1987 10 27 PCAGENDAS
R
CF'y OF'iNt"J
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A Special Meeting of the City Council and
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission to be Held
at the La Quinta Community Center, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma,
La Quinta, California
October 27, 1987 - 7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - MAYOR
Flag Salute
II. ROLL CALL
IV.
A. City Council
B. Planning Commission
ADJOURNMENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
-- CONTINUATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING --
V. HEARINGS - None
VI. 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.027
0
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetings of
August 25 and October 13, 1987.
VIII. BUSINESS
A. Item: Request for Commission report in connection
with City Council continued hearing on Change
of Zone 87-026, La Quinta Dunes
Location: Southwest corner Dune Palms Rd/Westward Ho Dr
Request: Evaluate and advise concerning the
appropriateness of the high density land use
designation for this site, with consideration
to such items as: access road system,
proximity to shopping, surrounding
development proposals; and, to initiate at
Commission's discretion, any General Plan
Amendment deeded necessary.
1. Staff Report
2. Commission Discussion
3. Motion for Commission Action
B. Commission Agenda Items: Identification of future
discussion items
IX. OTHER - None
X. ADJOURNMENT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ITEMS FOR OCTOBER 26, 1987, 3:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION
"DISCUSSION ONLY"
1. All Agenda Items
2. Lot Grading and Pad Elevations in the Cove
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR/AGENDA.027
V11
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
October 13, 1987
IV.
V
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman
Walling. The Flag Salute was led by Chairman Walling.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Walling requested the roll call. Present:
Commissioners Steding, Bund, Zelles, Vice Chairman Moran,
and Chairman Walling.
Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump and Principal
Planner Jerry Herman.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearing items.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by
Commissioner Zelles to approve the Planning Commission
minutes of September 22, 1987, subject to amending the
adjournment time from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 P.M. Unanimously
adopted.
BUSINESS
Chairman Walling introduced the business items as follows:
A. Continued review of exterior remodel - Plot Plan 87-383,
Rick Johnson Construction - a request to enclose the
existing covered walkway and use the area as an enclosed
public corridor for an existing building located at 77-836
Avenida Montezuma.
1. Planning Director Crump presented background data on
the matter per the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
MR/MIN10-13.DFT 1
2. Chairman Walling opened the matter for Planning
Commission discussion. The Applicant's representative,
Brian Monroe, was recognized to address the
Commission. Mr. Monroe indicated that, rather than
have their request continued, the Applicant is willing
to comply with conditions to satisfy any Commission
concerns. The Commission reviewed the project relating
to signage, parking, future use of the area and
setbacks.
3. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to approve Plot Plan 87-383, subject
to the finding in the staff report and conditions as
modified.
4. The motion was unanimously adopted.
B. Identification of future agenda items: List of items over
which the Planning Commission exercises approval and those
items which are administratively reviewed by Staff.
VII. OTHER
A. Review of a proposed Large Family Day Care facility.
1. Chairman Walling and Commissioner Moran excused
themselves from the discussion on the case due to a
potential conflict of interest. Commissioner Steding
assumed the Chair on the matter and requested the staff
report.
2. Planning Director Crump presented background data on
the request per the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and
Development Department.
3. Commissioner Steding indicated that this is not a
public hearing, but rather a forum to permit the
surrounding property owners to present their concerns
regarding this request.
4. The Applicant presented a letter of support signed by
immediate neighbors of the facility. No other public
present addressed the Commission.
5. The Commission discussed the request and indicated to
Planning Director Crump that they had no additional
input on the request.
6. Planning Director Crump indicated that a letter of
approval would be sent, based upon the information
presented and the staff report.
B. Clarification of Home Occupancy review criteria.
MR/MIN10-13.DFT 2
A presentation was made to the Commission by Planning
Director Crump. The Commission, after discussion,
could not reach a consensus on the matter. The
Commission indicated that, if the Applicant for the
Home Occupation Permit which generated this discussion
should appeal the staff decision, then the Commission
would be in a position to review the case on its merits.
C. Village Specific Plan Update.
1. The Commission was informed by Planning Director Crump
that the first public joint Council and Commission
presentation of the Specific Plan draft would be at
7:30 p.m. on October 27, 1987, in the La Quinta
Community Center. The first Commission formal public
hearing is anticipated for November 10, 1987.
D. Highway 111 Specific Plan Subcommittee.
1. After discussion, Subcommittee membership was
established to include Mr. Tom Thornburgh,
Commissioners Moran, and Commissioner Zelles as
Chairman. The Subcommittee will be meeting in the near
future.
VIII.
