The URL can be used to link to this page

1985 12 10 PCJ AGENDA PLANNING COMMIISSICN - CITY OF IA QUINPA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California December 10, 1985 7:00 p.m. A. Flag Salute' 2. ROLL CALL 3. HEARINGS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 22, 1985. 5. BUSINESS A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-213, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southwest corner of Avenida Velasco and Calle Madrid: Wayne La Vella, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. B. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-214, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southeast corner of Avenida Herrera and Calle Madrid; James and Kathleen Septer, Applicants. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. C. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-221, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Martinez, 250' south of Calle Colima; H&S Management Corp., Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. D. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-222, a request to construct a single-family dwelling Calle Monterey; on the east side of Avenida Carranza, 100' south of R°pF H&S Management Corp., Applicant. {� 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. E. PLOT PLAN No. 85-223, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southeast corner of Avenida Herrera and Calle Colima; H&S Management Corp., Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. F. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-224, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Villa, 100' south of Calle Sonora; H&S Management Corp., Applicant. 1. Report fran Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. G. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-225, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southwest corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Durango; ' 0 H&S Management Corp., Applicant. 4 -t 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. H. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-226, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Obregon, 100' north of Calle Colima; Jerico construction, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. AGENDA - PLANNING CCHMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. I. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-227, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Obregon, 150' north of Calle Colima; Jerico Construction, Applicant. 1. Report fran Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. J. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-228, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Herrera, 200' north of Calle Arroba; Jerico Construction, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. K. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-229, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Herrera, 250' north of Calle Arroba; Jerico Construction, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. L. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-230, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Obregon, 100' north of Calle Potrero; Paul Lieb, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. M. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-231, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Vallejo, 150' south of Calle Durango; Paul Lieb, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. N. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-232, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Bermudas, 150' south of Calle Hidalgo; Paul Lieb, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. O. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-233, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the southeast corner of Avenida Velasco and Calle Colima; Paul Lieb, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. P. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-234, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Velasco, 50' south of Calle Colimtl; Paul Lieb, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. Q. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-236, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the south side of Calle Fortuna, 300' east of Desert Club Drive; Louis Compagna, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. R. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-238, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Obregon, 200' north -of Calle Sonora; A.C. Hipp, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. S. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-239, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the north side of Bottlebrush Drive, 157' east of Washington Street; Don Howard, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Notion for Adoption. 100 0 AGENDA - PLANNING CaH�USSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. T. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-240, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the north side of Bottlebrush Drive, 107' east of Washington Street; Don Howard, Applicant. 1. Report from Staff. 2. Motion for Adoption. 6. AwoumMENT 0 ril f:.;, 1 1,1^ CITY (I= LA &pIINTA November 1985 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT To the City of La Quinta Office of Planning - Planning Commission (copies also to board members - La Quinta Chamber of Commerce) Dear La Quinta Planning Commission: This letter is from a concerned citizen as a plea to improve the sidewalk and bike path situation in our community. First,let me explain that I have lived at the La Quinta Country Club as resident for part of two years. Before that time, I lived here in our home for a couple of months every winter. Anyway, as you know until a few years ago we did not have any sidewalks or bike paths. Suddenly, with three new developments in Santa Rosa Cove a bike path plus a sidewalk appeared! The problem is that hardly anyone uses this attractive bike path or sidewalk because it is such a short strip. I'm sure you rea- lize that our community is becoming more and more a permanent residence for many people,young and old. We live here because we are people that love the sunny outdoors, jogging, running, swimming, golf, bicycling, baseball, walking, tennis, tennis, etc., etc. Many of us are also health conscious. My point is that I'm not the only individual who happens to jog daily. I run at least six miles every day. My neighbor enjoys riding his bike several miles each day. Unfortunately, because there is no safe and long bike path outside our clubhouse walls, he must ride around and around a short circle block. I, and many others, would like to see a network of bike paths and sidewalks (even jogging trails, too) developed throughout La Quinta. I would like to see developed bike paths and sidewalks joining the PGA West with the other Santa Rosa Cove developments. A bike path and sidewalk extending the entire length of Eisenhower Drive, then others across 50th, 52nd, and 54th Avenues to Jefferson Street would be a possible start. Thank you for immediate consideration on this matter. Our city is growing at a rapid rate. Two schools are currently being built. La Quinta especially has come into the limelight, offering the loveliest, most beautiful, scenic and exclusive resort and country club amenities found anywhere in the Desert. We are a city that economically depends a great deal upon the resort business and leisure activities of visitors and residents. Our economic depend- ence upon such leisure activities is not going to change. Safe and adequate sidewalks, bike paths, and jogging trails are an important part of our lifestyle in this community. 21 To the City of La Quinta November 1985 I hope the La Quinta Planning Commission is aware, concerned, and taking action on this -matter. I request that you follow through and see to it these facilities are developed and incorporated into the master plan. Sincerely, jp q�i2� Sue _ 78120 Lago Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 ITEM NO. DATE / 7— S � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING V ( MOTION BY: BRANDT MORAN VRUING THORNBURGH AS� �• SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN PDRAN THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL P6* A CWDfISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT !% UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO RE: 0 ITEM NO. DATE Z- /O-SS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING /6- a-z,�rs• 1 MOTION BY: DE GASPERIN MORAN HULING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN M LLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: (/� a ROLL CALL VOTE: CO*MSSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT BRANDT — DE GASPERIN — MORAN — WALING TH0EMURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. S /7• DATE PLANNING COOMMMIISSIO�N MEEETING RE: MOTION BY: BRANDT D� NORAN WILING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRAIM DE GASPERIN NDRAN WILING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: �, a ROLL CALL VOTE: COP!MIS S IONERS : UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: AYE NO YES ABSTAIN NO ABSENT PRESENT ITEM NO. S- DATE / 2 -/ 6 - g S PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING J� RE: /v ID �5S - � / � / / / MOTION BY: BRANDT � MORAN MULING THOIMURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERRIINNNDRAN VIALLING THORNBURM DISCUSSION: Z/( - mot, ROLL CALL VOTE: �COPXISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT BRANDT — DE GASPERIN — MORAN — VALLING — THOIMURGH — UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE /Z - /U - PLANNIINN!G COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: BRAND'T DE GASPERIN MORAN VKUING 7HORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRAN T DE GASP= MORAN I+IIILLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: - / �S-4 �. ROLL CALL VOTE: COPHISSIONERS: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN WALLING THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: ELe AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT YES :/ NO __ ITEM NO. DATE /Z - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: P MOTION BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN VVJ LING THORNBURGH _� ----� SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN ING RNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CO*MSSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT BRANDT - DE GASPERIN - MORAN - WILING - THOEMURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: /"/Zl �d DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN WAILING THOIMUAGH AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO RE: ITEM NO. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9-S-2-34 6�� MOTION BY: DE GASPERIN ADRAN M LLING THORNBURGi SECOND BY: BRAN T GASPERIN RAN VALLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: NCO*XISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT BRAN T - DE GASPERIN - MORAN - %VLUING - THOEMURGH - UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. SS G<, DATE Z" l O �%/� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: 1� IIg-S ,7,3 MOTION BYDE GASPERIN MORAN V&JLING THOIMURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GA.SPERIN VVLUING THORNBURM DISCUSSION: ©« S� &,` — /.�✓ can Ils Q�tiUl+9 .4 /-ttT4f FI'+r'S T71�'TjC ✓1-a.'O ✓,ti�4✓.i /✓P,vtGlZhv:£ ROLL CAL' COINISSI SENT k BRANDT DE GASP _ MORAN ViA LING — THMZMURGH — UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ITEM NO. DATE /Z -16 -e�; PLANNInNG COMMISSION MEETING n RE: sly �� '2 �9 •.�L �s- Z�U (1 �sL -�C MOTION BY: DE GASPERIN NDRAN M LLING THORNBURGH SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN (� M LLING THORNBURGH DISCUSSION ROLL CALL VOTE: COINIS SIONERS : UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT YES NO T f M I N U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A Regular Meeting Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. October 22, 1985 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and called upon Commissioner Moran to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Thornburgh requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Brandt, De Gasperin, Moran, Walling and Chairman Thornburgh Absent: None Also present were Corm pity Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Gary W. Price and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. Chairman Thornburgh addressed the first two items of hearing, to be heard concurrently, as follows: A. Street Vacation No. 85-008, a request for the City to vacate a 29±-foot-wide strip along the easterly and southerly portions of the existing 100-foot-wide right-of-way for Eisenhower Drive between San Vicente Street (east) and Avenida Fernando (south); La Quinta Golf Estates Community Association, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-186, a request to construct a private frontage road with controlled access gates at San Vicente Street and Coachella Drive, with an alternate plan showing an additional access gate adjacent to Eisenhower Drive and north of Avenida Fernando (south). The Applicant is also requesting installa- tion of a perimeter wall and landscaping within the remaining Eisenhower Drive public right-of-way; La Quinta Golf Estates Community Association, Applicant._. Chairman Thornburgh then called for the Staff Report. 1. Principal Planner Sandra Bonner reported that the Applicants, La Quinta Golf Estates Conumity Association, are requesting approval of two items. First, to vacate a 29'-wide portion of the existing 100'-wide right-of-way of Eisenhower Drive between San Vicente on the east and Avenida Fernando (north extension) on the south. Secondly, they are requesting Planning Commission approval for construction of a frontage road, perimeter wall and entry gates into their project area. Addressing the street vacation, Ms. Bonner stated there are three major points to be brought up. First, consistency of the request with the general plan; secondly, need of the portion of the road proposed for vacation for future use, and lastly, the public benefic resulting from the vacation. Regarding consistency with the Community Design Element of the new proposed General Plan, 11s. Bonner stated that the proposed general plan designates the primary image corridors into La Quinta's village center as Eisenhower Drive, Calle Tampico and Washington Street. For these three streets, the general plan proposes to have 12' to 18'-wide, center landscaped medians and above average landscaping treatment along parkways and roadways. She noted that it is Staff's opinion that this proposed vacation, which would result in the deletion of the possibility of constructing a median along Eisenhower and would also result in a decrease in the parkway area along the east and south side of the project area, wofald not be consistent with this element of the general plan. In addition, it would also result in possibly substantially weakening this proposed concept of establishing primary image corridors in and out of the downtown area. Regarding con- sistency with the other two main elements of the general plan, circulation and noise, the Applicant's proposed plan is consistent with some minor changes. r 5 MINUTES - PLANNING CCf1MISSION October 22, 1985 Page 2. Discussing the need of future use of the vacated portions of Eisenhower Drive, Ms. Bonner advised that the Applicants are proposing that the public street improvements, instead of being located in a 100' right-of-way, that they be located in a 71' right-of-way. The proposal is for four travel lanes, a 4' center painted median, a 12' parkway on the west and north sides of Eisenhower Drive and a 7' public parkway adjacent to the project street along the east and south side of Eisenhower Drive. As currently proposed, Ms. Bonner advised that this is essentially a "bare -bones" design for the public right-of- way. If there is any additional space that is needed either to provide for additional parkway or turning lanes or any additional improvements within the public right-of-way, that property must be obtained in two ways. First, either the frontage road has to be redesigned in order to provide more than the 71' currently provided or secondly, additional right-of-way has to be obtained across the street from this project - namely, on the west side or in the Laguna De La Paz project. It is Staff's opinion that there is a need for at least a portion of the area proposed for vacation for future use. With respect to traffic safety, Ms. Bonner advised that there are two areas where there is absolutely a need for an additional 12' area in the existing curb -to - curb area. The first area is Avenue Fernando at the northerly extension and the second area is south Ursula Street further to the north. This additional area is required to provide left -turn lanes into the undeveloped property to the west and also to the existing Laguna De La Paz project. In order to obtain this 12' right-of-way, which is the absolute minimum required, either for a painted turn lane or for a raised, planted median, there are two options; Avenida Fernando (north) or the right-of-way could be obtained from the adjacent property owner across the street since it is undeveloped. In the case of Laguna De La Paz, it is somewhat more difficult as street improvements are already in place so obtaining this right-of-way would require substantial changes to the existing street improvements and landscaping at Laguna De La Paz. Ms. Bonner ended this portion of her report by stating that if it is the decision of the City that it is in the public's best interest to have a center median along the entire length of Eisenhower Drive and this frontage road, it would necessitate the 12' widening of Eisenhower for the entire length of the project area. Addressing the last major point, public benefits of the proposal, Ms. Bonner advised that the project benefits revolve around three main issues; traffic safety, noise, and aesthetics. Under current standards, Eisenhower Drive is proposed to be a 1001 right-of-way which includes 4 travel lanes, 12' center median, 12'-wide parkways on either side and also 8'-wide parallel parking or breakdown lanes on each side. In the area of Avenida Fernando, the situation is very similar to Highland Palms Subdivision on Washington Street. There are 17 lots that directly front on Eisenhower Street, 12 of which have no choice but to enter/exit directly onto Eisenhower Drive, therefore causing a hazard for both the residents and also for the general public with vehicles backing on and off Eisenhower Drive. The most practical and most effective solution to eliminating this hazard for everyone concerned is by constructing a frontage road between the two extensions of Avenida Fernando. The construc- tion of a frontage road would benefit both the general public by increased traffic safety and also the residents in the same manner. Ms. Bonner stated that there is also the option, in order to minimize visual impacts of the narrowed roadway by eliminating the median, to acquire additional right-of-way across the street and shifting the entire roadway to the west. In that way, we would have increased traffic safety with the frontage road while also providing for the landscaped median and other amenities. With regard to the cul-de-sac areas, Ms. Bonner stated there is a different type of lot configuration in this area. The lots have the opportunity to access onto the side streets rather than directly onto Eisenhower Drive. In the cul-de-sac area, there are currently eight lots developed (7 with homes and 1 with a tennis court). Of the 7 homes, 1 has direct access onto Eisenhower Drive with the remaining 7 having their garages enter onto the side streets. Ms. Bonner stated that it is Staff's opinion that the ability of these lots to enter onto the cul-de-sacs and, in addition, the minor modification that would be required by one home's garage, and the future restriction of prohibiting any additional garages or driveways from entering onto Eisenhower Drive, will provide adequate safety for this area. y MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 3. In addition, current street specs provide adequate space for a left -turn lane in this area and acceleration/deceleration lanes, therefore the current street section provides adequate safety for residents to enter and leave their residential streets without creating a hazard to the general public or themselves. while, in general, the reduction of cross traffic on any street improves traffic safety, it is the City Engineer's opinion that the cul-de-sacs in themselves do not create a significant traffic hazard. Particularly, in light of the fact that there is adequate room in the public right-of-way for both left -turn, acceleration and decelera- tion lanes. Ms. Bonner went on to note that traffic accident reports for this area from 7/82 to 6/85 reported only 2 accidents. In conclusion, regarding the cul-de-sac area, the benefits gained by the general public, by the increased traffic safety, over that which can be provided by the current, ultimate roadway standards, is not significant enough to offset the benefits which can be accrued by the vacation of the 29' and the construction of a frontage road. In addition, the vacation of 29' in this area would result in the taking of additional area from Laguna De La Paz, which has ccmpleted its roadway improvements, in order to provide adequate area for a left -turn lane. Based