been provided (see attachments). MR/STAFFRPT.003 The City Council did not review the increased setback area during their April Study Session. Therefore, the Commission should accept or reject the Applicant's setback proposal. Landscape Plan The precise landscape plan must be reviewed by the Commission on an informal basis (original condition request). The landscape review will be scheduled for a future Commission meeting once the plan is submitted. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the April 24, 1987 submittal, accept the elevation revisions and the increased setback at the intersection of Avenida Bermudas and Montezuma, subject to the Applicant completing the architectural approach (such as providing rough sawn wooden window/door frame treatments - similar to Plaza La Quinta, application of a heavy texture stucco finish, archway column accents, use of complimentary materials - including tile pavers for walkways, and other precise detailing), to be submitted for informal review by the Commission with Staff issuing the final construction plan acceptance. MR/STAFFRPT.003 tivd o.,,a nw.c. rot tiaricwmi R � i G/�AVG65 j — UHLDQ 6 I, - '.� �,• - t L s, - _ ki i}'j .. N dib •ie a z.m r � � Y I _ n �. PIG NO 2 Ia! f 4�. 41 AVE, qV2 . H01,1rEZClMA m ATTACHMENT #1 BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 2ND REVISION: 4/24/87 ®ATTACHMENT #2 BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 2ND REVISION:4/24/87 ® ATTACHMENT f 4 BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 IL ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL I 7WA 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 12/16/86 ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL 12/16/86 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ® ® VII A MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN MAY 12, 1987 MARKET ANALYSIS Further public presentation of the work originally produced for the Highway 111 Specific Plan area was suspended pending the integration of information concerning potential commercial market capture in the La Quinta corridor. It was believed that this base data is key to an understanding of future planning issues and opportunity. The City's economic consultant is approximately one-third of the way through a six -week study, having completed a site evaluation and tabular inventory of existing supply. Supply categories consist of retail, office, and "other" commercial development in the Coachella Valley (principally along Highway 111, from Palm Springs - south). Critical to this present analysis is the year in which development occurred, as an indicator of historic demand. Continuing work by the consultant will be toward demand projections for the Valley and uses that might be expected to develop along La Quinta's highway frontage. The consultant's work is on schedule and administrative staff expect to be reviewing preliminary numbers in the next two weeks. A text will also be prepared to document the assumptions made and the conclusions to be drawn. Thereafter, this information will be available for Commission use in their deliberations. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN STANDARDS Discussion of standards to be addressed by the Specific Plan begins with its roots in the adopted City General Plan. The first subject area Staff would like to call to the attention of the Commission, for purposes of generating a dialogue, is that of setbacks and streetscape (urban) design. MR/MEMOPC.002 There are a number of City policies which speak to this subject area. In pertinent part, we find the following General Plan guidance and commitment to design: Urban Design As a city which has limited existing development but substantial potential growth pending, La Quinta must define a framework which will guide this growth. The future image of the city will depend largely upon design concepts contained within the General Plan and reflected by development approval policies. One of the most effective ways to define a framework for urban design is to use the public street right-of-ways. Design treatments of this citywide network can help tie together the other neighborhoods and gated projects which otherwise could appear fragmented and unrelated. Implementation Policies Policy 6.5.1 - Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shall be considered in all approvals for related development. Policy 6.5.2 - Primary street image corridors are defined as follows: s Washington Street - as the major entrance into the City from Interstate 10 to the Village area... • Highway 111 - as the regional window to La Quinta. Policy 6.5.3 - Secondary street image corridors are defined as follows: • Jefferson Street, 50th Avenue, and 