A motion was made by Commissioner Steding and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a joint City Council and
Planning Commission meeting on October 27, 1987, at 7:30
p.m., in the La Quinta Community Center, 77-861 Avenida
Montezuma, La Quinta, California. This meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:46 p.m.,
October 13, 1987.
MR/MIN10-13.DFT
Ll
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held
78-105 Calle Estado,
August 25, 1987
at the La Quinta City Hall
La Quinta, California
7:00 P•m-
I CALL TO ORDER Commissioner
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p•m• by
Walling. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Bund.
II. ROLLLCAL Present:
A. Commissioner Walling requested the roll call. -Commissioner
Bund, Zelles, Wallingto
Commissioners Moran, seconded by Commissioner Moran,
Walling made a motion, from the meeting. Unani
excuse Commissmous.
ioner Steding and City
Staff Present: Planning Director Murrel Crump
Manager Ron Kiedrowski.
B. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairmanenedthe nominations
1. Planning Director Murrel Crump P
for Chairman. Commissioner Moran Commissioner Bund.
Commissioner Walling, seconded by elected Chairman.
Commissioner Walling was unanimously
2, Chairman Walling opened the nominations for Vice
Chairman. Chairman Walling nominated Commissioner
Moran, seconded by CO elected VicBund. eChairmanissioner
Moran was unanimously
III, PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Walling introduced the public hearings items as follows:
A CZ 87_025, VAR 87-004, PP 87-381: Continued public hearing
on a request for approval from Benjamin Urmston/Warren and
of zone from R-1*++ to C•P Son p23t
Diane Johnson for changeoffice building
plan review toa onstruct king space/walls buffer variance.
acres; and a P
MR/MIN08-25.DFT
1. Planning Director Crump review the request per the
information contained in the staff report and City
Attorney's comment, copies of which are on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
2. Chairman Walling opened the public hearing. The
Applicants, Warren and Diane Johnson, addressed the
Commission, commenting on the various aspects of the
staff report and agreements. Benjamin Urmston,
Applicant, also addressed the Commission, making
general comments on the attributes of the project.
There being no further public comment, the public
hearing was closed.
3. Chairman Walling then opened the matter for Planning
Commission discussion. The Commission members
discussed the request as submitted. Commissioner Bund
suggested that adding sun protection to the south and
east facing windows of the building be made an
additional condition of the plot plan approval.
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Zelles and seconded
by Commissioner Bund to approve VAR 87-004 and PP
87-381. Upon a roll call vote, Resolution 87-008, with
attached modified conditions, was unanimously adopted,
approving VAR 87-004. Upon minute motion, PP 87-381,
with added condition #18, was unanimously approved.
B. CZ 87-026; a request by Anna Hassel, representing La Quinta
Dunes for a change of zone from R-1 (one -family dwelling) to
R-3 (general residential) for property located at the
southwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Westward Ho.
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 and Development
Department.
2. Chairman Walling opened the public hearing. Ms. Anna
Hassel, Applicant, addressed the Commission, giving a
brief summary of the proposal and expressing agreement
with the finding of the staff report. Mr. Les Larson,
resident, spoke with concern over the proposed
project. He expressed opposition to high density
zoning relative to the proximity of his single-family
home.
There being no further public comment, the public
hearing was closed.
MR/MIN08-25.DFT
3. Chairman Walling then opened the matter for Planning
Commission discussion. Commissioner Moran felt the
project is consistent with the General Plan.
Commissioner Zelles felt further study of the item to
better address the concerns of surrounding residents
was warranted.
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to approve CZ 87-026. Commissioner
Zelles amended the motion to postpone indefinitely for
further study. The amended motion was defeated by lack
of a second. Roll call vote was taken on the original
motion. All Commissioners present voted aye, with the
exception of Commissioner Zelles who voted no. The
motion was adopted by a majority vote.
C. GPA 86-014; a City -initiated request to amend the General
Plan Circulation Element to redesignate Miles Avenue from a
secondary to a primary arterial.
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 and Development
Department.
2. Chairman Walling opened the public hearing. There
being no public comment, the public hearing was closed.
3. Chairman Walling opened the matter for Commission
discussion. The Commissioners discussed the request as
submitted.
4. A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to adopt GPA 86-014, specifying a
110-foot right-of-way. Upon a roll call vote, the
motion was unanimously adopted.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT
No one wished to addressed the Commission.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by
Chairman Walling to approve the Planning Commission minutes
of July 14, 1987. Unanimously adopted.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Second extension of time for Tentative Tract 20016; a
request by Mr. and Mrs. Harold Hirsch regarding a planned
residential subdivision of 130 units over 30.3 acres,
MR/MIN08-25.DFT
II I,I ICI
i
located at the northwest corner of Miles Avenue and Dune
Palms Road, originally approved by City Council on July 18,
1984; first extension granted July 1, 1986 by Council.