upon these considerations, Ms. Bonner stated that it is Staff's recc mendation, with regard to the street vacation, that vacation of the portion of Eisenhower Drive between the north and south extension of Avenida Fernando be approved and also that we acquire right-of-way on the westerly side of the street to offset the loss of right-of-way in order to provide for median and increased parkway along the project's perimeter wall. For the area east and north and the cul-de-sac area, Staff is recommending that the street vacation not be approved. Principal Planner Bonner then reported on Plot Plan No. 85-186 which was submitted concurrently with the street vacation regarding this same matter. She advised that the plot plan details the specific improvement design. Addressing that area at Avenida Fernando, Staff is recommending several specific design changes which are all relatively minor. The Applicant has requested a 24'-wide frontage road - Staff is recommending this be increased to 32' to allow on -street parking. ° The proposed cul-de-sacs do not provide adequate turning area for trucks or passenger cars - Staff is recommending that the radius of the cul-de-sacs be increased to a minimum of 28' in the area of Coachella Drive. Regarding the location and design of the entry gates, the Coachella gate is located and designed to provide adequate stacking space for vehicles waiting to enter the project and Staff recommends no changes. For Avenida Fernando (north) and its intersection with Eisenhower, Staff is recommending that the Applicant design it to allow for consolidation with the access point for the property located across the street to the west. This would make it possible for both the residents of this project and the residents from future projects to the west to enter Eisenhower at this intersection. Addressing the last gate on Avenida Fernando (south), there is currently conflict with the Club La Quinta project located at the southeast corner of this intersection. Ms. Bonner directed the Planning Commission's attention to two letters the City has received from the Club La Quinta's association, which state they wish to go on record as being opposed both to having their current access frcan Eisenhower Drive on Avenida Fernando (south) blocked or to being included within the proposed perimeter. Therefore, at the reco uen- dation of our City Attorney, Staff is requesting that the gates be redesigned so that Club La Quinta still retains direct access to Avenida Fernando (south) to their project site. In addition, that the most easterly gate on Avenida Fernando (south) be relocated further east so that two units of the Club La Quinta project, which access on Avenida Fernando and are currently divided by the gates, will not be included within the proposed wall. Staff has also requested in the conditions that the gate design for the frontage road in this area be redesigned to eliminate possible traffic conflicts from the way it is currently designed. Regarding the perimeter wall, Staff MINUTES - PLANNING 0CMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 4. feels that the conditions attached to the street vacation, requiring addi- tional parkway in that area to allow more substantial landscaping, will be adequate to improve the appearance of the wall. In addition, Staff is requesting a noise study to ensure that the wall is constructed adequately for noise mitigation. Ms. Bonner advised the Planning Commission that the conditions for both the street vacation and the plot plan detail Staff's recommendations. Staff is recommending approval of Street Vacation 85-008 in accordance with the findings, as amended, subject to attached conditions of approval. Staff is also recommending approval of Plot Plan No. 85-186 in accordance with the findings in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions of approval. Ms. Bonner then turned the meeting over to the Community Development Director. Director Stevens addressed (for the record) the many letters received expressing various opinions relative to the proposed project, which letters the Planning Commission reviewed at the Study Session. He advised that this concluded Staff's reports on these matters. Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions the Commission may have of Staff. Commissioner Walling: Is Staff saying, in effect, if additional right-of-way is acquired on the west side of Eisenhower between Avenida Fernando (south) and Avenida Fernando (north) that the problems in that area would be solved? Director Stevens: In the Avenida Fernando area, Staff is recommending that there be some additional right-of-way acquired to accommodate adequate standards; basically, turning opportunities, landscape median opportunity, relative to the image corridor concept that was talked about. Staff is suggesting that the abandoned vehicle lanes are not necessary and are making some minor adjustments in our parkway standards, so that it will not be a full 100' width, but somewhere in the mid 80' width. This means that some 14-15' would need to be acquired on the opposite side of the street to accommodate those standards. Staff does not feel the same about the cul-de-sac area. The two major areas of difference with regard to the submitted proposal is that Staff is suggesting some additional right-of-way and modification of the proposed cross-section of the road in the Fernando area, and in the cul-de-sac area, Staff is simply recommending that there not be any road abandonment. Staff feels it would be possible to include that area within a fenced area, using a fence design consistent with the remainder of the project, but that each cul-de-sac would have to be separately gated if it was desired to have security. Director Stevens stated there would be no objection to that, but Staff does not feel there is adequate public benefit relative to traffic safety to warrant abandonment of right-of-way along that cul-de-sac area. Commissioner De Gasperin: What happened to the Applicant's request for assessment? Director Stevens: Staff has not had the opportunity to review financing mechanisms at this point. It will be discussed as a separate issue should the vacation and plot plan requests be approved. Once it is known what type of road is to be approved, then we'll know what the costs are and can determine which portion is the Applicant's responsibility and which we can justify as a public benefit. Therefore, at this point in time, Staff is not making a recommendation as to the formation of an Assessment District or trying to assess a benefit relative to such a district. Commissioner De Gasperin: So we really don't have any vision yet as to how it will be paid for if approved? Director Stevens: That is correct. Commissioner De Gasperin: With respect/to right-of-way, the property across the street does not belong to any of the Applicants involved in this request? s 0 DUN= - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 5. Director Stevens: There are essentially two ownerships on the opposite side of the street. In the area of the Fernandos, that is an undeveloped piece of property not owned by the Applicant or any resident in the area. The area around the cul-de-sacs is developed and approved as part of the Laguna De La Paz project and obviously not affiliated with the La Quinta Golf Estates Association. Commissioner De Gasperin: Does the inability to acquire right-of-way across the street from the cul-de-sacs affect the Planners' recommendation? Director Stevens: It does effect Staff's recommendation. He stated he did not want to say there is not the ability to acquire right-of-way - the City has the ability to use eminent domain to condemn that property, paying a fair market value, and then determine a way to do the improvements. He stated there is an ability to do that, but Staff questions whether that is necessary in light of the traffic safety consideration. Commissioner De Gasperin: If the street vacation is approved as recommended, the right-of-way acquisition would be included in the assessment cost of the entire project? Director Stevens: It could be. Chairman Thornburgh: Assuming that a developer on the west side came in for a subdivision approval, the City would at that point in time have the opportunity to evaluate the street and decide that we might want it wider, we might need some more room, it could be held until he develops, it could be picked up by eminent domain, it could be purchased by these people - so there are four or five solutions. The point being, as we do in most subdivisions, we are concerned with the improvement and the reason we are concerned with the other side is because the east side is a little short. If we feel, at a later date, we need to make up the other side, the City, through the Commission and Council, has the right to do that. Is that correct? Director Stevens: That is basically correct - its possible, if we don't want to construct it as an entire project, if we can reasonably phase the improvements, that we could simply await development and then make a dedi- cation. So you see, it is hard to determine what those costs might be because there are four or five different ways that it could go. He stated he felt it fruitless to evaluate all those costs and options until we know if, or what, or what type of road improvement plan is going to be acceptable to the Commission and Council and then we can go back and look at financing mechanisms. Commissioner De Gasperin: Is it fair to state that Staff's recommendation then is written that construction of the perimeter wall is contingent upon the acquisition of the right-of-way or is that something that may fall along the wayside at same point in time? Director Stevens: Its possible that it could fall by the wayside if we can develop an adequate phased cross-section. We may determine that its not necessary to get that right-of-way now, that we can simply await development. We really are not going to know until we get to the detailed design to know if thats going to be absolutely necessary or not. All that would have to be done, for example, prior to forming an assessment district if that ended up being the principal financing system. Commissioner Walling: Won't the Applicant, if approved, be required to develop at least three -fourths of the street? Director Stevens: You are probably right. The Applicant will run into, I believe to a degree when they get down to detailed improvement plans, the same situation that Mery Johnson ran into. He was making such substantial alterations in the grade of Eisenhower that he ended up having to do a lot more of the street than, in fact, would have been evident at the time his MINUTES - PLANNING CCRUSSION October 22, 1985 Page 6. approval was granted, simply because of those grade variations. That is a possibility here. Its likely the Applicant will have to construct more than half just to make grades and alignments come together because of the nature of the changes that are being adjusted. They may also have to go beyond both the easterly and southerly portions of the project limits simply to provide adequate transitions from existing roads to the revised roads. It is hard to give a reliable answer until you get down to the detailed improvement plans. I think what we are really talking about here is the concept of how wide the road is going to be and if there is an approval for that concept, then it is worthwhile to expand the design time and see what adjustments are necessary in order to create a smooth and safe traffic circumstance along the entire area. There being no further questions from the Commission to Staff, Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Thornburgh advised those present that occasionally Staff and the Planning Commission do not agree, so you cannot assume that Staffs Report is the Commission's decision. The Commission is here to listen to you express your opinions. He then called upon the Applicant for their presentation. Morgan Ward, Jr., 48-800 San Pedro, La Quinta; President of the La Quinta Golf Estates Om enmity Association, spoke as representative of the Applicant. Mr. Ward asked the Secretary to distribute a document to the Commissioners. Mr. Ward advised that the document being distributed is a brief description of the benefits to the Canmunity and an artist's rendering of the proposed appearance of the gate, a cross-section at two different points on Eisenhower to show what the end product would look like, and some bar charts regarding traffic safety, along with a news release made available to the press tonight. Mr. Ward stated that he represents 185 united homeowners, who are also tax- payers and residents of the conmunity, and have the right to state their feelings about what the public benefit can be. He noted that previous to February of this year, the Association was not united, but since that time the conflicts have been reconciled due to the master concept they have adopted and the employment of a qualified traffic engineer (Berryman & Stephenson). Mr. Ward advised that he would like to go through the problems they are facing and how they plan to solve then via the project being proposed, along with the benefits of the project. Then, he would like to address the Staff Report which unfortunately he did not get a copy of until approximately 24 hours before this hearing. He noted the report represents a drastic departure from all of the conversations and interactions and the many, many plan checks that took place prior to final submittal to the City. He went on to address the problems with regard to traffic safety stating that there are 40 lots that empty out onto Eisenhower and the speed limit being 45-miles-per-hour is fast. Another problem is traffic noise which is only going to get worse as buildout occurs and if the City makes Eisenhower a primary corridor. He advised that this is an older subdivision and did not have the benefit of being involved in a master plan, so there is a cluttered collection of streets not making an attractive entry into the City. Many of the lots have not been built on because of the noise and traffic in the area. There is also an unacceptable crime rate in the area as it is easy to drive or walk right onto the project. He noted that there are many more nroblems and if they had a raw piece of ground, this would be a lot easier than it is, but that not being the case, the Association feels that the benefits that will be portrayed and that the engineer, who can speak to the technical angles, will override the shortcomings, if they can be called that in our case. Mr. Ward stated that the concept of the perimeter wall began many years ago and for whatever reasons did not get off the ground until the past year. He noted that the Planning Commission approved the Coachella Gate last February with the actuation of the gate contingent upon the erection of a perimeter wall, and at that same meeting, the Commission charged the Association with the responsibility of hiring a traffic consultant to F MINUTES - PLANNING COMNIISSION October 22, 1985 Page 7. determine the feasibility of that wall, which was done through the firm of Berryman & Stephenson. Mr. Ward advised that in April of this year, their Association had a homeowners' general election which really united the Association with 80% of the membership being in favor of this project and funding what it took to prepare the maps. Also, the 150 members of the Islands Homeowner's Association, who will use the Coachella Drive Gate, are so in favor of the project that they have pledged financial support. Mr. Ward stated that it is unfortunate he did not have time to absorb the lengthy Staff Report, but he does understand what Staff is driving at. He wanted to stress that the benefits of the project vastly improve traffic safety, and a much reduced road noise situation would be provided by the construction of the perimeter wall. This project will complete the corridor of Eisenhower that was started by the Laguna De La Paz project. He went on to state that the project will obviously reduce the crime situation in the area and should encourage the buildout in the area which will increase the tax base of the City. He stated that the Association will pay for the improvements. Looking into an Assessment District was a promise to the homeowners as a way to look to another way of defraying the costs, and if that is not feasible, the Association stands ready to pay for the improve- ments themselves. They have lien and foreclosure power to ensure this with no financial impact to the City. Addressing the Staff recanmendations, Mr. Ward noted that the cul-de-sac area is a vital area not to be taken away by deleting it from the vacation of the 29' and the wall. If it were eliminated, the traffic safety, noise abatement and the aesthetic corridor would be compromised. Mr. Ward stated he feels that the engineer can tell the Commission that the design is sound and leaving that area unimproved would cause more problems than would be created by the proposed vacation. He stated one entrance into the cul-de-sac area is much better than seven. As far as the San Vincente secondary gate entrance, the Association's engineer feels it is properly designed. Regarding the Fernando to Fernando area, they have done the best they can with what they have and they don't have anymore to give, unless property is acquired in the future from across the road. The emergency gate proposed, flush with the street, is the Association's preference, but if the CmVdssion so feels that there is a great problem in this, so be it. The Association has just shown it as an alternative as their willingness to go along with the City's wishes. This will result, however, in a couple of homeowners being eliminated from the project and will also increase the "per owner" cost. Mr. Ward advised that the bottom line is that the proposed project benefits far outweigh any shortcomings. He urged the Planning Commission's support of the project and turned the meeting over to the engineer. John Lower, Berryman & Stephenson, 69-730 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA: Mr. Lower stated that the primary issue his firm was asked to address was the conceptual feasibility of a frontage road within existing rights -of -way. The primary issue related to this was public safety both from the prospective of accident history and accident potential. Mr. Lower referred to a wall rendering displaying the locations of accidents which occurred over a 2 3/4 mile segment of Eisenhower and given the existing average daily traffic, the accident rate, which is calculated as the accidents which occur per million vehicle miles of travel, was in excess of urban standards of further concern, the accident severity was about 10% higher than urban standards. One of every two accidents which occurred along this area resulted in an injury. If this condition remains unchecked, the existing average of approximately five accidents per year may be anticipated to increase to over 20 accidents per year, given buildout of the Laid Use Element of the General Plan and the increase of Eisenhower traffic of approximately three to four times the existing. If mitigated, there would be a reduction to approximately 12 accidents per year. Perhaps the reasons for thg'higher than expected accident rate on this stretch of Eisenhower are the closely spaced intersections of both driveways and collector streets. Technical standards have been developed and for an arterial with 45-mile-per-hour posted speed limit, as is Eisenhower, minimum reconmended spacing is 230 feet, which is not currently met by his scale from the San Vincente cul-de-sac to three cul-de-sacs over (San Dimas). DU NUTFS - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 8. The purpose of the frontage road and the perimeter wall was to consolidate these closely spaced local streets and driveways to reduce the degree of accident potential or exposure of vehicular conflicts. The frontage road is essentially a "bare -bones" as recommended. That is what happens when you get into the process of retrofitting (trying to make things fit with existing development). There are national guidelines and the book is from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials entitled "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", adopted in 1984. This reference was consulted prior to preparing the proposed plan and the frontage road width of 20 feet is the minimum AASHTO recommendation together with four feet of curb and grading, totalling 24 feet that is achieved with the frontage road. Another concern is the turn radius. Again, the AASHTO policy states that a 15 foot turning radius is the minimum acceptable for an automobile and given the retrofit nature of this, that minimum standard is what was employed at the proposed minor access at San Vincente (east). Upon review of the Staff Report, Mr. Lower stated he has three issues of concern. Addressing these from least important to most important, the first is the cul-de-sac area not being included within the wall. He stated he is not an expert in the field of noise engineering, but as you know, less noise is going to be attenuated when there are more holes in the wall and also less noise is going to be attenuated by a fence as opposed to a block wall. This certainly is an issue of concern given the traffic noise which is anticipated to increase with the three to four times increase of existing average daily traffic volumes along this segment given buildout of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The