52nd Avenue - these streets shall establish and maintain consistent landscape design throughout. Policy 6.5.4 - Special gateway treatments at major entries to the City and to the downtown shall include the following: o Highway 111/Washington Street - island landscaping including a monument sign and other special features... Policy 6.5.5 - Secondary gateway treatments shall include the following intersections:... ® Jefferson Street and Highway 111... Policy 6.5.6 - Special themes, including median landscaping, parkway landscaping, street lights, perimeter walls, signing and related design treatments shall be developed. MR/MEMOPC.002 111 Policy 6.5.8 - Large parkways and setbacks are necessary to assure a high -quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for walls, buildings and parking areas may vary, if properly designed, but shall generally be as follows: • Major and primary arterials ......... 20 feet • Highway ill.........................50 feet • Other streets .......................10 feet Trade-offs for imaginative designs may be considered. Policy 6.5.9 - Wall openings to allow views into projects are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 6.5.11- The establishment of appropriate landscaping standards for parking lots is an important part of the City's urban design program. The next objective would be to translate these policy statements into precise standards for private developments and public improvements. Some questions that may be asked are: • What constitutes "Special Design Treatments" in terms of major streets? • What would be the characteristics of a "Primary Street Image Corridor"? • How should a "Consistent Landscape Design" be maintained for secondary street image corridors? • Who should be responsible for major and secondary "Special Gateway Treatments", and what elements should that treatment include? • How should variations in setbacks on major streets occur; what is a "Trade-off" for imaginative design? • Landscape standards for parking lots (as they may relate to setbacks and streetscape design) - how should standards be imposed (numerically - as a percentage of the parking lot area, or quantitatively - being a function of number of trees per space, etc.)? Related to the specific issue of parkway width and improvement setback (Policy 6.5.8), it is noted that a listing of previously approved projects is attached for those developments where a setback requirement could be easily ascertained from file records. This information may be used to respond to continuity questions. MR/MEMOPC.002 0 It is with the discussion of these points that a conceptual standards' criteria may emerge, including assignment of responsibility for implementation. In addition to these policies which are drawn from the General Plan document, issue related policies may also be framed, focused to the Specific Plan undertaking itself. A policy is generally defined as a commitment to action. In the development of the Specific Plan, it may be found that General Plan statements are not all inclusive or precise enough to acknowledge every subject which may require a public response. Therefore, opportunity exists to generate additional Specific Plan policies. As related to these initial discussion subjects, the Commission may ask itself whether there are other topics to be embraced in City policy. MR/MEMOPC.002 PERIMETER WALL. BUILDING HEIGHT PROJECT AND PARKWAY WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK REQUIRED FRONTAGE STREET(S) IN RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED OR OVER 1 STORY APPROVED DUNA LA QUINTA lOD' FROM PERIMETER SPECIFIC PLAN: PROPERTY LINES AVENUE 50 12' 20' CALLE TAMPICO 12' 20' WASHINGTON ST. 12' 2U' EXISTING DUNA PROJECTS: PLAZA TAMPICO CAA.E TAMP ICO 12' 15' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 18767 AVENUE 50 12' S' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 20158 WASHINGTON ST. 12' S' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 20218 WASHINGTON ST. 12' MIN 5' PER SPECIFIC PLAN AVENUE 50 12' S' PER SPECIFIC PLAN PGA WEST: AVENUE 54 EAST/JEFF. 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED AVENUE 54 WEST/JEFF. 10-12' 10' MAD ISON ST. 12' 20' AVENUE 58 12' 20' THE ORCHARD: AVENUE 50 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED THE GROVE: AVENUE 48 12' 20' 75' FROM PERIMETER AVENUE 50 12' 20' PROPERTY LINES WASHINGTON ST. 12' MIN 20' JEFFERSON ST. 12' MIN 20' OAK TREE WEST: AVENUE 52 12' MIN 20' 200' FROM ANY PUBLIC JEFFERSON ST. 12' MIN 20' STREET FRONTAGE AVENUE 54 10-12' 10' ADAMS ST. 10-12' 10' CALLE RONDO 10-12' 10' REFLECTIONS: (T'R.18915) FRED WANING 12' APPROX. 10' NONE IMPOSED WASHINGTON ST. 12' APPROX. 