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 and Development
Department.
2. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Zelles and seconded by Commissioner Moran
to approve the second extension of time for Tentative
Tract 20016. Upon roll call vote, the motion was
unanimously adopted.
B. PP 87-383; a request by Rick Johnson Construction to enclose
the existing covered walkway and use area as an enclosed
public corridor.
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 and Development
Department.
2. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the
Commission that the item be continued for further study.
3. A motion was made by Commissioner Moran and seconded by
Commissioner Zelles to continue PP 87-383, requesting
restudy and redesign by the Applicant for further
conformance with the Village Plan, including signage.
Unanimously adopted.
C. Identification of future discussion items.
Commissioner Moran: Determine if Commission can see plot
plans for R-2 and R-3 projects.
Commissioner Walling: Reminder of items previously
suggested - trade-offs of enhancements versus parking
agreements; designs reflecting consideration for climate.
Commissioner Zelles: Pad elevation.
Commissioner Bund requested that study sessions be held on a
regular basis; all other Commissioners agreed with this
request.
VII. OTHER
A. Appointment of Highway 111 Specific Plan Subcommittee.
Chairman Walling asked for volunteers to serve on the
subcommittee. Commissioners Moran and Zelles expressed
interest and were assigned to the subcommittee.
MR/MIN08-25.DFT
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Bund and seconded by
Commissioner Moran to adjourn to a regular meeting on
September 8, 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 9:00
p.m., August 25, 1987.
MR/MIN08-25.DFT
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1987
SUBJECT: REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL ON CHANGE OF ZONE 87-026
LA QUINTA DUNES
VM. A
The Commission first heard the Change of Zone request at a public
hearing on August 25, 1987. The request is to redesignate from R-1
(one -family dwelling) to R-3 (general residential) 32 acres of land
in the southwest corner of Dune Palms Road and Westward Ho Drive.
The new R-3 zoning designation brings the property in conformity with
the high density residential (8-16 d.u./ac.) land use classification
depicted in the General Plan. The Planning Commission at this
meeting found the zone change and the General Plan to be consistent
and approved the request. The case was then referred to the City
Council. The City Council conducted a public hearing on September 1,
1987, and introduced the ordinance for first reading. The matter
then came before City Council on September 15, 1987, for
consideration of the second reading (Ordinance N0.113). At this
meeting, numerous residents in the area questioned the necessity of
the Change of Zone and, in particular, high density residential
designation for this property in proximity to their single-family
homes. Eleven individuals spoke on the matter, with nine in
opposition or questioning the request, and two in support of the
change. Upon conclusion of the public comment and during discussion
by the City Council, the Council continued the second reading of
Ordinance No. 113, and requested a report from the Planning
Commission concerning the appropriateness of the land use
designation, with consideration to such items as: access road system,
proximity to shopping, surrounding development proposals; and at
Commission discretion, initiation of any General Plan Amendment
deemed necessary based upon their analysis.
MR/STAFFRPT.016
HISTORY
In 1984, a tentative tract map was approved which created a 162 unit
planned single-family residential development on 32.27 acres. This
approval subsequently expired. In 1985, the property was designated
high density residential (8-16 d.u./ac.) with the adoption of the
City General Plan. The Applicant, Anna M. Hassel, made application
in 1987 to change the zoning from R-1 to an R-3 bring the property
into conformance with the General Plan.
During the development of the General Plan, through many community
forums, General Plan advisory meetings, and public hearings both by
the Planning Commission and the City Council, it became an
established view and strategy to limit high density residential uses
to only a, few areas of the City. Also, the intent was to distribute
these high density areas throughout the City. This objective was
realized by designating some of the area around the "Village" high
density residential and two parcels in the northern part of the City,
north of the Whitewater Channel.
The location for high density residential uses became an issue during
a review of the Village Point Apartment Project (located in the
southern portion of the City). It was noted that a more appropriate
location for the high density uses would be in the northern portion
of the City where there is better access to the major transportation
systems within the Coachella Valley. In addition, the mixed use
commercial land use designation along Highway 111, approximately some
700 acres, contains provisions for high density residential uses, as
indicated in the General Plan.
Another reason advanced as to why the high density designation was
attached to the two larger parcels north of the Whitewater Channel
centered on the provision of a a transition or buffer area between
land uses; in particular, the area across the channel which was to be
developed as mixed commercial and Commercial Park was believed to
require buffering. A typical transition of commercial to high
density residential to medium density residential and then to
single-family residential uses was the theoretical model used.