second major concern is the increased accident potential. It is true that the parcels in the cul-de-sac area can be made to access on the side streets, but that does not correct the existing less than recommended spacing of 230 feet from San Vincente (east) to San Dimas. The final concern is construction of a fence along the parcels and in between the cul-de-sac collector streets. Mr. Lower stated he has not conducted a sight distance analysis, but would venture to say that minimum sight distance standards for stop controlled collector streets would not be met. Typically, it involves 200-foot unrestricted sight distance from the point of the driver in his car at a stop sign and that is in both directions. This concluded Mr. Lacer's presentation for the Applicant. Fred Rice, 48-780 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta: Stated his house is located right at Avenida Fernando (north) and Eisenhower Drive. Mr. Rice stated he would like to address the political ramifications of the report as he heard it at this meeting. He feels that it is really important to include the entire Golf Estates in the project area. He also addressed the speeding along the project area. Jack Thompson, 48-761 San Vincente, La Quinta: Addressed the aesthetics, stating that he felt they would balance out very nicely if the corridor would be expanded on the other side of the street. So by excluding the cul-de-sacs, which is only approximately 400 yards of street, which isn't a whole lot, there is enough variation on this corridor anyway that it will not make a great deal of difference in the aesthetics of the project by isolating these 300-400 yards. He reiterated, as a resident of the Golf Estates, that the noise is terrific and if there will be 2300 cars as opposed to the 5300 cars there today and as brought up by the engineer earlier, a 50-foot hole in the wall every 200 feet will be disastrous for any kind of noise abatement. In conclusion, he stated the project should be approved as submitted and that he is very much in favor of it. Paul Selser, Attorney with the firm of Best, Best and Krieger - representing the Club La Quinta: He stated that while their association has no objection to the project in general, they are concerned about the proposed gate at Avenida Fernando (south). He noted that he has not had the opportunity to review the letter or memorandum prepared by the City Attorney. However, he imagined that it said that the City Council did not have the power to block that public street. That is the homeowner's position; opposing the closure of Avenida Fernando (south), and they hope that the Commission respects their rights in that public street. Obviously, Club La Quinta is currently MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 9. gated and walled and the benefits of this project to its residents are negligible. The results of gating Avenida Fernando (south) would be of sane inconvenience to those residents. Therefore, it is respectfully urged that any reconmendation to the City Council by the Planning Commission would be to delete the closure of Avenida Fernando (south) with its intersection of Eisenhower. Tan Jones, 49-300 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta: Stated that some time ago, when Club La Quinta became a development, he believed they had access through a private street. He noted he was on the Association's Planning Ccnnittee at the time and things were being run through the County as La Quinta was not yet a City. He stated he felt the City was doing a great job (by the way). He went on to ask how Club La Quinta got access to their (Golf Estates) road? He advised that as far as he knows, Club La Quinta did not have permission to put their gate where they did to begin with. Chairman Thornburgh answered Mr. Jones' question by stating that it was his understanding that at the time Club La Quinta developed the property, Fernando was part of Club La Quinta's Association. At that time, the County let them subdivide - it was accepted then and no one protested to his know- ledge. They have used the street to this point in time and have acknowledged that it is part of the homeowners and he believed the homeowners have acknow- ledged it. Chairman Thornburgh stated he believes the City Attorney's opinion is, seeing that the road has been used and there have been no corrplaints, to be better safe than sorry and he feels the homeowners who have purchased their hones there have a coTnitted right to that property. Chain Thornburgh stated that according to the City Attorney's report, it was his suggestion to say that Fernando should probably be open because of the access they have had for a certain amount of years, which could probably be enough or not be enough. He felt that the City Attorney felt the Club La Quinta homeowners did have a right to that road access and the people who bought the hares assumed that right and the hommowners, or the County or the City, did not protect that right. He stated the Commission was not being a judge here, but that is basically the two sides of the story. Mr. Jones then asked Chairman Thornburgh that if that is the City Attorney's opinion, would not the Club La Quinta be a part of the Golf Estates Association? Chairman Thornburgh answered by stating they could be - not knowing if that was an absolute answer. He advised Mr. Jones that an attorney could probably answer that question for him. Mr. Jones stated that the point Chairman Thornburgh just expressed would make Club La Quinta part of the Golf Estates. Chairman Thornburgh replied that the point he just expressed was the opinion of how our City Attorney sees it, that the honkers of Club La Quinta have a right to access Avenida Fernando. He stated he felt it would be their decision and his (Mr. Jones') decision if they wanted to be a part of the Golf Estates Association. He felt they could not be forced to be a part of the Golf Estates Association. Chairman Thornburgh did not think that Club La Quinta was picked up in the Golf Estates regulations and CC&R's originally. Mr. Jones again questioned - "just the right to use the street?" Chairman Thornburgh replied he felt by not being protested, they have assumed the right to use the street. He referred the question to Director Stevens. Director Stevens stated he felt that Chairman Thornburgh's reply was a fair assessment. He advised further that it is important to point out that the City Attorney did not do an exhaustive analysis of the legal rights of either association relative to the rights of that access. He felt what the City Attorney has done is a brief overview of the available and accessible facts and reached the general conclusion that the access should not now be interferred with. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 10. Director Stevens went on to state that if there are parties who wish to demonstrate whether that access was legally obtained or constructed or established or is now legally available, they will probably have to use their private resources to resolve any dispute of accessibility to a private street. He reiterated that it is clear that the City has not done an exhaustive and substantial review, that what the City has done represents our best judgment based on a limited overview of the available facts. Bill Hoyle, 48-530 San Pedro, La Quinta: He addressed the matter of dust. He realized that a 6-foot wall does not stop a lot of dust and stated that when the Laguna De La Paz project was being constructed last spring, he had three inches of dirt in his swimming pool. He informed the Commission that some of his neighbors had to completely drain their pools, resurface and refill them because of the dirt created at that time. He advised that there was a monumental amount of restraint produced because of what was seen in the future. Gary Running, 78-237 San Timoteo, la Quinta: Stated there is a clear cut will of the people in this area to build a wall around their canTunity. He noted that 80% voted for it. Mr. Running stated he felt the will of the people should prevail in this particular case. He said that it is the responsibility of this Committee to grant their wishes - nothing else but what they (Golf Estates Association) want to have happen. He further added that it is the best for the community, the City and their Association. There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. For the record, Community Development Director Stevens advised the Planning Commission that the Applicant's engineer (John Lower) does work for BSI. Subsequent to their (BSI's) employment by the homeowners association to work on this project, that firm (although a different individual representing that firm) has been selected as the City's engineer. We need to make clear the divorcement of these two positions. The Applicant's engineer's position, as an employee of BSI, is not the same as Staff's engineer's position, who is also an employee of BSI. The City would like to note (for the record) that the comments contained in the Staff Report relative to engineering related standards are not those of the Planning Staff, but are those of the City Engineer, who is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, as is Mr. Lower, the Applicant's engineer. There are differences in judgment as to where and when minimum standards are acceptable and that represents the differences when you see those numbers. Essentially, you have two qualified experts who have disagreements as to what are the appropriate minimum standards to apply in particular circumstances. It has been a little bit of a sensitive situation for all of us, but Director Stevens felt this should be made clear to everyone. Commissioner Walling asked Director Stevens if our City Engineer is also a traffic engineer as well as a civil engineer? Director Stevens: The City Engineer's expertise is not traffic, but he did consult with members of the firm (BSI) who are traffic engineers in his discussions with Staff relative to standards, so we did have the avail- ability of traffic -related expertise from the firm even though that expertise is not directly the individual who performs the City Engineering function. At this point, chairman Thornburgh addressed the Commissioners stating that with their permission he would like to do something he has never done before. He noted, originally, when this Commission started after incorporation in 1982, he served as the first chairman and Paul GDetcheus served on the Commission. Chairman Thornburgh said that two days prior to Paul's death, he received a letter from him and he would like to read it here. The letter is addressed to the Chairman of the Planning Commission regarding the Golf Club Estates Homeowners' Association and reads as follows: 0 MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 11. "The information on the plan of the Golf Club Estates Homeowner's Association should be of benefit to the City of La Quinta. Some of the desirable features would be: 1. Security for the entire square mile that is sorely needed. 2. Lend attractiveness to Eisenhower Drive. 3. Benefit the traffic flow on Eisenhower. 4. The initial cost and maintenance would be nil to the City. I have considerable knowledge of their needs for the past 10 years and appreciate it if the City of La Quinta world make a favorable decision as to the passage of their plan." Chairman Thornburgh stated that he did not bring the letter up to be dramatic, but felt it important as he (Paul) served on the Commission for four terms and he was present at the hearing on this matter in February and in favor of the project. Chairman Thornburg advised the Commission that some of the points to be brought up as he sees them (and advised the Commissioners to bring out any points if he should miss them) are as follows: First, in the Plot Plan request under Staff's co mtents regarding the frontage road. The Applicants are requesting a 24' frontage and Staff has recommended a 32' frontage road to allow for parking along that street. There was some discussion among the Commissioners at this point regarding what the appropriate item for beginning their discussion should be. Commissioner Moran: Asked what kind of traffic is being proposed for the frontage road. Director Stevens: Replied that essentially the traffic on the frontage road would be the residents along it and you could approximate 10-12 trips per day from those residents. Chairman Thornburg: Asked for the number of lots along the proposed frontage road. Director Stevens: Advised that there are 10-12 lots north of Coachella and the same south of Coachella. Commissioner Moran: Advised that there are 16 lots from Fernando to Fernando. At this point, the discussion returned to Chairman Thornburgh's first point mentioned previously regarding the proposed frontage road width. Commissioner Brandt: With the 24' frontage road requested by the Applicants, the residents along,that frontage road would have no on -street parking avail- able at all. with the 32' frontage road recommended by Staff, there would be an additional 8' that would need to be acquired. Chairman Thornburgh noted that if he lived there, one of the trade-offs he would be comfortable with is a wall. Commissioners Walling and Moran both stated they felt comfortable with the 24' frontage road requested by the Applicant. Commissioner Walling stated he felt the turning radius would also work at the cul-de-sacs on the ends of the frontage road. Chairman Thornburgh said he felt this road should be treated like a driveway. As an example, Fred Rice and Jim Wiltse were both present at the February hearing and very upset that they were going to be cut off of the proposed project. It is interesting to note that, as Mr. Rice has spoken this evening and Mr. Wiltse is not present, that the driveway approach can be lived with for eight houses or so. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 12. Commissioner Walling: Advised that the Commission is supposed to determine if this is for the public benefit and, in this case, the public is the residents who live off the street and if they are comfortable with it, it seems it is to their benefit. Comaissioners Moran, De Gasperin and Brandt all agreed. Commissioner Brandt questioned the presently requested footage for the cul-de-sac area. Principal Planner Bonner replied that it is an offset 40; the fire department required a mini= radius for engines to get in so they have offset it so that if a fire engine goes to the center median when turning around, it has an adequate turn radius to enter. This does not comply with a true cul-de-sac with a radius of 28 feet. A vehicle, on this radius, according to the City Engineer, could still not make a conplete U-turn. Conissioner Brandt: Did the Fire Marshal say this could be done? Ms. Bonner replied that the Fire Marshal said it was the absolute minimum, assuming that the fire engine can go to the center of the street as part of the turn. Director Stevens advised that it is not only the number of houses here, but you must remember that there is approximately an 800-foot-long cul-de-sac and the fire department generally has a higher standard when cul-de-sacs exceed 550 feet because they do not want to have to back up their equipment any farther than a 550-foot distance. Staff believes the 28 feet is adequate based on the convents from the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer. This would require the purchase of more property to make a 28-foot radius, but it would generally be in the same location, just larger than currently proposed. Chairman Thornburgh felt we should point out that that would be in someone's front yard as there are existing homes at the end of the cul-de-sac on the north. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Applicant's requests regarding the frontage road and its cul-de-sacs were appropriate as submitted. Chairman Thornburgh went on to the next point of discussion which was the construction of the wall along Eisenhower. He questioned Staff as to whether there was a wall or fence proposed at the Avenida Fernando (north) entry. Director Stevens advised that the Applicant is requesting a pedestrian entry only at that point and Staff is reconnending that a vehicle entry be there. Chairman Thornburgh: Said he felt it hard to place a gate there when they just placed one at Coachella. He felt the main reason for this is to keep accesses from coming on to Eisenhower and felt if the City wanted to hold the right-of-way, he felt these people would give us a right-of-way if, in any point in time, it was truly needed to place a stop sign or signal at a later date. However, he felt Coachella, with an existing gate, would be a better place for a stop sign or signal. He noted that possibly the answer to solve both Staff's and the Applicant's positions is to let the Applicant build the wall across the north end and obtain a bond so that any time the City desired, they could knock the wall down and use it as an entrance. Commissioner Walling agreed that the more wall, the less noise attenuation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the Applicant be permitted to continue with their wall plan as submitted, but that sane source, be it a bond, etc., be provided to protect that intersection for the City's future use. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 13. Chairman Thornburgh moved on to the next issue on his list which was the Club La Quinta. There was discussion regarding the two houses on Fernando that were part of Club La Quinta, but outside of that project's gates. Commissioner Walling: Asked Staff of the possible redesign of that area where the two hares are located to allow for ingress/egress into the Club La Quinta by a parallel street. Director Stevens: Replied that he did not feel we could speculate as to how leaving that area out might cause a redesign. He stated it is merely a matter of our making it a condition and then it would be their responsi- bility to cane up with an acceptable design. Further, he noted, based on the City Attorney's comments, that it would be highly inappropriate to reduce the Club La Quinta's access. The conditions do say if that Association or those two members have the ability to act independently, if they choose to accept the modified access and so confirm to us, they have the ability to do that within this approval; not having to cane back to you for approval. If they choose not to, the City Attorney's and Staff's recomrendation is that they not be included within the gating and access system of the Golf Estates. Therefore, if that design results in the exclusion of one or two lots that are within the Golf Estates at the tip of Fernando (south), unfortunately, thats the way it is. Chairman Thornburgh stated he believed that the residents of the two homes on Fernando would want to be behind someone's gates. Therefore, why don't we go ahead and approve it on the basis that the Applicant will have to get the permission of those two honeowners and getting it, the Applicant could go to a legal point past the existing gate or if they did not get permission, to extend the gate. He noted it could also be done in a driveway type situation. The Ca[n1ission agreed to this determination by Chairman Thornburgh. Commissioner Brandt: Requested some discussion of the proposed alternate design of the entry to the frontage road from Fernando (south) being redesigned to prevent serious traffic safety conflicts as advised in the Staff Report. Chairman Thornburgh: Replied that he believed that would be that the gates be redesigned to the satisfaction of Staff, the Fire Marshal and others concerned. He believed that the entire corner had to be redesigned and the only possible concern we have here is that those two hones are included or not. If they say they want to be behind the gates, that would determine where they would go, but as far as the turning radius, he believed that should meet City standards. We will have a transition right at that point where the street will be narrowing down from what is existing. Chairman Thornburgh moved on to his next points of discussion which were the parkway, the wall and the noise study. Chairman Thornburgh noted at the present time, we have the wall, per our recommendation, as to where its been recommended by the Applicant. He asked Director Stevens if we take and widen that parkway, knowing full well that between Fernando and Fernando that we would be encroaching to solve that problem on the other side, are we in the position where we can make that recommendation and try to pick it up later or are we in a position where we will have to purchase or agree to purchase? Director Stevens: Replied that if you want to widen the parkway so it is larger than seven feet on the Applicant's side of Eisenhower Drive and you want to change that to normal parkway width of 12 feet, for example, the five feet will have to cane from someplace. It cannot cane from the remaining available travel lanes, it cannot come from the painted, striped median, so - in essence - if you do that, the right-of-way would have to come from the opposite side of the street. There are obviously any number of ways to obtain that right-of-way, and I assume you are not telling us how to obtain it, but that you want that right-of-way to be obtained. M]NUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 14. Chairman Thornburgh: Maybe we should look to see what our turning radius is on those intersections. Maybe that's more important to us right now than how much planning we