10' (TH. 19903) FRED WANING 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED DUNE PALMS 12' 10' (TR. 20016) MILES AVENUE 12' LO' * NONE IMPOSED DUNE PALMS 12' 10' (TR. 2005211J640) LAGUNA DE LA PAZ WASHINGTON ST. l2' 20' AVE. NONE IMPOSED EISENHOWER 12' 20' AVE. (TR. 21433) LEWIS HOMES MILES AVENUE 12' 10' * NONE IMPOSED ❑OE PALMS 12' 10' (TR. 21555) ST. 12' 20' NO 2-STORY UNITS ON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON (TH. 21609) AVENUE 50 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED * CORD. REQ. 10' AT MILES AS A SEC. ARTERIAL, OR 1N ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN S'CANDARDS IN EFFECT AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER STANDARD IS GREATER. (TH. 21880) AVENUE 52 12' 35' 200' FROM BERMUDAS. SOUTH SIDE l2' 20' AVENUE 52 AND THE AVENIDA BERMUDAS DESERT CLUB ®0 00 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA TO: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 111 SPECIFIC PLAN DATE: MAY 12, 1987 MARKET ANALYSIS Further public presentation of the work originally produced for the Highway 111 Specific Plan area was suspended pending the integration of information concerning potential commercial market capture in the La Quinta corridor. It was believed that this base data is key to an understanding of future planning issues and opportunity. The City's economic consultant is approximately one-third of the way through a six -week study, having completed a site evaluation and tabular inventory of existing supply. Supply categories consist of retail, office, and "other" commercial development in the Coachella Valley (principally along Highway 111, from Palm Springs - south). Critical to this present analysis is the year in which development occurred, as an indicator of historic demand. Continuing work by the consultant will be toward demand projections for the Valley and uses that might be expected to develop along La Quinta's highway frontage. The consultant's work is on schedule and administrative staff expect to be reviewing preliminary numbers in the next two weeks. A text will also be prepared to document the assumptions made and the conclusions to be drawn. Thereafter, this information will be available for Commission use in their deliberations. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PLAN STANDARDS Discussion of standards to be addressed by the Specific Plan begins with its roots in the adopted City General Plan. The first subject area Staff would like to call to the attention of the Commission, for purposes of generating a dialogue, is that of setbacks and streetscape (urban) design. MR/MEMOPC.002 go no There are a number of City policies which speak to this subject area. In pertinent part, we find the following General Plan guidance and commitment to design: Urban Design As a city which has limited existing development but substantial potential growth pending, La Quinta must define a framework which will guide this growth. The future image of the city will depend largely upon design concepts contained within the General Plan and reflected by development approval policies. One of the most effective ways to define a framework for urban design is to use the public street right-of-ways. Design treatments of this citywide network can help tie together the other neighborhoods and gated projects which otherwise could appear fragmented and unrelated. Implementation Policies Policy 6.5.1 - Special design treatments for major elements of the City's street system shall be considered in all approvals for related development. Policy 6.5.2 - Primary street image corridors are defined as follows: o Washington Street - as the major entrance into the City from Interstate 10 to the Village area... e Highway 111 - as the regional window to La Quinta. Policy 6.5.3 - Secondary street image corridors are defined as follows: o Jefferson Street, 50th Avenue, and 52nd Avenue - these streets shall establish and maintain consistent landscape design throughout. Policy 6.5.4 - Special gateway treatments at major entries to the City and to the downtown shall include the following: • Highway 111/Washington Street - island landscaping including a monument sign and other special features... Policy 6.5.5 - Secondary gateway treatments shall include the following intersections:... s Jefferson Street and Highway 111... Policy 6.5.6 - Special themes, including median landscaping, parkway landscaping, street lights, perimeter walls, signing and related design treatments shall be developed. MR/MEMOPC.002 i"III I I jI�;� alv Policy 6.5.8 - Large parkways and setbacks are necessary to assure a high -quality and attractive appearance on major streets. Setbacks for walls, buildings and parking areas may vary, if properly designed, but shall generally be as follows: o Major and primary arterials ......... 