However, it is observed that the eastern boundary of this high
density residential district abuts directly to single-family
residential property. Thus, no classic transition/buffer is provided.
ANALYSIS
The Council action has provided both an opportunity and a direction
to review the appropriateness/suitability/need questions of locating
a High Density Residential land use in this area.
In considering the Commission's response back to the City Council, it
might be appropriate to begin with the listing of some basic
evaluation questions, such as:
MR/STAFFRPT.016 2
H
171
0 Is this particular High Density land use allocation
compatible with the surrounding land uses?
0 Is the area circulation system capable of providing
reasonable vehicular access?
• Is the property in reasonable proximity to shopping or
employment opportunities?
• what is the supply/demand relationship for High Density
Residential land use?
COMPATIBILITY
The property is undeveloped. Surrounding uses consist of scattered
single family houses to the north, undeveloped property to the west,
a few single family homes and a mobile home park to the east and the
storm water channel to the south. Area General Plan land uses for
both La Quinta and Indio are illustrated on an attached exhibit. As
may be viewed from this exhibit, the area to focus on in terms of
land use compatibility would be the properties lying to the east of
the subject area; those depicted as low density residential. The
interface between these two land uses would, necessarily, have to be
based on and result from site planning efforts for the high density
area. Setbacks, wall, landscaping, and other boundary treatments
would need to address the transition between densities.
Other exhibits attached to this report further illustrate the
relationship among properties in this immediate area. Proposed uses
for both Indio and La Quinta appear generally compatible, with the
notable exception being the lands north of the Westward He
subdivision in the City of Indio. This results primarily from the
land lying in another government's jurisdiction, and La Quinta's
inability, therefore, to assure design compatibility.
Circulation System. The subject lands have access to major
east/west and north/south streets. A map showing La Quintals roadway
classifications as compared with Indio's is also attached. The only
discrepancy is Dune Palms Road. The City of La Quinta classifies
this street as a secondary arterial, having 88 feet of right-of-way,
while Indio has planned the street as a residential collector, with
66 feet of right-of-way.
A traffic analysis report was prepared in connection with the recent
Meisterlin General Plan Amendment. This report indicated that the
circulation system in the northern part of the City (when developed
per the General Plan) is capable of providing adequate circulation
for the area.
The cities of La Quinta and Indio have been meeting to resolve any
inconsistencies between their circulation systems. Hopefully these
meetings will result in cooperative efforts to provide a viable
circulation/transportation system in the two jurisdictions.
MR/STAFFRPT.016
PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING AND EMPLOYMENT
Typically, High Density Residential land use are located adjacent to
commercially designated property or related to employment centers.
This location criteria is supported by a rationale that:
• The higher concentration of people will support commercial
uses.
• Trip length for goods, services and employment will be
reduced (with related benefits from this relationship).
• High Density Residential provides a buffer between other
land uses.
In this particular instance, the closest shopping area is undeveloped
and some 500 feet to the south. Existing shopping is approximately
one mile west and five miles east of the site. The only immediate
employment opportunity would be in one of these commercial areas.
Additional traffic will be generated by High Density versus a lower
density residential land use category. However, the road system when
developed will accommodate the anticipated uses.
SUPPLY/DEMAND
The City has approximately 8,890 acres of developable land area.
This acreage excludes our sphere of influence, any property
designated as open space, and the existing water course/flood control
areas. Of this 8,890 acres, approximately 175 acres are exclusively
designated High Density Residential, or approximately two percent of
the developable land. Of this 175 acres of high density designated
property, 95 acres are located north of Highway 111.
The General Plan depicts four general classifications of residential
density, very low, low, medium, and high density residential.
Combining the very low and the low density residential land use
category totals approximately 5,810 acres, or 65.4 percent of the
developable area of the City. The medium density designation
represents 1,825 acres, or approximately 20.5 percent. High density
residential is two percent of the developable area of the City, and
the remainder is designated commercial. There are six variations
within the commercial land category. Overall the commercial land use
category equals approximately 1,080 acres, or 12.1 percent of the
City. The percentages, therefore, indicate the majority of the
developable area in the City is designated for single-family
residential uses; the second category is medium density, then
commercial, and then high density. There is no hard and fast rule as
to how much property within a City should be classified as one land
use verses another; however, historically, the dominant land use in
similar urban/suburban settings appears to be the single-family
district, and this holds true for the City of La Quinta.