have. Commissioner Walling: It seems that on the major intersections you will need the right-of-way to get the turning lanes and if we are going to do that, we might as well get a straight line across there and pick up some landscape median, which is frankly more important to me than a parkway. Chairman Thornburgh: So what we are saying is on the Applicant's side we would have a narrow parkway from the wall (71) and we would not have the eight -foot stall lane, but on the west side we would have the opportunity then to have a proper, wide parkway, a driveway and a stall lane if we felt it was important at the time we approved the subdivision. Commissioner Walling: The turn lanes would be the important things on the other side. I don't know about a stall lane. I would substitute the stall lane for a landscaped median. It would maintain the image corridor and keep us consistent with the General Plan. Chairman Thornburgh: So, you are suggesting we leave the seven -foot alone and the street alone and go for a recommendation of a 10' parkway? Commissioner Walling: Right, a 12' parkway and a 10' landscaped median. Director Stevens: Advised that a landscaped median would have to be a minimum of 12'. That is to accoammodate curb width, adequate planting and also when you get to the point where you need a left -turn pocket, there is enough roan to provide for same. In responding to Chairman Thornburgh's question on the opposite side, with the 71' of right-of-way we would have left, if the proposal is approved as requested, we would have on the opposite side of the street a 12'-wide parkway, but we would not have a stall lane on either side of the street. So, if you say you want those things, then everything we want beyond four travel lanes, a four -foot -wide striped median, a 12' parkway on the opposite side and a seven -foot parkway on the Applicant's side, anything else must be added on to the 71' and acquired on the opposite side of the street from the Applicant's property. Chairman Thornburgh: One thing I thought about is coming fran the bridge going north on Eisenhower, there is no center divider. If we can a raised center divider through this area, and I would presume when we get to the cul-de-sac streets there will be no center divider, so from Washington to the bridge, other than this opportunity along the two Fernandos, we will not have the opportunity for a center divider. Director Stevens: That is not correct. We do have sufficient right-of-way planned with the width across the front of the hotel and Santa Rosa Cove to accommodate a landscaped median. Technically, where the country club itself is, I am not sure all that right-of-way has actually been dedicated to us, but there is an ultimate 100' road width from parkway to parkway which is sufficient to accamndate the 12' wide, landscaped median. We only then have to cane up with a mechanism to pay for and construct. Chairman Thornburgh: One thing to consider then is that if this property is subdivided on the west side at a later date, that would be the time to consider if we want a center median or not. At the present time, if these people go ahead and spend their $600,000 to improve their street and wall, even if they agree to a median, it will not be put in at this point in time anyway, but when the westerly side goes in. Director Stevens: It may be possible to put it in and I think that canes with trying to implement and figure out final costs, etc. It may be possible to put it in like we have at PGA. It depends on what the width of the cross section design is and there may be some feeling when we get down to determining costs that maybe that is part of the reason for doing the frontage road if, in fact, it is approved. Part of the canpensation is putting in the road median at the time you do that work. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 15. Chairman Thornburgh: Or setting aside an amount of money for doing it at a later date when the other side comes in. Director Stevens: Yes - or entering into some sort of an agreement like the City did with Mery Johnson. Ccmmissioner Brandt: If we were to decide to have a 12' median, won't we only need to acquire eight more feet? Director Stevens: We would need 10' of right-of-way because of the raised median; we must made the lane adjacent one -foot wider. Chairman Thornburgh: Maybe a suggestion would be then, as long as they are going to raise the money, would be to go ahead and provide for the money for this median, but decide for it at a later date - but the money would be there when the west side develops and not designate that they would pay for their half of the median and when the west side develops they would cane in and put it in - that's what we have done with other subdividers. This group of 185 people, who we may never get together again to ask a question for more money - we may ask then then within their proposal to set up some sort of bond agreement. Isn't that what was done on Washington? Director Stevens: No, it wasn't as substantial as a bond, it is basically an agreement to participate in an assessment district or other joint funding :mechanism. There is/money to back it up, other than there are a lot more units to build there. Chairman Thornburgh: Maybe we should go ahead and designate that we want the money set aside in the form of a bond or whatever vehicle Staff wants to use, but not designate the size of it at this time. Commissioner Moran: I thought it (the median) had to be a 12' minimum width? Chairman Thornburgh: We can decide when the westerly side canes in - we're proposing an ultimate 12' median, but as the westerly side canes in, we can decide what the width will be. But, they can go ahead and pay for their half of it or provide for the money at that time if we went ahead and did it. Commissioner Walling: In order to get the turn lanes though, we definitely would need the 12' median. It seems to me we should decide that in order to make it work. Director Stevens: So, in addition to the Applicant's proposal, you do want a minimum 12' area for landscaped median and turning opportunities? The Ccmnission's reply was a unanimous yes. Director Stevens: The other differences with respect to the proposal relate to the parking lanes and I didn't hear anyone say they wanted extra area for abandoned vehicles or parking lanes, so I assume you are deleting that fran the overall right-of-way? Chairman Thornburgh: I would assume, since this is an existing tract, that the Commission agrees we do not need then at this time, that we would sacri- fice those. Director Stevens: What about the parkway width on the Applicant's side - is 7' sufficient or is a larger width necessary? Chairman Thornburgh: I think it should be closer to 12' to make that graduate dawn safely. He asked Commissioner Walling if his suggestion had been 10'? Commissioner Walling: Replied no - his suggestion was to leave it as it is. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 16. Conmissicner Moran: Stated she felt ccmfortable with it as is also. It was a unanimous vote of the Commission for a 7' parkway. Chairman Thornburgh: with regard to financing, which we've covered, it is my understanding that if they (Applicant) applied for that (Assessment District) it was strictly as a vehicle, that the City could not incur any expense or responsibility and it is my understanding that if they (the Applicant) cannot go through on an Assessment District, they are willing to fund the project themselves. Director Stevens: I think it is important not to get bogged down in the cost aspects of it because that's probably going to require some additional consideration and reassessment once we know what the improvements are going to be and we'll just have to bring the costs back if it warrants caning back through the approval process. Chairman Thornburgh asked if there were any further points to be covered. Director Stevens: Advised that there was another point, that being the noise study requirement, and I assume that as you did not say anything that the noise analysis is necessary to determine the appropriate height and design of the wall. Chairman Thornburgh: Do we get those (noise study) in an EIR? Director Stevens: Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. In all of our specific plan approvals, we require special noise studies. I think the only time we've required a detailed noise study in advance of project approval was the Avenue 52 realignment and we felt that was a very major issue there. Here we're talking about maybe making some adjustment in the design of the wall itself to enhance its noise protection characteristics. Sometimes that means instead of building it as a garden wall you might fully grout all the openings and increase it or you might have to add a couple of courses in terms of height or that type of thing. If we anticipated that it would substantially alter the wall design, we would have asked for it in advance. I think here we're just talking about using it as a guide to prepare the final wall design. we think it is important and generally site specific noise studies for perimeter walls is something we are encouraging in the new Noise Element of our General Plan. We think that position should be supported in conjunction with this project. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that a noise study be provided by the Applicant. Chairman Thornburgh: Moved the discussion to the cul-de-sac area. He asked the Applicant's engineer what the cul-de-sac turn radius is in that area. John Lower (Engineer, BSI): That minor entry is designed for an inside turning radius of 15' and, again referring to the AASHTO standards, 15' radii are adequate for passenger vehicles. These radii may be provided at cross streets where there is little occasion for trucks to turn, which certainly would be the case here. Chairman Thornburgh: What about the center lane turning - if you were going west and wanted to turn into San Vincente, is there enough area in there for turning according to your striping plan or would they have to stop in the center lane to turn? John Lower: According to the civil engineer who laid out the plans, by hugging that inside curb, a car can make that turn within the travel lane. Chairman 'Thornburgh: That would be going east, we are referring to going westerly. John Lower: Stated he did not have an answer, but would get one tomorrow. MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 17. Morgan Ward (Applicant Repr.): Advised the Commission that there is a turn lane designated on the plans for those traveling west and wishing to turn on San Vincente. Director Stevens: I think the confusion was that you (Ch. Thornburgh) were asking about radius and I think that's what John was responding to. There is a left -turn pocket shown as an entrance onto San Vicente and I'm assuming that when they drew that they knew all the right-of-way widths across there and there is roan for turn lane. There is no roan for deceleration lanes along here however. The question then is the radius of that access restrictive to any types of vehicles because we've gone with a pretty limited radius cul-de-sac there, and I suspect large vehicles such as trash trucks, moving vans, etc., will not be able to negotiate that turn, but will be forced to use the main entrance. This entry will only be adequate for passenger vehicles and vehicles of similar size. Chairman Thornburgh: If the wall ran all the way across the cul-de-sac area, there would only be one entry at San Vicente. Is that correct?. Director Stevens: If the wall ran all the way across as proposed by the Applicant, the only entrance between any of the cul-de-sacs on Eisenhower would be at that point. Cormissioner Brandt: with the amount of traffic on Eisenhower would there be a traffic safety hazard in turning right onto San Vincente with no deceleration lane provided? John Lower: The 24,000 daily trips noted in the report for this area is very close to (just 4,000 in excess) being served adequately by a four -lane, undivided facility. ConTnissioner Moran: Stated she is not thrilled with not having a deceleration lane, but thought that these people have been working towards this for a long, long time. She asked how wide Eisenhower Drive is at the San Vincente entrance? Director Stevens: Replied that it is currently a 100' right-of-way and the Applicant's proposal would reduce it to 711. Commissioner Moran: So, in order for us to have what we have now, we would have to encroach onto Laguna De La Paz? Director Stevens: If we wanted to have more than 4 travel lanes; if you wanted to have any median other than a 4' striped median; if you want parkways in excess of 7'; and if you want abandoned vehicle lanes - you would have to take that right-of-way from the existing improved right-of-way of Laguna De La Paz. Commissioner Moran: So, where Laguna De La Paz starts, thats where we would have to give up our 12' landscaped median? Director Stevens: That's correct. Commissioner Brandt: Yesterday, at the Study Session, we talked about two needed intersections within this stretch of Eisenhower - was one of those at San Ysidro or Santa Ursula? Principal Planner Bonner: Replied that it is San Ysidro. Director Stevens: Thats the secondary entrance into Laguna De La Paz. Commissioner Brandt: Is that directly across from the tennis courts? Director Stevens: That's correct. Commissioner Brandt: So, at this point, you are saying we would need to acco urdate for a left -turn pocket here? MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 18. Director Stevens: I think we are saying you need to accommodate it, but the only way to acccnTnodate it is not to abandon the right-of-way. If you abandon the right-of-way, then you are not going to have a left -turn oppor- tunity off of Eisenhower eastbound into the secondary entrance for Laguna De La Paz because there isn't any right-of-way left to accommodate that turn lane unless we modify the improvements on Mery Johnson's side of the street. Commissioner Walling: If we obtain the right-of-way eventually there will be either a landscaped or striped median - is that correct? Director Stevens: If you retain the right-of-way, there will be a landscaped median there ultimately. Commissioner Walling: V�bat that means is anyone leaving the cul-de-sac area, assuming there is no wall, is forced to go east? Director Stevens: That's correct and there would probably be a left -turn pocket at San Ysidro, the secondary entrance into Laguna De La Paz, in the event we didn't abandon the right-of-way - so that would create a U-turn opportunity for approximately half of the cul-de-sac area. Commissioner Walling: On the other hand, everyone coming into that area heading west on Eisenhower would again have to go to an intersection and cone back around going east again on Eisenhower to get into the cul-de-sac area. So what we're talking about is having U-turn capabilities on a curve with high traffic volume which seems to me will create a tremendous traffic hazard; to say nothing of cars coming out of the cul-de-sac area turning right on a curve as well with a high traffic volume. In light of that, it seems to me that it would be better to core out of just one area where you have the capability of going both east and west, which you would have at San Vincente. Another thing is the recommendation that if the cul-de-sacs were left open, the wall would provide some sound barrier, which it would, but would provide much more if the wall was extended all the way across. In my mind, the image corridor would be improved considerably if the wall were continuous in the cul-de-sac area. Chairman Thornburgh: Stated he thought if you were coming down Washington, turning onto Eisenhower, its not like you're coning onto a 4-lane and narrowing into an area that has a different situation with a short wall and so on. You would be turning onto Eisenhower, accelerating up in an area that we've designated all the way around with no center median at that point, if we approve the plan as submitted. He thought that in designing this, if you turned off Washington onto Eisenhower and the street was consistent as recommended by the Applicant, he felt we've created a problem that is safer without a center divider, we've eliminated 7 or 8 driveways, so he felt that overall, we have accomplished something for the people that drive by and the people that live there. He stated that he would be very happy to vote in favor of the project as submitted. Commissioner Walling: We're really talking about the lesser of several evils and I feel the way it has been submitted is the least negatively impactive of the two methods. Commissioner Brandt: So, in essence, in terms of long-term improvements, we would not have a median on Eisenhower at the intersection of Washington and Eisenhower? Chairman Thornburgh: Stated he thinks what we're saying here is when you turn onto Eisenhower from Washington, you will have no center divider until you get to Fernando (north), if the project is approved as submitted. Then you will have the opportunity to have one all the way to the bridge. Commissioner Brandt: Could we limit the frontage road along the cul-de-sacs to one-way travel? Director Stevens: We have not had any detailed discussion on making the frontage road one way. Thule it is possible, it would probably have some constraints and require some additional gates or entry/exit points. • MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 19. Commissioner Brandt: Stated she sees it as a way of obtaining the additional 12 feet which would accammodate the median along Eisenhower and then you would have a varying right-of-way, but at least you would have the consistent tying element of the median going along Eisenhower even though you had the varying right-of-way and that would also accommodate the secondary access into the tennis court area at Laguna De La Paz. Commissioner De Gasperin: I agree with what Kim is reading between the lines here and we're giving up that image corridor and realistically we may be giving it up even beyond San Lucas or San Ysidro. I know we don't want to, but the reality is that the image is at Washington and Eisenhower. However, I tend to agree with the other members that it is more important to protect the cul-de-sacs and its worse, in the long-range planning, to have seven accesses to Eisenhower considering the traffic buildup and the hope that it will keep moving. If we give up the median and go with the proposal, is there a deceleration, right-hand turn onto San Vincente? Director Stevens: Replied that there was none. Commissioner De Gasperin: That continues to disturb me, how that traffic is going to slow dawn to gain access to San Vincente without increasing traffic accidents, etc. Chairman Thornburgh: At the present time, we do just that on Coachella and Eisenhower. Stated he felt that overall, as you evaluate this, we're never going to get 100% here. He stated he felt that what the Applicant has submitted is something that will ultimately improve the area. Commissioner Moran: Is there any stacking space? Director Stevens: At Coachella there is adequate stacking space and at San Vincente there is also stacking space for three or four vehicles. There was a consensus of the Commission to recommend to the City Council that there be a wall across the cul-de-sac area as requested by the Applicant. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution using the findings in the Staff Report, as amended, based upon the Planning Commission's consensus determining that Street Vacation No. 85-008 is consistent with the General Plan. Unanimously Adopted. Commmissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to indicate to the City Council, Planning Commission support of the conditions to be recommended for Street Vacation No. 85-008, with the understanding the conditions would be amended relative to Planning Commission consensus. Unanimously Adopted. Commissioner Moran made a motion, seconded by CcnTnissioner Walling, directing the preparation of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact in adopting such a determination and directing Staff to amend the findings relative to Plot Plan No. 85-186 and to amend the conditions of the Plot Plan consistent with the direction given by the Planning Commission. Unanimously Adopted. Director Stevens: For the record, notices were mailed today and the property was posted yesterday. The City Council hearing scheduled on this matter is to be held on November 5, 1985, at 7:30 p.m. The Commission should be aware that Staff will present their recomendation, but will also present our recommendation to the Council pointing out the differences. MINUTES - PLANNING CCMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 20. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows: C. Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 ("Duna La Quinta"), a request to divide 6.74 acres on the west side of Washington Street, 800' south of Avenue 50 into 20 lots for the development of custom single-family housing; Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Associate Planner Gary Price addressed this matter stating that Tentative Tract 21123 proposed by Landmark land Company is located on the west side of Washington Street, approximately 800' south of Avenue 50. The project proposes 20 estate -type lots within 6.74 acres. The lot development is proposed for single-family custom housinq and the proposed density is 2.97 units per acre, which is substantially less than that approved on the site originally in the Specific Plan concept which was for five units per acre, for an ultimate buildout of 33 units within the 6.74 acres. With regard to circulation, the project will be accessed through Avenida Ins Verdes, through the stormwater channel which is being used as a golf course, and two main branches with cul-de-sacs. The lots will range in size from 11,400 to 21,950 square feet. The Applicant has indicated that the lots will sell for approximately $100,000 each depending on size and location. The project is basically consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. One concern of Staff, as indicated in the Staff Report, is that the lots are elevated 50 feet higher than the average elevation. Mr. Price advised that that is incorrect - it is actually 11 feet higher in elevation. Staff's concern is that development occurring on these lots will be seen within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan as well as surrounding areas. Therefore, a condition of approval is that building height be limited to 29 feet. With regard to emergency access during flooding, there is emergency access via Calle Tampico. That emergency access should be improved to an all-weather access. This concluded Mr. Price's report and he then turned the meeting over to Director Stevens. Director Stevens stated he would like to make one minor correction in the Staff Report - located on Page 2, Item 5(b). This refers to Amendment No. 1 and should be deleted. Amendment No. 1 actually modified the alignment of Avenue 52. We originally attempted to take Phase 9 out per this, but that ended up being modified at the Council level. With regard to the recommenda- tion, Staff is recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map generally as requested. Most of the conditions identified in the Staff Report are standard and were reviewed at the Study Session. Discussion regarding Conditions Nos. 19 and 20 - in those conditions, it is Staff's intention to encourage increased setback and lot coverage standards - standards to be more consistent with estate lots rather than our typical minimum underlying zoning standards. After discussion from the Study Session, Staff suggests that the Candssion delete Conditions Nos. 19 and 20 and substitute instead a condition which states generally as follows: "Applicant shall establish within their CC&R's site design standards appropriate to estate lots including but not limited to front, side and rear yard setbacks, lot coverate, etc. Standards should maximize building separation and enhance the overall streetscape and minimize the appearance of bulk. Any such standards shall be reviewed by the Conmunity Development Department as part of the review of the CC&R's, but shall in no event be less than those standards set forth in the R-2 Zone." Director Stevens addressed discussion held at the Study Session regarding building height. The standard that we've indicated here in Condition No. 22 is, in fact, the standard that was generally applied as a building height limitation to the Duna La Quinta project. These units are, however, a little different than what we have referred to as the Duna La Quinta Dike Units or also which includes those built by Landmark in their portion of the tract and by Jack Clark in his portion of the tract, in that those generally have the street and front portion of the lot at one grade and then the grade adjusts upward to a levee with a difference of some 8-10 feet. The standard was really written for that circumstance. In the case of these lots, the street and lot are at the same grade as the levee so you don't have the height variation. Staff therefore recommends that Condition No. 22 be modified so that it reads as follows: MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 21. "No portion of any structure within the tract shall exceed one story or 29 feet as measured from the levee grade provided that two-story structures not exceeding 29' in height may be approved by the City if adequate provision is made in the architectural design and site design to minimize the appearance of bulk and the streetscape and the other standards we indicated relative to the setbacks." Director Stevens stated he thinks we can live with the two-story units as long as we can encourage some variety and alteration of setbacks so that we are not looking at a constant row. Staff also recommends that Condition No. 27 state: "Provision shall be made to comply with provisions and requirements of the infrastructure." Since these are custom lots and, the individual owner will likely pay the infrastructure fee at the time they secure building permits, this is just a minor language thing to make clear that it is not the subdivider's responsibility to pay that fee. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 subject to conditions with those revisions. This concluded Staff's presentation. There was a brief discussion regarding lot coverage, height of the dike where the Clark Development is sited with regard to this project, and the emergency access road. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. Forrest Haag, Landmark Land Company, P. 0. Box 1578, La Quinta, CA; spoke as representative of the Applicant. He stated in view of the reduction in the acreage density from five to a little less than three, and the quality of the type of development that they are trying to promote here, he feels they have worked with Staff to cane up with a reasonable set of conditions that get them a fairly flexible series of parameters that an architect or other group could desiqn around to allow them some architectural expression and flexibility in the lot program they are trying to promote here. He stated further that he believes they are in general consensus in the approach of letting Landmark Staff and City Staff work out between the CC&R's a series of regulations that dictate how the property can be built upon with the set- backs, etc. He felt they could arrive at a very reasonable approach and still allow some flexibility in the architectural expression and give the potential lot owner sane individuality without choking it down to a point where every house is the same, etc. Another thing that has been hanmered away at until solved is the concerns with health, safety and welfare that the City is concerned about and the proration of the environment of developing this safety access to the south, and working with the Fire Marshal and City standards. Mr. Haag called the Commission's attention to Condition No. 10(b) which he felt covered the requirement to provide an all-weather emergency access discussed earlier. This ended the Applicant's presentation. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21123 as recommended by Staff, subject to conditions of approval, as amended. Commissioner Walling seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted. Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next three items of hearing to be heard concurrently: D. General Plan Amendment No. 85-007, a request to amend the Land Use Element of the La Quinta General Plan from "High Density Residential" (10-20 Dwellings Per Acre) to "General Commercial" on approximately six acres. E. 'Change of Zone No. 85-017, a request for a zone change from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) on approximately six acres. MINUTFS - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 22. F. Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment No. 2, a request to amend a portion of land (approximately six acres) within the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan project area from apartTent/condominium land uses (13 dwellings per acre maximum) to General Comeroial; Landmark Land Company, Applicant Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Report. 1. Associate Planner Gary Price advised the Commission that the Applicant is requesting a change of zone from R-2-3350 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial), on an Amendment to the Specific Plan 83-001. These requests are being made for a proposed project at the north- east corner of Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive on approximately six acres with approximately 90,000 square feet of office/con ercial uses. Regarding the General Plan Amendment, the project will be changing the area which was planned for high density residential up to 13 dwelling units per acre to Commercial which will permit a wide variety of commercial uses. In 1984, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the same project which was subsequently supported by the City Council. The reasons for the denial was that: 1. The six acres of commercially designated land is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. That there is a current over -abundance of undeveloped commercially designated land in the immediate area of the proposed amendment. 3. That neither the buildout rate nor the City's population growth rate warrant an increase in the commercial area at this time. Based on recent growth trends and patterns, both within the downtown and the City at large however, these conditions are changing. The new City-wide General Plan contains a policy aggressively supporting improvements to the downtown, including infrastructure development and a means of enhancing potential commercial development of the downtown area. This project will be a signifi- cant first step in that area and would be providing infrastructure improvements to the downtown area. The project site is adjacent to commercially planned and zoned land to the west; therefore, the proposed project is a logical and contiguous extension of the downtown's development to the east. Regarding the Change of zone, which implements the General Plan Amendment, the same considerations are given; however, approving such a proposal would open the area to a wide variety of commercial uses as listed in the C-P-S Zone. Regarding the Specific Plan Amendment, which goes into more detail of the project, Mr. Price stated he would like to concentrate on one issue and that is the con- sistency between the Specific Plan Amendment and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The change would be basically taking six acres of high density residential and reducing it to commercial, and having to transfer that density throughout the remainder,of the Duna La Quinta project. Tb reduce that transfer and to minimize the impact of increased residential development within Duna La Quinta, density transfer would have to be accomplished. Mr. Price explained the formula for the density transfer as described in the Staff Report. This concluded his report, so he turned the meeting over to Director Stevens to present Staff's recommendations. Director Stevens advised that on the General Plan Amendment, Staff is recommending approval of the change to commercial. Staff is, however, recommending Village Commercial as opposed to General Commercial because that concept, subsequent to the submittal of the application, has been refined in the "to be adopted" General Plan to which we should be consistent. With regard to the Change of Zone, Staff is again recomnending approval. We are recommending the use of the C-P-S Zone with the zoning primarily because that is the most compatible zoning district we currently have available. It should be anticipated in future as we implement the General Plan that we will probably write a new zoning district text that will be Village Comercial, and them we will probably change the zoning on this property to conform to that. In the interim, we will use our General Plan consistency authority to make sure that 4 V t MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION October 22, 1985 Page 23. individual projects are consistent with the Village Conmercial concept. So even though current zoning is C-P-S, the Applicant should not anticipate that all 99 uses listed under that zoning will necessarily be allowed. Director Stevens advised that Staff is also recommending approval of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment No. 2. There are six conditions attached to this request which state that all other Duna La Quinta conditions remain in effect. Director Stevens pointed out Condition No. 2 referring to transfer of densities, which needs further discussion after the Applicant has made his presentation. He also pointed out Condition No. 3 wherein Staff has requested Commission and Council review of required plot plan applications which is above the normal standard and Staff did identify concern with a couple of areas of the overall site design we think need to be evaluated as part of that plot plan (setbacks, buffers, parking, screening, access determinations, etc.). Staff also expressed concern that this project ultimately relate to the design guidelines of the downtown area to the extent that we can reasonably do that, based on the timing of this project versus the timing of that design guideline project. We have identified the need for Desert Club to be at least a local street rather than a driveway or some other form of access along the west property line. Then, we have reinforced the Calle Tampico image corridor issue so that when we see ultimate plans, that is to be expected and that also assures General Plan consistency between the Specific and the General Plans. Chairman Thornburgh asked the Commission if they had any questions for Staff. Commissioner De Gasperin: Regarding the General Plan Amendment, does this area fall within the undefined and still to be considered extension of the Village Commercial concept? Director Stevens: It was our judgment that it does. chairman Thornburgh: If the Council, on November 15, changes their opinion on the General Plan, this project will be behind that, won't it? I would like our recommmendations, if we do approve it, to be consistent with the General Plan after its approval. Director Stevens: In terms of scheduling this matter on their Agenda, this item will be later than the General Plan. Chairman Thornburgh: So, then, in turn, if the Council changes their opinion on the General Plan, we would like this matter back. Director Stevens: This will be expressed to the Council. Chairman Thornburgh opened the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta - advised the Commission that a representative of the developer was present at this meeting to speak to them regarding this project. He spoke in favor of the project and then introduced the developers' representative. Skip Fonner, Attorney, Santa Monica, CA - informed the Commission that he represented approximately 400 doctors throughout Southern California who are interested in real estate projects. At the present time, regarding this project, they have signed leases for the office building shown in the upper right of the rendering, which encampasses 22,225 square feet and the lease is by Landmark for a period of ten years. The medical building is leased to National Medical Enterprises, who own the J. F. Kennedy Hospital in Indio. They have leased the entire bottom floor for a clinic which will include emergency care, ambulatory care and conplete primary care (family practitioners, OB-GYN and a range of specialists). Mr. Fonner stated he also had the names of 18 physicians associated with J. F. Kennedy Hospital, who are interested in offices in the upper floor of the medical building. They also envision having a physical therapy department, an opthamology suite and a time-sharing specialist suite. ,it MINUTES - PLANNING CU44ISSION October 22, 1985 Page 24. Concerning the restaurant, they have been currently negotiating with several restaurants in the area. Mr. Fonner stated he had met today with owners of the Las Casuelas Restaurant and also discussed the matter with the owners of the E1 Jacal Restaurant, and also with owners of an Italian and Continental restaurant. Mr. Fonner stated that in the near future, they would have the three buildings (office/medical/restaurant) fully leased. With regard to the larger conmercial/ office building, they have just started a marketing campaign, and as soon as the building is approximately 50% leased, they would like to construct the entire project as soon as possible. Forrest Haag, P. O. Box 1578, La Quinta (Landmark Land Company) - Informed the Commission that Landmark has a very tight timeline to make this project work so he requested the Commission's approval at this hearing. Secondly, he wished the opportunity to reserve time to rediscuss the density transfer formula with Staff before the City Council hearing, as the loss of the 50+ units nets out at a very substantial dollar loss to the remainder of the project buildout. Chairman Thornburgh closed the public hearing at 10:15 p.m. There was some further discussion regarding the density transfer formula use, Calle Tampico accesses, setbacks, etc. There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt to approve General Plan Amendment 85-007, Change of Zone 85-017 and Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment No. 2, as reccmmnded by Staff. Unanimously Adopted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of October 8, 1985. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion. The minutes of the regular meeting of October 8, 1985, were approved as submitted. Unanimously Adopted. B. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion to approve the minutes from the adjourned meeting of October 10, 1985, as amended. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion. The minutes of the adjourned meeting of October 10, 1985, were approved as amended. Unanimously Adopted. 5. BUSINESS Chairman Thornburgh introduced the two items of business as follows: A. Plot Plan No. 85-202, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the west side of Avenida Rubio, 200' north of Calle Sonora; Gilbert Sherk, Applicant. B. Plot Plan No. 85-206, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the east side of Avenida Carranza, 150' south of Calle Potrero; 'Thomas Dorsey, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report. 1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that the Applicant, Gilbert Sherk, for Plot Plan No. 85-202, had not contacted Staff with regard to necessary changes required on his house plans, so therefore requested that the matter be tabled. Regarding Plot Plan No. 85-206, Director Stevens informed the Cc mission that ,the request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and the goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, the building design is compatible with area development and the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. 'Therefore, based on these findings, Staff recommiends approval of of this plot plan. 's' a MINUTES - PLANNING CObM9ISSION October 22, 1985 Page 25. There being no discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion. 2. Ccninissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to table Plot Plan No. 85-202 to give Staff time to discuss their concerns regarding this house plan with the Applicant; and based on the findings in the Staff Report, to approve Plot Plan No. 85-206 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to attached conditions. Unanimously Adopted. There being no further items of Agenda to cane before the Commission, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to adjourn to a Special Meeting on November 4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California was adjourned at 10:35 p.m., October 22, 1985, in La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. CITY OF LA QUINTA S A i To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-213 Location: Southwest Corner of Avenida Velasco and Calle Madrid Applicant: Wayne La Vella Request: Approval to Construct a Single-Family^Dwelling Intended for Personal Residence BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac). I 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq,ft, partially vegetated, vacant lot located within the La Quinta Cove. The neighborhood is representative of the Cove with vacant lots and scattered housing. Of the 24 lots within the project site's block, nine have been built on, two are currently being constructed on, and 13 are vacant. Existing development in the neighborhood consists of conventional California Ranch and Spanish flavored development. The two houses currently under construction are typical Rick Johnson houses with stucco siding and sloping asphalt shingle roofs. The majority of the exsiting development on the block have stucco sidings with sloping gravel composition roof designs. However, three houses have wood sidings, one has a flat roof and one has a tile roof. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. Description of Request: The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a single-family house for his personal residence. The Applicant's representative, Earl Krepelin, has received four previous approvals for single-family houses within the Cove. One house is complete, another is currently under con- struction, and three others were recently approved (Plot Plans Nos. 85-212, 85-215, and 85-211). The three recent approvals, STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. along with this application, were submitted concurrent with one other single-family unit application for a total of five applications submitted recently by Mr. Krepelin. Plot Plan No. 85-214 is concurrently being reviewed for approval at this meeting. This house has approximately 1,400 sq.ft. of usable living space with three bedrooms, each exceeding 10-foot clear dimensions, two baths and an attached, two -car garage with a connecting pedestrian door. The house will incorporate a 12 x 4 pitch sloping roof composed of asphalt shingles. The roof eaves extend out 24". The maximum house height is 141. The setbacks are as follows: *Front Yard 20 Feet *Rear Yard 13 Feet *Side Yards 5 Feet STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS The house embodies a conventional California Ranch type architecture with stucco siding and a sloping roof design. The Applicant did not submit a plan for the house's exterior color scheme. Staff recommends that the house's colors match those of the neighborhood, which are earthtone, yet subtly vary from those colors planned for the adjacent proposed houses. As indicated previously in this report, the Applicant has been approved to build three other houses, of similar design, adjacent to each other. The Applicant's representative, Earl Krepelin, has agreed to provide minor alterations to the exterior of the other houses to add architectural variety to the neighborhood. The Applicant should modify his plans to include varying roof designs, contrasting architectural design features and differing landscape designs between these houses: Plot Plan No. 85-211 (Approved) Plot Plan No. 85-212 (Approved) Plot Plan No. 85-213 (In Process) Plot Plan No. 85-214 (In Process) Plot Plan No. 85-215 (Approved) These more extensive design modifications shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. It is Staff's concern that this approval will set the pace for the other proposed houses which may contribute to giving the neighbor- hood a homogenious design appearance problem. With the require- ments set forth in the conditions of approval, the proposed house 0 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. will be compatible with neighboring development with regard to roof style, mass, bulk and house height. The proposed house's floor plan complies with the R-1*++ Zoning and the City's adopted minimum standards for single-family dwellings. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-213 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: G , W 64, Gary W. Price Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Director GWP:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B and C THIS APPF(NAL IS S ® TO THE FaIJOWIM CCNDITICNO 1. 7 he development of the site shall be in conformance with the ikhibits A, 8 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No.85-213 , unless otherwise amended by the following Conditions. 2. Tlhe approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall became null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning Of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year Period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of la Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall suZmit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all plantipg materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. 7 he plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Ooaupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and Cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete oormecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. 7 he Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits fran the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for ` plan check: ° Riverside County Health Department " City Fire Marshal ° Cwmurity Development Dpartment, Planning Division ° Desert Sands Unified School District 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agree- ment as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the CcmTunity Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-213 12. That an exterior color scheme of the house to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Prior to building permit issuance for Plot Plan No. 85-213, the Applicant or responsible party shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval, specific information or details on stucco color, texture, trim, roof design, and other design features which will vary the appearance from the nearby dwellings having the same design which include Plot Plans Nos. 85-211, 85-212, 85-214 and 85-215. LAND USE REVIEW 4 cc W m cc W CALLE CHILLON j1 i I I 1 i PLOT PLAN NO. 85-215 € PLOT PLAN PLOT PLAN NO.85-211 NO.85-212 PLOT PLAN ; PLOT PLAN PROJI NO. 85-214 NO. 85-213 .CT SITE CALLE MADRID ATTACHMENT NO. 1 �+Tr.; :dill 111 i i h� To: From: Date: Subject: Location: Applicant Request: BACKGROUND El 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-214 S r�. Southeast Corner of Calle Madrid and Avenida Herrera James Septer Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac). Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq,ft, partially vegetated, vacant lot located within the La Quinta Cove. The neighborhood is representative of the Cove with vacant lots and scattered housing. Of the 24 lots within the project site's block, nine have been built on, two are currently being constructed on; and 13 are vacant. Existing development in the neighborhood consists of conventional California Ranch and Spanish flavored development. The two houses currently under construction are typical Rick Johnson houses with stucco siding and sloping asphalt shingle roofs. The majority of the exsiting development on the block have stucco sidings with sloping gravel composition roof designs. However, three houses have wood sidings, one has a flat roof and one has a tile roof. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with•the County Recorder. Description of Request: The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a single-family house for his personal residence. The Applicant's representative, Earl Krepelin, has received four previous approvals for single-family houses within the Cove. One house is complete, another is currently under con- struction, and three others were recently approved (Plot Plans Nos. 85-212, 85-215, and 85-211). The three recent approvals, STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. along with this application, were submitted concurrent with one other single-family unit application for a total of five applications submitted recently by Mr. Krepelin. Plot Plan No. 85-213 is concurrently being reviewed for approval at this meeting. This house has approximately 1,400 sq.ft. of usable living space with three bedrooms, each exceeding 10-foot clear dimensions, two baths and an attached, two -car garage with a connecting pedestrian door. The house will incorporate a 12 x 4 pitch sloping roof composed of asphalt shingles. The roof eaves extend out 24". The maximum house height is 141. The setbacks are as follows: *Front Yard 20 Feet *Rear Yard 13 Feet *Side Yards 5 Feet STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS The house embodies a conventional California Ranch type architecture with stucco siding and a sloping roof design. The Applicant did not submit a plan for the house's exterior color scheme. Staff recommends that the house's colors match those of the neighborhood, which are earthtone, yet subtly vary from those colors planned for the adjacent proposed houses. As indicated previously in this report, the Applicant has been approved to build three other houses, of similar design, adjacent to each other. The Applicant's representative, Earl Krepelin, has agreed to provide minor alterations to the exterior of the other houses to add architectural variety to the neighborhood. The Applicant should modify his plans to include varying roof designs, contrasting architectural design features and differing landscape designs between these houses: Plot Plan No. 85-211 (Approved) Plot Plan No. 85-212 (Approved) Plot Plan No. 85-213 (In Process) Plot Plan No. 85-214 (In Process) Plot Plan No. 85-215 (Approved) These more extensive design modifications shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. It is Staff's concern that this approval will set the pace for the other proposed houses which may contribute to giving the neighbor- hood a homogenious design appearance problem. With the require- ments set forth in the conditions of approval, the proposed house STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. will be compatible with neighboring development with regard to roof style, mass, bulk and house height. The proposed house's floor plan complies with the R-1*++ Zoning and the City's adopted minimum standards for single-family dwellings. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-214 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Gam-W,� � cz�C;/�_Z Gary W. Price Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Associate Planner Community Development Director GWP:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B and C 2HIS APPROVAL IS M@Wr 70 7HE FM1CWIM OOAIDTTI 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, 9 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-214 , unless otherwise amarded by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall beomne roll and void and of no effect whatsoever, Sy 'use" is meant the beginning of substantial om struction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirerents of the Riverside CcK mty Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adapted by the City of la Quinta. S. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mamted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. B. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: ° Riverside County Health Department ° City Fire Marshal ° Cahmuuity Development Depart ant, Planning Division Desert Sands Unified School District 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agree- ment as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Ccmminity Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. If CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-214 12. That an exterior color scheme of the house be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. 13. Prior to building permit issuance for Plot Plan No. 85-214, the Applicant or responsible party shall submit to the ocnu-mity Development Director for review and approval, specific information or details on stucco color, texture, trim, roof design, and other design features which will vary the appearance from the nearby dwellings having the same design which include Plot Plans Nos. 85-212, 85-213, 85-211 and 85-215. 4. a w w S PROJECT SIT LAND USE REVIEW CALLE CHILLON f i I � � r� E I t E PLOT PLAN NO. 85-215 PLOT PLAN PLOT PLAN s NO.85-211 NO.85-212 PLOT PLAN ; PLOT PLAN E NO.85-214 NO.85-213 CALLE MADRID ATTACHMENT NO. 1 To: From: Date: Subject: Location: Applicant: Request: MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-221 s C. West side of Avenida Martinez, 250' south of Calle Colima H&S Management Corp. Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the west side of Avenida Martinez, 250' south of Calle Colima. The surrounding area is primarily developed with structures varying in construction characteristic. The predominant siding material is stucco, with roofing materials con- sisting of rock, gravel, shingle or tile; rock and gravel being most common in the area. Roof pitches range from 2 and 12 to 5 and 12, while age and condition of the structures vary considerably. The unit adjacent to the the north of this unit is a new structure with a tile roof, stucco siding and a 5 and 12 pitch. Most lots to the north of the site are vacant at this time. The east side of Avenida Martinez is almost entirely developed. The homes are predominantly stucco with 3 and 12 gravel roofs Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed._ Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the north sideyard, a 5' southerly sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-221 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: 0alIA4e, lelil� /C'-� 0;( Wallace Nesbit Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Planning Assistant Community Development Director WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-221, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by' the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing_of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District A. CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA GUINTA S, D. To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-222 Location: East side of Avenida Carranza, 100' south of Calle Monterey Applicant: H&S Management Corp. Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the east side of Avenida Carranza, 100' south of Calle Monterey. On the block in which this lot is located, 13 of 24 lots are vacant. Existing homes on the block consist of stucco siding, and roofing materials vary between tile, gravel and asphalt shingle. Existing units in the surrounding area are predom- inantly stucco with gravel or shingle roofing. Roof pitches generally range from 0 to 5 and 12, with heights from 13' to 15'. The lot is surrounded primarily by vacant lots, with a tile -roofed stucco structure being the only unit adjacent to it. Regarding area development, the structures on the block are in good condition, with landscaping and maintenance varying. The predominant design appears to be stucco siding with gravel or shingle roofs. Due to the number of vacant lots, it is difficult to determine any pattern. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' northerly sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. `II irr STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-222 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: G!/dl4f4e y� Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED BY: Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-222, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for -the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile roo shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. To: From: Date: MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-223 6^ E , Location: Southeast Corner of Calle Colima and Avenida Herrera Applicant: H&S Management Corp. Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac). 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. corner lot in the subdivided Cove area of La Quinta, located at the southeast corner of Calle Colima and Avenida Herrera. The immediately surrounding area is predominantly undeveloped, with 15 of the 24 lots on the block being vacant. Existing structures consist of stucco siding, with the exception of a brick house on the southwest corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima. Roofing materials are mostly tile, with some gravel, rock and shingle homes distributed throughout the block and the surrounding area. The adjacent unit under construction to the east of this proposed unit will incor- porate a tile roof as well. The roof pitches range from 0 to 4 and 12, and the condition of the units is generally quite good. It should be noted that four other units currently going through the single-family application process are located in the area (see Exhibit 1). 4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: or STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 351, changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the sideyard along Calle Colima, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard._ The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. 0 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-223 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Wallace Nesbit Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Planning Assistant Community Development Director WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C and 1 THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE WING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-223, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsX shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District r ® 0 CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile roop shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. f Illdr — * AVEN/DA ® a CARRANZA s• a. f. B oCK A. 0 32 s , • AVEN/04 • i� ti O VI Icy RANIREZ I v n A . b. y + O 5 . t B OCK ® 1 000 000�0© C. N 3/ a r r N a Q VALLEJO +— ' e OC 4 ♦ y A V O a °d N N I 6` r N b l� i a b � N �'1 q 30 y ♦ y h= —+ r AVEN/DA O - a f� //ERRERA BL CN f4 = 4 a V ; b b b 4 . O O O O O O O O O O l 44 a o b b V w u a w % 2 9 n r � { a e w y Y � . 4� C3 El MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA 6- F To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-224 Location: East Side of Avenida Villa; 100' South of Calle Sonora Applicant: H&S Management Corp. Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the east side of Avenida Villa, 100' south of Calle Sonora. Of the 22 lots on the block 14 of them are vacant, with only six units existing. As is the case throughout the Cove area in general, the predominant siding material is stucco. Five of the six houses on the block have a tile roof or trim; the sixth house is a rock and wood -sided structure with a low roof pitch, and stands about 12-13' high. No existing units are contiguous to the site; however, the adjacent lot to the north has initial construction occurring. This particular block, as well as the block immediately east, present oppor- tunities for a compatible design theme and aid in establish- ing an identify for the Cove area due to the number of vacant lots yet to be developed. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico 85-221 8 85-222 85-223 85-224 85-225 Construction Paul Lieb 5-226 85-230 85-227 85-231 85-228 85-232 85-229 85-233 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-224 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: wA&64e y Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED BY: 4,__ / lv - Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director 21 THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-224, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by'the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile rooT shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the ot4er units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. To: From: Date: Subject: Location: Applicant: Request: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-225 Southwest Corner of Eisenhower Drive and G G_ Calle Durango H&S Management Corp. Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. corner lot located at Eisenhower Drive and Calle Durango, on the southwest corner. There are a total of 22 lots split into 2 separate blocks of 11 lots each. Of the 11 lots facing east on Eisenhower Drive, only 2 are vacant, one being the Applicant's lot. The existing units are of the same architectural style, yet differ in design and age. All the units have a Spanish theme to them, with a light colored stucco and mission tiles, though one house to the south end of the block is white brick instead of stucco. All of the homes are extensively landscaped, especially one 2-story house at the center of the block. The units to the north end are relatively newer Spanish designs with tile roofs, with 6 and 12 pitches and heights of about 16'. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemptign will be filed with the County Recorder. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 351, changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-225 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED BY: 65 , azo Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-225, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District El CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-228, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.A tile roof shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. I To: From: Date: Subject: Location: Applicant: Request: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA GUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-229 J~, !G. West side of Avenida Herrera, 250'north of Calle Arroba Jerico Construction Approval to Construct a Single-Family,Dwelling Intended for Rental. 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the west side of Avenida Herrera, 250' north of Calle Arroba. The surrounding area is mostly undeveloped, with a predominant number of vacant lots to the north and east, across Avenida Herrera. Of the developed structures, stucco siding and tile roofs are the most common construction with 5 of the 9 existin units so built. The block contains 14 vacant lots, including Plot Plans 85-228 and 85-229, both being submitted by this Applicant. Construction characteristics are generally similar among the majority of the units. Structure heights run from 14-16', the roof pitches range from 4 to 5 and 12, and the condition of the units is generally quite good. It should be noted that four other units currently going thru the single- family application process are located in the area. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed., 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: J STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and sithg, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FTNnTNnq 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-229 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: m"-e N� �jf�l Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED BY: Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-229, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.A tile roof shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA S. To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-230 Location: East side of Avenida Obregon, 100' north of Calle Potrero Applicant: Jerico Construction Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. C • % B, 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, 100' north of Calle Potrero. The block is sparsely developed, with only 4 units developed on the 22 total lots. The blocks to the east and west also have minimal development and many of the existing structures were approved prior to incorporation by the City. Therefore, the existing development in the immediate area varies a great deal. The houses in the surrounding area have flat or Dutch style roofs, and there are a few typical Cove dwellings scattered throughout the area. Age, construction, design and condition vary considerably in this area of the Cove, and a guidance towards a more compatible design theme or trend should be established in the area as development occurs. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 351, changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the north sideyard, a 5' southerly sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. Due tothe lack of an identifiable design trend and incongruency of of the limited development in the area, Staff feels that it is not appropriate to require a particular roofing with regards to this application. It is possible, however, that incorporation of aesthetic design treatments to the most reasonable extent could set a precedent for future development in the area. Therefore, Staff recommends that a tile roof be utilized on the structure in order to strengthen the exterior qualities of the design. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-230 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: 1�/J/ �Jl 'Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED Xlk— Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-230, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance.with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing.of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.A tile roof shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. To: From: Date: P,TA 4-1y,T• 17�r• CITY OF to QUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-231 S. M. Location: West side of Avenida Vallejo, 150' south of Calle Durango Applicant: Jerico Construction Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. 1_I01"C : • P41 re, 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the west side of Avenida Vallejo, 150' south of Calle Durango. The area is primarily developed, with construction consisting of mostly stucco, gravel or rock -roofed homes. Roof pitches range from flat to 4 and 12, with heights varying from 13-15'. This area is fairly established relative to other areas in the Cove, and the general condition and appearance of the units here is fair. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' northerly sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FTNnTNnR 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-231 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: vv w ' " Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C A�OVED z BY:Y/A�1�. / "i..�.' Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-231, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing,of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-232 Location: West side of Avenida Calle Hidalgo Applicant: Jerico Construction Request: Approval to Construct Intended for Rental. BACKGROUND Bermudas, 100' south of a Single -Family Dwelling 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac. 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 5. tv. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located 100' south fo Calle Hidalgo on the west side of Avenida Bermudas. The surrounding area is primarily vacant, with one stucco house located north of the site. The house is more or less typical of homes now being built in the Cove area. It has a tile roof with a 4 and 12 pitch, the height of the struc- ture is about 161. There are only 2 other homes on the block, one brick and one an older stucco unit. Both units are about 15' high, with a 2 and 12 sloping perimeter pitch to the roof. The remaining 21 lots are vacant. Because the only existing unit is relatively new and is characteristic of the type and style of development being encouraged for the Cove area. There is an excellent opportunity to estab- lish a dominant design along Avenida Bermudas. 4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: J _ STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 35', changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area.development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-232 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: A&40c,Al Wallace Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C APPROVED BY: 4 � 0-( Ae� Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-224, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by'the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing .of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile roof shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. To: From: Dote: MEMORANDUM S. Q CITY OF LA QUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-233 Location: Southeast corner of Avenida Velasco and Calle Colima Applicant: Jerico Construction Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Rental. BACKGROUND General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the southeast corner of Avenida Velasco and Calle Colima. There are 3 existing structures, two constructed of stucco with rock roofs of a 4 and 12 pitch.. The third is on 2 lots directly east of the site. This is a brick structure with a flat rock roof, and sits at a 45 degree angle to the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima, located at the southwest corner. It should be noted that four other applications for single-family development, submitted con- currently with this application, are located in the surround- ing area (see Exhibit 1). This is important because the overall area in which these sites are located is sparsely developed presenting an opportunity for aesthetic designs. 4. Environmental'. Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. „ 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are: intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed hip plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and siting, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 351, changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback -at the sideyard along Calle Colima, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that has worked with the City to come to a compromise has been cooperative. the requirements the Applicant in design and FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements.of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-233 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: � v *6� a� 01*- Wallace Nesbit Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Planning Assistant Community Development Director WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C and 1 El THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-233, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the: issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert Sands Unified School District El CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile roof shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. N. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. iT�. III; To: From: Onto: Subject: Location: Applicant Request: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Community Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-234 East side of Avenida Calle Colima Jerico Construction Velasco, 50' south of s, n Approval to Construct a Single -Family -,Dwelling Intended for Rental. 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac.) 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5,000 sq.ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area of the City, located on the east side of Avenida Velasco, 50' south of Calle Colima. Ther are 3 existing structures, two constructed of stucco with rock roofs of a 4 and 12 pitch. The third is on 2 lots directly east of the site. This is a brick structure with a flat rock roof, and sits at a 45 degree angle to the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Colima, located at the southwest corner. It should be noted that four other applications for single-family development, submitted con- currently with this application, are located in the surround- ing area (see Exhibit 1). This is important because the overall area in which these sites are located is sparsely developed presenting an opportunity for aesthetic designs. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA and a Notice of Exemption will be filed. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom unit which has a net usable living area of 1239 sq.ft.. This floor plan will be used on 13 other applica- tions which were submitted concurrently, but under different names: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. H&S Management Jerico Construction Paul Lieb 85-221 85-226 85-230 85-222 85-227 85-231 85-223 85-228 85-232 85-224 85-229 85-233 85-225 85-234 The units are intended to be rental units which will be managed by the Applicant. All 14 units will be located in the Cove area on typical 5,000 sq.ft. lots, 11 of which will be interior lots. Plot Plans 85-223, 85-225, and 85-233 will be situated on corner lots. The Applicant has voluntarily changed his plans to a more compatible design relative to bulk and sithg, and is much more workable than the prior submittals. The new plan basically widens the structure from 26' to 351, changed the construction materials from wood to stucco and corrected poor driveway access. The revised plan leaves a 10' setback at the south sideyard, a 5' interior sideyard set- back, a 20' front setback and 12' setback at the rear yard. The height of the structure will be 14.5' with a roof pitch of 4 and 12. All bedrooms exceed the 10' x 10' clear dimension requirement, but the garage is slightly undersized at 19.5' x 24' relative to the 20' x 20' clear dimension required. The proposed construction will be beige stucco with saddlebag trim and brown asphalt shingle. The Applicant proposes the same color scheme and construction throughout all 14 units for which he is seeking approvals. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS Because this submittal is concurrent with 13 others, Staff would like to point out its concerns relative to the entire application as a whole. 1. The design itself is an acceptable one, but Staff feels that units on interior lots should be offset an addi- tional 5' to facilitate a more compatible appearance relative to structure widths of surrounding development. 2. The proposal of only one color scheme, relative to the number of units proposed, is considered inadequate. Staff feels that at least three (3) color schemes must be incorporated as some houses will be adjacent to or near each other. 3. Staff feels that many of the units need to incorporate the roofs due to factors such as location, compatibility, design variation, and extension and/or establishment of design trends. E STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Regarding this proposal, the design conforms to the requirements of the R-1*++ District. It should be noted that the Applicant has worked with the City to come to a compromise in design and has been cooperative FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-234 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Wallace Nesbit Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Planning Assistant: Community Development Director WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B, C and 1 THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-234, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is therefore diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance.with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by'the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees.The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the Appli- cant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plantsd shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant. shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshal * Community Development Department, Planning Div. * Desert. Sands Unified School District E CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the other units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted' -to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well. as roofing material and color. 1 t 0 u i 41 / O W J J y i 4 O I — O O u 1 N -1 H '� Y9 7174 ". V ♦ M b A b b O Z � �� 9 r � © @ e � e ., ., b A b I Q y T tl JV 079 N) { '1' AOIW — OSSr73A rOWAV Y N M • MNO JoP rM3YN3N IO/M3Ar a fti OF N t o w ♦ a b v) e E zt t! N © ® © i in :o,Iq 000�o oo®oo • N M l a a $ 8 m � b a e woo e , • or377rA r0/N3Ar N "f ♦ N IbF A b q E O N � O ® ©ON000 OHO. • a' h• h N pp N q b � b � � � ® MOO B u r " 73N//IVM r0/N3Ar i s ZF N• M N N � N A 0 � '� ,� � '�'� N 70 B ►z#rvm" r0/N3Ar MEMORANDUM 5 CITY OF LA GUINTA To. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-236 Location: South Side of Calle Fortuna, 300' East of Desert Club Drive Applicant: Louis S. Campagna, Jr. Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Personal Residence. BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). Existing Conditions: The proposed site is a 17,820 sq.ft. lot located east of Desert Club Drive on Calle Fortuna, with a width of approximately 120' and an average depth of about 149'. Of the 10 lots on the block, 6 are developed. They are stucco -sided homes with either rock or tile roofing material. Roof pitches range from 3 and 12 to 5 and 12, with heights ranging from 14' to 16'. Except for the house immediately east of the proposed unit, the existing homes are much smaller and less innovative in design than the one submitted. However, adjacent develop- ment and the larger lot size, as well as the aesthetic advantage of design variation dictate this type of design to be much more desirable, and hopefully would encourage similar proposals for the adjacent vacant parcels. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a dwelling which far exceeds the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone. The net usable living area of the house is 3120 sq.ft. The design incorporates four -and -one-half bathrooms, 3 bedrooms and a guest bedroom, all four in excess of the 10' x 10' minimum clear dimension requirement. The La Quinta Land Use Ordinance STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. defines a guest dwelling as being of an area not more than one -fiftieth (1/50) of the entire area of the lot itself (see Exhibit D), which in this case is about 356 sq.ft.. The guest room, including bathroom and closet, comes to approximately 215 sq.ft. Since the room will not have kitchen facilities, it is not considered to be a second unit as defined by the State Planning, Zoning and Development Law (see Exhibit E). Should the Applicant wish to convert the guest room to a second unit for rental purposes in the future, he will have to submit an application for a conditional use permit. Therefore, since no request for a permit application has been made and the plan indicates a guest room, the plan is being reviewed as a single-family dwelling with four (4) bed- rooms. The garage has both an interior and an exterior pedestrian access, with the vehicle entry oriented to the east side of the house. Dimensions of the garage are 19' x 20.31, so the 20' x 20' clear dimension required has not been met. This shall be addressed by the Applicant prior to issuance of a building permit. The exterior design theme of the house will incorporate gray stucco with dark gray trim and reddish -brown mission tile roofing. There will not be a continuous pitch along the length of the house, but areas where the roof will be pitched show it to be 9.5 and 12. The house at peak of roof gable is 17' high, with chimney extensions at 191. This is considered acceptable with respect to interpreta- tion of policy regarding the 17' maximum height limit in the R-1*++ Zone. The setbacks will be 6.5' at the west side yard; 48' at the closest point of the structure to to the rear property line; 31' to the closest point at the front property line; and 24.3' at the east side yard, which will have a 6' high wall and gate from the structure to the east property line. This gated access leads along a con- crete walk to the rear yard area, which incorporates a raised concrete deck, swimming pool with jacuzzi, planters perimeter landscaping. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to use this dwelling as his personal residence, and presents a very interesting design. Staff has, raised questions about the possible future use of the guest room as a rentable second unit due to its location adjacent to major kitchen appliances, that it has separate exterior access, a private bathroom and dimensions which would facilitate installa- tion of kitchen appliances. Such a use cannot be approved as STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. Part of this application, and any use of the guest room as a second income unit. would be prohibited, unless in the future an application is made for a conditional use permit. At that time, the conversion could be considered. Though there is no indication that the Applicant. intends to do so, he may wish to at a later date or a future owner may consider doing so, and it is therefore appropriate to address the issue at this time. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development contingent upon the conditions of approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-236 in accordance with Exhibits A thru E and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: �i/ Wallace H. Nesbit Planning Assistant WHN:dmv Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A Thru E APED Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Community Development Director , THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A thru E contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-236, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contem- plated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indi- cate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: *Riverside County Health Department *City Fire Marshal *Community Development Department, Planning Division *Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. 12. The Applicant shall show the garage to have 20' x 20'clear dimension prior to plan check submittal. 13. The Applicant shall be bound to the approval of a single- family unit only; no second unit or conversion(§) which would create a second unit are being approved. If the Applicant so wishes, he may make formal application for a conditional use permit for a second unit. • SECTIA9 21 .26a. DOG KENNELS. An of or premises on which 5 or more dogs over 4 months of age are kept or maintained for any purpose or reason. 1. DOG KENNELS, COMMERCIAL. Any building, structure, en- closure, or premises whereupon, or within which, 5 or more dogs are kept or maintained primarily for financial profit for the purpose of boarding, breeding, training, marketing, hire or any other similar purpose. (See Ordinance Number 455 regarding kennels.) 2. DOG KENNELS, NON-COMMERCIAL. Any building, structure, enclosure, or premises whereupon, or within which, 5 or more dogs are kept or maintained, but not primarily for financial profit. (See Ordinance Number 455 regarding kennels.) SECTION 21.26b. DAIRY FARM. A parcel or contiguous parcels of land used, primarily to maintain cattle for the production of milk, including a building or buildings for milking, processing of milk produced on the premises, retail or wholesale sales and deliveries of such milk, and other buildings and structures incidental to the operation. SECTION 21 .26c. DISPOSAL SERVICE OPERATIONS. Areas for the storage and maintenance of vehicles and equipment used in the collection, transportation, and removal of garbage and rubbish not including storage or dumping of garbage or rubbish. SECTION 21.27. DWELLING. A building or portion thereof designed for or occupied exclusively for residential purposes including one family and multiple dwellings but not including hotels, auto courts, boarding or lodging houses. SECTION 21.28. DWELLING UNIT. A building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen. SECTION 21.29. DWELLING, ONE FAMILY. A building containing but one (1) kitchen and used to house not more than one (1) family, including domestic: employees of such family. SECTION 21.30. DWELLING, MULTIPLE FAMILY. A building or portion thereof used to house two (2) or more families, including domestic employees of each such family, living independently of each other, and doing their own 490F/N1r1W4 cooking. P,WAf 4Aa0 SECTION 21.31. DWELLINQ, building hich occupies not USE OROIA0vt t, more than one -fiftieth (1 50 of the area of the lot on w ich it is situated, which contains no cooking facilities and which is used exclusively for housing of members of a single family and their non-paying guests. No reduction of the general side or rear yard setbacks shall be allowed for guest dwelling despite any other provisions of this ordinance. 