20 feet 0 Highway 111.........................50 feet • Other streets .......................10 feet Trade-offs for imaginative designs may be considered. Policy 6.5.9 - Wall openings to allow views into projects are desirable and should be required where appropriate as one means of minimizing negative visual impacts of continuous walls. This can also be accomplished by varying setbacks. Policy 6.5.11- The establishment of appropriate landscaping standards for parking lots is an important part of the City's urban design program. The next objective would be to translate these policy statements into precise standards for private developments and public improvements. Some questions that may be asked are: o What constitutes "Special Design Treatments" in terms of major streets? ® What would be the characteristics of a "Primary Street Image Corridor"7 o How should a "Consistent Landscape Design" be maintained for secondary street image corridors? o Who should be responsible for major and secondary "Special Gateway Treatments", and what elements should that treatment include? ® How should variations in setbacks on major streets occur; what is a "Trade-off" for imaginative design? s Landscape standards for parking lots (as they may relate to setbacks and streetscape design) - how should standards be imposed (numerically - as a percentage of the parking lot area, or quantitatively - being a function of number of trees per space, etc.)? Related to the specific issue of parkway width and improvement setback (Policy 6.5.8), it is noted that a listing of previously approved projects is attached for those developments where a setback requirement could be easily ascertained from file records. This information may be used to respond to continuity questions. MR/MEMOPC.002 It is with the discussion of these points that a conceptual standards' criteria may emerge, including assignment of responsibility for implementation. In addition to these policies which are drawn from the General Plan document, issue related policies may also be framed, focused to the Specific Plan undertaking itself. A policy is generally defined as a commitment to action. In the development of the Specific Plan, it may be found that General Plan statements are not all inclusive or precise enough to acknowledge every subject which may require a public response. Therefore, opportunity exists to generate additional Specific Plan policies. As related to these initial discussion subjects, the Commission may ask itself whether there are other topics to be embraced in City policy. MR/MEMOPC.002 �®00 PERIMETER WALL BUILDING HEIGHT PROJECT AND PARKWAY WIDTH SETBACK SETBACK REQUIRED FRONTAGE STREET(S) IN RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRE[) OR OVER 1 STORY APPROVED DONA LA QUINTA 100' FROM PERIMETER SPECIFIC PLAN: PROPERTY LINES AVENUE 50 12' 20' CALLE TAMP ICO 12' 20' WASHIN GTON ST. 12' 2U' EXISTING DONA PROJECTS: PLAZA TAMPICO CALLE TAMPICO 12' 15' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 18767 AVENUE 50 12' 5' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 20158 WASHINGTON ST. 12' 5' PER SPECIFIC PLAN TRACT 20218 WASHINGTON ST. 12' MIN 5' PER SPECIFIC PLAN AVENUE 50 12' 5' PER SPECIFIC PLAN PGA WEST: AVENUE 54 EAST/JEFF. 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED AVENUE 54 WEST/JEFF. 10-12' 10' HAD ISON ST. 12' 20' AVENUE 58 12' 20' THE ORCHARD: AVENUE 50 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED THE GROVE: AVENUE 48 12' 20' 75' FROM PERIMETER AVENUE 50 12' 2U' PROPERTY LINES WASHINGTON ST. 12' MIN 20' JEFFERSON ST. 12' MIN 20' OAK TREE WEST: AVENUE 52 12' MIN 20' 200' FROM ANY PUBLIC JEFFERSON ST. 12' MIN 20' STREET FRONTAGE AVENUE 54 10-12' 10' ADAMS ST. 10-12' 10' CALLE RONDO 10-12' 10' REFLECTIONS: (TR.18915) FRED WANING 12' APPROX. 10' NONE IMPOSED WASHINGTON ST. 12' APPROX. 10' (TH. 19903) FRED WAR ING 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED DUNE PALMS 12' 10' (M. 20016) MILES AVENUE 12' 10' t NONE IMPOSE➢ DONE PALMS 12' 10' (M. 20052/13640) LACUNA DE 1A PAZ WASHINGTON ST. 12' 20' AVE. NONE IMPOSED EISENHOWER 12' 20' AVE. (TR. 21433) LEWIS HOMES MILES AVENUE 12' 10' * NONE IMPOSED DONE PALMS 12' 10' (TR. 21555) WASHINGTON ST. 12' 20' NO 2-STORY UNITS ON WASHINGTON (TR. 21609) AVENUE 50 12' 20' NONE IMPOSED • CUND. REQ. 10' AT MILES AS A SEC. ARTERIAL, OR 1N ACCOR➢ANCL WITH GENERAL PLAN STANDARDS IN EFFECT AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. WHICHEVER STANDARD IS GREATER. (TR. 21880) AVENUE 52 SOUTH SIDE 12' 35' 200' FROM BERMUDAS, AVENIDA BERMUDAS 12' 20' AVENUE 52 AN➢ THE DESERT CLUB