MR/STAFFRPT.016 4
As indicated in the preceding, approximately two 2 percent of the
developable land area of the City is designated within the High
Density Residential category. This acreage could generate 1216 units
and 3040 people north of Highway 111 and 1024 units and 2,560 people
south of Highway 111. However, the General Plan permits High Density
Residential units to be developed in the mixed commercial land use
category, which could result in 134 to 462 acres of high density
residential development. This translates into a unit range of 2137
to 7397 additional units or 5345 to 18,493 people.
The Community Development element of the General Plan identified an
existing lack of apartments to meet senior and local employment needs
within the City. However, elimination or reduction of the subject
High Density Residential allocation will not substantially affect the
potential number of apartment units, as there seems to be flexibility
(particularly in the Mix Use Commercial category) to respond to
market demands.
SUMMATION
With regard to the previous questions posed and analysis of each, the
following summation can be offered:
1. The property as designated is generally compatible with the
surrounding land use categories, except, possibly, for the
Low Density Residential land use along the eastern boundary
(for which attention will need to be given to site
development techniques and boundary treatments).
2. The planned road system is capable of providing suitable
access for the land uses allocated to this area. The
existing road system however, is underdeveloped.
3. The property is not in close proximity to existing shopping
areas or employment opportunities, but the distances to
these activities is not great in terms of urban scale.
4. The amount of designated High Density Residential property,
including the potential High Density Residential development
in the mixed commercial category, more than likely exceeds
development demand. The site could be eliminated and not
have an affect on supply.
COMMISSION ACTION
Two basic options are available in responding to the Council request:
1. Report that the existing High Density Residential land use
allocation for this area should remain; supported by the
rationale developed in Commission discussion; or,
MR/STAFFRPT.016 5
0
2. Initiate a General Plan Amendment to change the existing
High Density Residential land use designation for the area
to a lower density residential category. A question which
follows this action would be whether the High Density
Residential acreage deleted here should be replaced
elsewhere in the City. Based upon the potential number of
units which could be built, it appears that the answer is no.
Looking to the number of multi -family dwelling units which
are achievable in the City, it would be quite speculative to
assert that there is a demand level beyond what would be
addressed by the remaining acreage.
MR/STAFFRPT.016 6
NUMBER OF UNITS AND POPULATION IN
HIGH DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION
Northern Area
Xx
95 - 20% = 76 AC X
Southern Area
80 - 20% = 64 AC X
16 DU/AC = 1,216 3,040
16 DU/AC = 1,024 2,560
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
BY ACREAGE & %
Residential
Very Low Density (0-2 d.u/ac)
Low Density (2-4 d.u/ac)
Medium Density (8-16 d.u/ac)
High Desnity (8-16 d.u/ac)
Commercial
Village Commercial
Tourist Commercial
Special Commercial
Mixed Commercial
General Commercial
Commercial Park
Developable Area
AC *W
%
Units
Population
210
2.4
336
1,011
5,600
63.0
17,920
53,939
1,825
20.5
11,680
29,200
175
2.0
2,240
5,600
32,176
89,750
100
1.1
135
1.5
110
1.2
675
7.6
50
.6
10
.1
8,890* 100.0%
* Excludes: Sphere of Influence, Open Space and Water Course/Flood
Control areas - per General Plan
** Net acreage is found by subtracting 20%
lqplmden.rpt
M
HIGH DENSITY AREAS
Northern Park of City
East of Washington St
South of Miles
West of Adams Street
North of Whitewater
Wash
East of Adams Street
South of Westward Ho Drive
West of Dune Palms Road
North of Whitewater
Wash
(Applicant's property is
32 acres of this area)
SUBTOTAL
Southern Part of City
Around Village Area
TOTAL
A.C. % of City
46 .5%
49
95 Acres
80
175 Acres
MIXED COMMERCIAL AREA
6° a
.9%
2.0%
General Plan policy states "for sites over 20 acres, 30% may be
developed with High Density Residential uses.
Net acres of parcels
over 20 acres.
445.34
Net acres of all
Mixed Commercial area.
660.48
MIXED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPABLE SCENARIOS
USING VARIATION OF THE 30/70 LAND USE MIX
1.
30%
of
445.34
= 133.60
AC
2.
30%
of
660.48
= 198.14
AC
3.
70%
of
445.34
= 311.74
AC
4.