11-29-79 151 5-X ``/6/T No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any changes in the general plan shall be required to implement the provisions of this subdivision. Any city, county, or city and county may amend its zoning ordinance or general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other provisions applicable to the creation of second residential units if these provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision. A second residential unit which conforms to the requirements of this subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allownhlP dpneity for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deeme o e a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth. Necessary findings for (c) No city, including a charter city, county, ordinance prohibiting or city and county shall adopt an ordinance which second its totally precludes second units within single- family and multifamily zoned areas unless the ordinance contains findings acknowledging that such action may limit housing opportunities of the region and further contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting such an inane. Definition (d) A s use in the section, a "second unit" is either a detached or attached dwelling unit which �� P D ` provides complete, in ependent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living— s—Teeping, eating, cooking and sanitation on five —Same parcel or parcels as the primary unit is Ting I (e) This section shall become operative on July 1, 1983. Evaluation of local (f) Jurisdictions which adopt ordinances implementation/ pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) shall submit a report to HCD copy of such ordinances to the Departmpnt of Housing and Commmity Development within 60 days. The department shall submit a report to the Legislature, which shall transmit the report to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by January 1, 1984. The report shall evaluate the T 97 am gn -0 1y3530. V97IAfJAV MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA CFyor Oti To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Conununity Development Department December 10, 1985 PLOT PLAN NO. 85-238 Location: East Side of Avenida Obregon, 200' North of Calle Sonora Applicant: A. C. Hipp Request: Approval to Construct a Presold Single -Family Dwelling BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 du/ac). 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Ht. Limit, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical 5000 Sq.Ft. lot in the subdivided Cove area, along the east side of Avenida Obregon north of Calle Sonora. Of the 21 lots on this block, only 8 are built upon. These homes are predominantly stucco, with roof materials varying between rock, tile and asphalt shingles. Roof pitches are from 3 and 12 to 4 and 12, with heights ranging from 14' to 161. Both sides of Avenida Obregon are lined with palm trees. The Applicant's lot faces onto this street, and of the remaining 9 lots fronting on Avenida Obregon, 7 are currently vacant. The surrounding area is generally vacant, but the development that does exist around the site varies quite a bit in terms of design, construction and age. 4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant intends to use this as a personal residence. As originally designed, the house contained approximately 1098 sq.ft. of usable living area and is therefore undersized under the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone. The Applicant has STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. addressed the deficiency to the Community Development Department. A revised plan has been submitted which increases the usable living area by 108 sq.ft., extending the family room out to the west setback line. The total usable living area is now 1206 sq.ft. Relative to other requirements of the R-1*++ Zone, the house has interior garage access to the kitchen area. The garage is also slightly under the 20' x 20' minimum clear dimensions required; this will have to be adjusted by the Applicant as well. The house has 3 bedrooms, each exceeding the 10' x 10' minimum clear dimension requirement, and 2 full bathrooms. The garage is offset and incorporates a laundry nook, which is 4' in depth. The house also has an uncovered patio court area between the master bedroom and the living zoom. The overall dimensions of the house are 40' in width and 65' in depth, with setbacks of 5' at the side yards, 20' at the front and 15' at the rear. The exterior color scheme of the house will consist of a white stucco siding, with redwood stain trim and a red/black Cal "S" the roof of a 4 and 12 pitch. Height of the structure will be 15.7'. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS The Applicant has made changes to the original plans necessary to bring the usable living area up to the 1200 sq.ft. require- ment of the R-1*++ Zone. The Applicant has had no previous development activity in the City, and the house has been presold to him. The overall design of the house complies with the requirements and standards for the R-1*++ Zone. It is hoped that construction of this unit will. help to establish a precedent for a common design theme in the surrounding area as development continues to occur there. FINDINGS 1. The project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 2. The request is consistent with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and goals and objectives of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. The building design is compatible with the area development continues to occur there. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-238 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: 6't� C4--' Wallace H. Nesbit Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP Planning Assistant Community Development Director Atchs: 1. Conditions 2. Exhibits A, B and C THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-238, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contem- plated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front. yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 1.5-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indi- cate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or :screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: *Riverside County Health Department *City Fire Marshal *community Development Department, Planning Division *Desert Sands Unified School District CONDITIONS (Cont'd) 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agreement as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Community Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. A tile rooF shall be provided. 12. The garage shall measure 20' x 20' clear from interior wall to interior wall. 13. The color scheme shall be required to vary from the ottler units proposed in the surrounding area. Plans submitted to the Building Division shall specify exterior siding and trim colors as well as roofing material and color. MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Cmuunity Development Department Date: December 10, 1985 45, Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-239 Location: North Side of Bottlebrush Drive, 157' Fast of Washington Street Applicant: Don Howard , Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family House Intended for Sale BACKGROUND 1. General Plan: Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). 2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 1200-Square-Foot minimum Dwelling Size, 17' Height Limit). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 110' lot located in an existing subdivided area north of Avenue 50 and east of Washington Street. The size and configuration of lots in this area are very similar to that existing in the Cove area. Development within this neighborhood, having 125 lots, is very sparse with only 13 houses. This low number of hares is primarily due to the poor water system in this neighborhood in the past. Coachella Valley Water District is in the process of upgrading the system throughout the City. Regarding the design and siting of the existing houses, almost all the buildings have the typical California Ranch and modern Spanish styles cannon in the Cove area. With the exception of one house, all the hares have stucco siding. Nine of the houses have Spanish tile roofs, with the remaining hares having wood shake, gravel or asphalt shingle roofing. All the hares are one-story in height. Con- cerning siting, three of the 13 houses are built on double lots with the remainder built on single lots. Regarding public services and facilities, utilities are available to the site. Bottlebrush Drive is a two-lane, paved street without curb or gutter. Washington Street, which is planned as a six -lane road with a 120-foot right-of-way, is located approximately 160' to the west. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from the require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. The site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard area, a designated rare and endangered species. The Applicant will be required to pay a mitigation fee of $600 per acre, or portion thereof, prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CCbMSSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant, who is a contractor, is constructing this house for the property owner, Palm Springs Land Company, who in turn intend to sell the house. The Applicant has also submitted an application for a house on the lot adjacent to the west (Plot Plan No. 85-240). Neither the Applicant nor the landowner have received previous approvals for single-family houses within the City. The house has approximately 1230-square-feet of livable area. There are three bedrooms, two of which have dimensions less than the ten -foot clear width and depth measurements required. There are two full baths. The attached double -car garage, with space provided for the mechanical equipment, has a connecting pedestrian door into the dwelling. The overall dimensions of the house are 36' x 59'. Concerning the exterior, the house will have ivory -colored or eggshell stucco, red -colored Spanish concrete tile and light beige trim. The overall height is approximately 15 feet. The roof will have a 4 and 12 pitch. The design also includes bay windows at the front and rear of the buildings. The exterior bathroom wall is also staggered out one -foot to break apart the line at the side of the house. Stucco, brick or other similar decorative trim will be added on each side of the garage to create additional variety. The setbacks are :20 feet in the front, 31 feet in the rear and 7 feet on the sides. STAFF COD24UUS AMID ANALYSIS The overall size, height and siting of the house complies with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone. The net living area exceeds 1200-square-feet, the height is less than 17 feet, and the setbacks are equal or exceed the requirements. Regarding the City's adopted standards and past policies, the house does not comply. Bedrooms #1 and #2 have dimensions less than the required 10-foot width and depth dimmsicns (913" x 917" and 913" x 111911, respectively). The garage's width of 19' must be increased to 20' to carply with the City's policy of providing 20' x 20' clear dimensions within the garage. The recomended conditions of approval will bring this house into corpliance. Staff has discussed these changes with the Applicant and he has agreed to make these changes. Concerning carpatibility, the proposed house's design, size and bulk will be consistent with the existing surrounding development. The Applicant has significantly changed the exterior of this house fran that proposed by him on the adjacent lot so that there is some desired variety. The use of the bay or popout windows also is an attractive way to avoid the boxy or no -frills appearance many houses have. The Applicant should be cannended on his design. FINDINGS 1. The proposal is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The request will be consistent with the standards of the R-1*++ Zone and the City's adopted policies for single-family houses when constructed in accordance with the conditions of approval. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CMIISSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. 3. The proposed design is compatible with existing area development. 4. Approval of the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-239 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Sandra L. Bonner Principal Planner SLB:dmv Atchs: 1. Exhibits A, B and C 2. Conditions 7APP vED BY: Lawrence L. Stevensi,AICP Community Development Director 'THIS APP%WAL Is s TD THE FCYZ win ccmrri 1. 'due development of the site shall be in conformance with the Dchibits A. 8 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-239 # finless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. 'fie approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. Hy "use" is meant the beginning of substantial oonstructien, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the U ifoam Fire code as adopted by the City of la Quinta. S. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable corditICn for the life of the approved use. 6. 2he heating and cooling mechanical oequ4ment shall be ground masted, or screened entirely by the roof stricture. 7. Refuse omtainers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. S. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete connecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. zhe Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan dneck: ° Riverside County Health Department • City Fire Marshal ° comunity Development Depart ent, Planning Division ° Desert sands unified school District 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agree- ment as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Connu pity Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The stricture shall have a Class "A" roof covering. CCIDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN ID. 85- 239 12. All bedrooms shall have minimum ten (10) foot clear interior width and depth dimensions. 13. The garage shall have minimum twenty (20) foot square clear interior dimensions for vehicle parking, and an additional minimum of three (3) foot depth for ground -mounted mechanical equipment within the garage. 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this approved use, the Applicant shall pay a Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard impact fee of $600 per acre or portion thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. E MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA OUINTA TO: Honorable. Chairman and Members of the Planning Ccnmission From: Ccummity, Development Department Cate: Dece[nber 10, 1985 T- Subject: PIor PLAN NO. 85-240 Location: North Side of Bottlebrush Drive, 107' Fast of Washington Street Applicant: Don Howard Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family House Intended for Sale 1. General Plan: Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac). 2. Zoning: R-1*++ One Family Dwellings, 1200-Square-Foot Minimum Dwelling Size, 17' Height Limit). 3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 110' lot located in an existing subdivided area north of Avenue 50 and east of Washington Street. The size and configuration of lots in this area are very similar to that existing in the Cove area. Development within this neighborhood, having 125 lots, is very sparse with only 13 houses. This low number of hares is primarily due to the poor water system in this neighborhood in the past. Coachella Valley Water District is in the process of upgrading the system throughout the City. Regarding the design and siting of the existing houses, almost all the buildings have the typical California Ranch and modern Spanish styles canon in the Cove area. With the exception of one house, all the hares have stucco siding. Nine of the houses have Spanish tile roofs, with the remaining hares having wood shake, gravel or asphalt shingle roofing. All the hares are one-story in height. Con- cerning siting, three of the 13 houses are built on double lots with the remainder built on single lots. Regarding public services and facilities, utilities are available to the site. Bottlebrush Drive is a twD-lane, paved street without curb or gutter. Washington Street, which is planned as a six -lane road with a 120-foot right-of-way, is located approximately 110' to the west. 4. Environmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt from the require- ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption will be filed with the County Recorder. The site is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toad Lizard area, a designated rare and endangered species. The Applicant will be required to pay a mitigation fee of $600 per acre, or portion thereof, prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CONPIISSION December 10, 1985 Page 2. 5. Description of Request: The Applicant, who is a contractor, is constructing this house for the property owner, Palm Springs Land Cm(pany, who in turn. intend to sell the house. The Applicant has also submitted an application for a house on the let adjacent to the east (Plot Plan No. 85-239). Neither the Applicant nor the landowner have received previous approvals for single-family houses within the City. The house has approximately 1252 net square -feet of livable area. There are three bedrooms and two full baths. The attached double -car garage, with space provided for the mechanical equipment, has a connecting pedestrian door into the dwelling. The overall dimensions of the house are 40' x 66'. Concerning the exterior, the house will have ivory -colored or eggshell stucco, red -colored Spanish concrete tile and light beige trim. The overall height is approximately 15 feet. The roof will have a 4 and 12 pitch. The design also includes bay windows at the front and rear of the buildings. bathroom wall is also staggered out one -foot to break apart the line at the side Stucco, brick or other similar decorative trim will be added on each side of the garage to create additional variety. The setbacks are 20 feet in the front, 24 feet in the rear and 5 feet on the sides. STAFF CONMFiITS AND ANALYSIS The overall size, height and setbacks of the house complies with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone. The net livable area exceeds 1200-square-feet and the height is less than 17'. The house is also in compliance with the City's adopted standards; the dimensions of the bedrooms equal or exceed 10 feet, there is the required two baths, and the double -car garage has a connecting door into the dwelling. Concerning compatibility, the proposed house's design, size and bulk will be consistent with the existing surrounding development. The Applicant has significantly changed the exterior of this house from that proposed by him on the adjacent lot so that there is some desired variety. The use of the bay or popout windows also is an attractive way to avoid the boxy or no -frills appearance many houses have. The Applicant should be ca mended on his design. FINDINGS 1. The proposal is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The request is consistent with the standards of the R-1*++ Zone and the City's adopted policies for single-family houses. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CMUSSION December 10, 1985 Page 3. 3. 'Ihe proposed design is compatible with existing area development. 4. Approval of the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recanmends approval of Plot Plan No. 85-240 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the attached conditions. Sandra L. Bonner Principal Planner Atchs: 1. Exhibits A, B and C 2. Conditions APP BY: ence L. Stevens,,, AICP Community Development Director IRIS APPROVAL IS SADEC T 7U ME MIOWIM 00MITIO. 1. 'fie development of the site shall be in confarmarnce with the Exhibits A. B and C oontained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-240 , unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. 'fie approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall became null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial constructions not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to ompletion. 3. Dater and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of Ia Quinta. S. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a minimum of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Oocuparncy, the Applicant shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted, or screened entirely by the roof structure. 7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 8. The driveway shall be surfaced with concrete and have asphaltic concrete oonmecting pavement (a 2" x 4" header) to the existing street pavement. 9. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for plan check: ° Riverside County Health Depart • City Fire Marshal ° Ommnnity Development Departments Planning Division ° Desert Sands Unified School District 10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as determined by the Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation agree- ment as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. A letter fran Desert Sands Unified School District stating that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Cmuunity Development Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering. Alpls CONDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-240 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for this approved use, the Applicant shall pay a Coachella Valley Fringe-4bed Lizard impact fee of $600 per acre or portion thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.