70%
of
660.48
= 462.34
AC
lqplmden.rpt
® 0
OVER ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS
AND POPULATION*
Using scenarios for Mixed Commercial
Units Population
#1
Mixed Commercial 2,137 5,345
Residential 32,176 89,750
Total 34,313 95,093
#2
Mixed Commercial 3,170 7,925
Residential 32,176 89,750
Total 35,346 97,675
#3
Mixed Commercial 4,988 12,470
Residential 32,176 89,750
Total 37,164 102,220
#4
Mixed Commercial 7,397 18,493
Residential 32,176 89,750
Total 39,573 108,243
*Does not include City (10%) or State (25%) density bonus.
NUMBER OF UNITS
AND
POPULATION IN
MIXED COMMERCIAL
LAND USE DESIGNATION
Scenario
Units
Population
1.
133.60 acres
X
16
DU/AC = 2137
5,345
2.
198.14
X
16
= 3170
7,925
3.
311.74
X
16
= 4988
12,470
4.
462.34
X
16
= 7397
18,493
lqplmden.rpt
® BOUNDARY ZONING
CITY OF LA OUINTA ZONING LEGEND
SR o.GI.L
R[YOf MILL IOY[
R—i Oar0.Liwr
R-2 oWEiNL.YP•
AAANA.Iu
FR 3
R-5 LOWNIW IOy
M .M12T
eaxlc naxR.r
GOWFRLIPG
N—A ::Y7iL
—TION
A.
1RaLLfO
W-2 OIVENCINfxT
Ml.f
A_T— Mnl-.i l o Anmcc
CITY OF INDIO ZONING LEGEND
WRKUx
Ri
SWGLE' I..
.WLI W(wu r. ror uN�1
P'i
ION 1ENSIIi .,IT
C.YLl ZOK
R']
ENAIYEC 14u1El IOR
R[SCEY1ut-OfCE IOE
aE caNY.Pn.L xu
(I
NAAA,
ILKR4 LLYlP4Y ZOIE
C'T COWIERCIIL TOURIST S
RECREATION ZONE
C 3 ME"y CONMENCIAL ZONE
ffF ZONE
Y /WS1xr.L SON
19 0..WE0 Ov(LONNENI Z01[
WCL.... TO(
NM'D Y]M! rIA( IxM IL.xxEO
O N4LOK[Yl TO[
GENERAL PLAOBOUNDARY LAND USE f&SIGNATIONS
CITY OF LA QUINTA LEGEND CITY OF INDIO LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL
L.J LOW DC N 511Y
D. DE-IY
w� Dervsn Y
RESIDENTIAL
i.ow Density IO- 10 du ;gross acre)
A"edium Densny 10-25 au gross acre)
Tourist
-I'D 11-1-1-
2
0
BOUNDARY DEVELOPMENT STATICS LEGEND
LA QUINTA/INDIO - OCTOBER 19, 1987
I. Projects within the City of La Quinta as alphabetically cross
referenced:
A. Tentative Tract Map No. 19903: La Quinta Palms - Pan
American Land Development Company; division of 40 acres
into 146 condominiums with related recreation amenities;
density 3.65 units per acre; Approved July 17, 1984.
Status: Developer is completing the final phase of the
project. Project is now occupied.
B. Tentative Tract Map. 20016; Dune Palms; Dune Palms
Incorporated; division of 30 acres into 30 detached
condominium units with related recreation amenities;
density 4.33 units per acre; originally approved on July
17, 1984 with final time extension approved July 18, 1987.
Status: No activity observed since Tentative Map
approval. Tentative Map expires July 18, 1988.
C. Tentative Tract Map No. 21433; Lewis Homes Housing Tract
Project; Division of a portion of 40 acres into 82 lots for
the development of single-family homes; density 2.13 units
per gross acre and 4.15 units per actual net acre; Approved
July 15, 1986.
Status: No activity observed since Tentative Map approval.
D. Plot Plan No. 87-382; La Quinta Dunes Apartments, Anna
Hassell; development of 472 apartment units on 32 acres;
density 14.60 units per acre.
Status: Project is on hold waiting consideration of
General Plan density compatibility in project
vicinity.
E. Dune Palms Mobile Home Park; an existing 104 space mobile
home park situated on 11 acres; density 9.45 units per acre.
Status: Not applicable.
Comments: The General Plan designates the site for Low
Density Residential (2 to 4 units per acre).
BOUNf4RY DEVELOPMAT
LEGEND
REFER TO NEXT PAGE
,k II
2
II. Projects with the City of Indio as numerically cross
referenced:
A. Tentative Tract No. 21059; Royal Dunes Country Club;
J.C.C. Enterprises; division of 238 acres into 1980
condominium units with golf course and other recreation
amenities; density 8.32 units per acre.
Status: Project is approved, building permits have been
issued to date.
B. General Plan Amendment No. 6-39, Change of Zone No.
1-438 and 1-439; Indian Springs - Phase 14; 113
Corporation; conceptual approval of 1358 condominiums on
215 acres with golf course and other recreational
amenities; density 6.32 units per acre.
Status: Project is approved, however, no specific
construction approvals have been granted.
C. General Telephone Switching Facility on .20 acres.
Status: Project has been completed.
D. General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone; Indian Springs
Recreation Vehicle Park; 113 Corporation; development of a
178 space rental R-V Park on 14.8 acres; density 12.03
dwellings (R-V units) per acre.
Status: Project is approved. No building permits have
been issued.
E. General Plan Amendment No. 6-43 and Change of Zone No.
1-443; Western Corporation; conceptual approval of 200
condominiums on 10 acres; density 20 units per acre.
Status: No permits have been issued.
F. Tentative Tract No. 11603; Norman Dreyfuss; division of
26.5 acres into 115 single-family homes; density 4.34 units
per acre.
Status: No building permits issued.
G. Design Review 84-3-1; J.P.H. Enterprises;
commercial/retail complex containing 24,442 building square
footage.
Status: No building permits issued.
H. Conditional Use Permit No. 2-504; Indio Springs
Apartments; Warmington Stahl; a 80 unit apartment
complex on a 5.4 acre site; density 14.81 units per acre.
Status: Project is complete.
rptgp.101
BDARY CIRCULATION
MAJOR
PRIMARY
City of
La Quinta
COLLECTOR/LQ
O
H
z City of
a Indio
co.c.cua
-MAJOR ARTERIAL/LO HIGHWAY11
CITY OF LA QUINTA
CIRCULATION LEGEND
MAJOR ARTERIAL: 120 feet r-o-w
PRIMARY ARTERIAL: 100-110 feet r-o-w
Secondary Arterial: 88 feet r-o-w
SECONDARY ARTERIAL: 88 feet r-o-w
COLLECTOR: 64-72 feet r-o-w
MAJOR ARTERIAL/
MAJOR.
R
a
0
14,
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR/INDIO /
F
W
a'
w _ /
w
w
W
h
MAJOR ARTERIAL/INDIO
CITY OF INDIO
CIRCULATION LEGEND
MAJOR ARTERIAL: 110 feet r-o-w
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR: 66 feet r-o-w
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT
0 0 STU DY
MEMORANDUM SESSION)
m ti CITY OF LA QUINTA ONLY
HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OCTOBER 27, 1987
LOT GRADING AND PAD ELEVATIONS IN THE COVE
PURPOSE
This memorandum is being offered to formally acquaint the Commission
with a growing issue resulting from the development activity
occurring within the "Cove" area of La Quinta. It outlines the
background to recent concerns and factors that have contributed to
this situation. The Staff response to further definition of this
emerging problem is discussed, as well as, limiting factors to
arriving at a solution. General development criteria which can and
is presently being used to address this subject has been noted. The
memorandum concludes with the areas in which the Planning Commission
and City Policy -makers may become involved. Most importantly, the
subject of Cove lot grading and pad height elevations is being
brought into the public discussion arena. This is an interim report
which does not offer a definitive direction for all subsequent
actions, but rather, it introduces the issues as the subject for
further study and dialog.
BACKGROUND
Recent Concern
Concern has been expressed regarding the importation of fill dirt and
the elevation of building pads in the Cove area of the City. The
initial reaction has been based on aesthetics and loss of privacy.
This situation is particularly evident where new construction occurs
next to dwellings built before City incorporation.
Contributing Factors
Two technical requirements for construction and development of single
family lots in the Cove have worked together to produce, in some
part, the conditions which are now being experienced. First, the
Uniform Building Code requires that surface drainage (from a building
site) be conducted to an approved drainage way. In this instance the
typical (and in most cases the only) drainage way is the public
street. Therefore, lower lots are built-up to provide for back of
0 0
lot to front of lot (street) drainage. In doing so, the interface
between lots can be quite severe, with elevation differences often
ranging between four to six feet. The second requirement has to do
with the Federal Flood Insurance program, which generally requires
that the finished floor of a dwelling be elevated above the height of
flood waters. The amount of actual elevation varies among the
different hazard zones. The most common Cove zone provides for a one
foot increase in finished floor height; and in the extreme up to
three feet.
CURRENT RESPONSE
Problem Definition
Recognizing the growing concern over this situation, City Staff
sought to explore the subject further. Services of a consulting
engineering firm were employed to look at lot grading and drainage
alternatives. But, rather than discovering simple alternative
techniques that might be utilized, this exercise produced a greater
understanding of the full scope of the problem (going beyond the
initial aesthetics issue). It appears that satisfaction of the
previously mentioned requirements also has a significant implication
for drainage within the larger subdivision block; particularly when
there are existing dwellings built below the pad elevation required
today. An existing low property can ultimately be the recipient of
diverted drainage waters within a block, resulting from incremental
construction up hill or adjacent to the lot. Not only may there be
an apparent aesthetic issue but, also, natural drainage
characteristics of the block can be altered with negative impact on
properties.
It was also observed that implementation of the previously noted
requirements was accomplished by setting a minimum standard; which
is to say that if a proposed development met the minimum criteria for
pad elevation it was accepted, without prescribing a maximum
allowable padding situation.
Limiting Factors
In this evaluation of the "larger picture" it was recognized that a
number of factors existed to limit a straight forward technical
response. The Cove area was subdivided in the late 1930's without
any real notion of how sheet flow drainage should be conducted
through the area, much less flood waters. Within a predominately
north -south street pattern, no system was designed to convey the
generally trending south to east local storm runoff. In the design
of a modern subdivision there may have been a series of drainage
easements and the streets may have been established below lot grade.
Today, we have individually owned lots, (as an obstacle to
establishing drainage easements) and roadways where the crown of the
street is elevated above most east side lots.
Another characteristic of Cove lots works against an easy solution.
The most typical lot is fifty feet wide by one hundred feet deep. By
-2-
memomc.101
H
11
the time a 1500-1600 square foot house with double car garage is
located on one of these lots, there is little or no room to absorb or
transition the grade differential (as is done in some hillside or
slope subdivisions). This often results in the construction of
retaining walls, accentuating the grade change. A preferable
treatment in hillside/slope property development is the stepping of
lots with at least a 2 to 1 transition which ramps to the higher
elevation.
Other Criteria For Development
As a means to set maximum limits on fill importation and lot pad
heights other City regulations were examined. Most of the subject
problems have occurred on the small Cove lots which are regulated by
the criteria contained in the Special Residential (SR) Zone.
Findings required for approval of a development in this zone include
the provision that it not be detrimental to the public's health,
safety and welfare; and, that the design takes into account the
existing physical characteristics of the site, including topography
and drainage.
Individual Lot Review
In an effort to more closely monitor lot grading and pad heights,
additional grading and drainage information is being required of
permit applicants. Each lot's development is being individually
evaluated from plans and field observations. Staff is gaining
experience in terms of the types of lot development situations which
may be encountered. Basically, building requests fall into three
categories: development which requires little if any fill; lots that
need some fill to meet a back to front drainage scheme (at the lowest
point the lot is elevated one to three feet); and, the case in which
a significant amount of fill is required for street drainage,
resulting in four, five, six, or more feet of retaining wall being
proposed. It is this latter, extreme, case which is of the most
concern and needs to be addressed.
Future Direction
Staff response to the "extreme" grade change proposal has more
recently followed an evaluation of minimum fill and pad height
necessary for the sites individual circumstances; and, if a reduction
in the amount of fill can not be achieved by an uncomplicated
revision, the availability of other grading/drainage technique (such
as through lot drainage to a rear parallel street, or drainage along
the rear of the lot to an intersection street).
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AND ACTION
There are a number of policy areas and legislative response items on
which the Planning Commission may advise the City Council. These
include the relative priority that aesthetic/privacy considerations
are given, in relation to the allowance for the ease of individual
lot development. With regard to ease of lot development, this is to
-3-
memomc.101
0 0
say that it is much less complicated to simply fill a lot to drain to
the street and not be concerned about the effect on adjacent
properties and overall drainage within the subdivision block. Some
solutions to the problems experienced may cause a redesign in the
building product, a delay in construction while seeking a solution,
or preclude development at this moment in time.
As mentioned, Staff in taking a position that grading should only
involve the minimum amount of imported fill necessary to achieve
proper drainage, but a definitive legislative position would be
necessary for consistent administration. The SR Zone may be an
appropriate place to formalize this criterion; it would involve the
initiation of a Zoning Ordinance text amendment and possibly some
work on the development guideline/manual.
The ability to incrementally assemble alternate drainage ways would
be provided by a standard City requirement to dedicate drainage
easements as a condition of property development. With some further
study of this subject's application, legal implications and potential
benefits, it too, may be considered in an ordinance amendment.
The more difficult situations, such as the instance where a dwelling
could not be constructed without adversely effecting adjacent lots or
negatively diverting natural drainage within the block, will also
need to be scrutinized by City policy -makers.
Enclosure: Drainage Study, Mainiero, Smith and Associates
-4-
memomc.101