1986 01 14 PC6 0,
AGENDA
PLANNING CCMUSSICN - CITY OF IA QUIRM
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta
City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta,
California
January 14, 1986 7:00 p.m.
A. Flag Salute
2. ROLL CALL
"soff ;:1
A. Change of Zone No. 85-018, a request for a zone change from R-1-12,000
(One Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Feet Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) to
R-3 (General Residential) on a 40.2 Acre Site; Morris and Grayson/Rufus
Associates; Applicant. (Continued)
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
A. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 26, 1985.
B. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 10, 1985.
5. BUSINESS
A. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-242, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the east side of Avenida Diaz, 200' south of Calle Potrero; Larry McMachen/
Derrick Kramer; Applicants.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
B. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-243, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the west side of Avenida Alvarado, 50' north of Calle Potrero; Larry McMachen/
Matt Roberts, Applicants.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
C. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-245, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the east side of Avenida Navarro, 160' north of Calle Nogales; Robert L.
Hannon/Linda Josie; Applicants.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
D. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-246, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the west side of Avenida Madero, 200' south of Calle Chillon; Rick Johnson
Construction; Applicant.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
E. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-247, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the west side of Avenida Juarez, 100' north of Calle Madrid; Rick Johnson
Construction; Applicant.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
F. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-248, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the north side of Fiesta Drive, 740' west of Jefferson Street; William
Hartung, Applicant.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
G. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-249, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on
the west side of Avenida Herrera, 250' north of Calle Nogales; Larry Rogers/
Jim Pettus, Applicants.
1. Report from Staff.
2. Motion for Adoption.
ITEM NO. �rY• a'X� 00, o �.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MORAN KULING% �FiNBURGEi
/ MOTION BY: BRANDT c
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPEM MORAN WAUANG THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL *ftte
COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT —/
DE GASPERIN —//
v
MORAN
ZZ
W LUNG
THGENBURGH —
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
ITEM NO. J• 4
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RE: Y
MOTION BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN Tt1OF�BURGF�
t SP-ND t
SECOND BY: 1RAPIDT DE GASPERIN M:)PAN MILING TH0RNBURGH
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO*NISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT -
DE GASPERIN -
MORAN -
WELING -
THORNBURGH -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUIiNTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Connission
From: Community Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: CHANGE of ZCNE NO. 85-018
Location: Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50
Applicant: Morris and Grayson, Inc./Rufus Associates
Request: Change of Zone Fran R-1-12,000, (One Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Feet
Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) to R-3 (General Residential) on a 40.2-Acre
Parcel. (Continued)
At the meeting of November 26, 1985, the Planning conudssion reviewed the requested
Change of Zone and determined, based on La Quinta General Plan criteria for the
Special Cm mercial land use designation, that additional information was needed. As
a result, the following information was requested:
1. Preliminary site plan, elevations, and other floor plans (if available),
including development date - square footage, number of parking spaces, etc.
2. Information on proposed developer, including the timing of development.
3. Information on current availability of construction financing or efforts
to secure such financing.
The requested information has been submitted in the form of a letter (dated 12/20/85)
which responds to items 2 and 3 and a site development plan which responds to the first
item. It is the purpose of this review to determine whether or not this Change of Zone
is in compliance with pertinent General Plan Policy Nos. 6.18, 6.19 and 6.20, partic-
ularly the latter one.
Discussion
Relative to the cammutted user/construction funding issue, the Applicant's letter
indicates that negotiations and other similar efforts are underway for a committed
user which may include a separate developer (other than the Applicant), a joint
venture, including the Applicant, or the Applicant themselves. Apparently, some
interest has been generated by these discussions, but the Leventhol & Horwrath market
study (which should be completed in 6-8 weeks) is a key ingredient to reaching any
conclusive decisions. Furthermore, the Applicant's ability to participate in the
project as a developer appears to be contingent upon equity/financing position and
development of the separate orchard project. Of course, it cannot be expected that
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMISSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
a lender will make a major commitment, beyond expressions of interest, until the
developer selection, market study, plan preparation and related details are much
further along than they are now. According to the letter, there have at least been
some expressions of interest. Mether or not this interest is sufficient to satisfy
the intent of 6.19 and 6.20 is, of course, the crux of the issue insofar as the zoning
request is concerned.
You should be aware that my discussions with the Applicant indicate that the rezoning
of the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 50 is a major factor in the financing
of the separate Orchard project. Apparently, the increased land value associated with
commercial (or hotel) zoning is an essential ingredient to the final approval of
construction financing for the separate Orchard project.
In evaluating the development plan, it should be understood that its purpose is not
to represent a precise, unchangeable plan, but rather to demonstrate that some cannit-
ment has been undertaken to, at least, schematically represent the development intention
and to illustrate the nature of that intention. Staff has not reviewed the details of
the plan, such as parking, setbacks, etc. It should be understood that the granting of
zoning is generally associated with the land and its characteristics rather than the
design of the development or the developer. In fact, it is quite possible that the
market study could result in major revisions to this plan - particularly as it relates
to the uses (i.e., number of hotel roans, type/style of hotel rooms, amount/type of
ccnmrcial/office space, size/location of restaurant facilities, etc.).
Alternatives
In attempting to reach a conclusion on this matter, the following alternatives seen
available:
1. Determine that the additional information demonstrates sufficient
consistency with the intent of the General Plan policies and grant
the Change of Zone. (Requires motion to approve Zone Change to
C-T and direct Staff to prepare appropriate Findings.)
2. Determine that approval of the Zone Change is not consistent with
the intent of the General Plan and deny the Change of Zone.
(Requires motion to deny Zone Change and direct Staff to prepare
appropriate Findings.)
3. Continue the request until the market study is available to better
evaluate the opportunity for and timing of hotel and related
development on this property. (Requires motion to continue to
specific date.)
t6�
fLS
tevens, AICT
Community Development Director
LLS: dmv
Atchs: 1. Letter from Applicant
2. Staff Report of 11/26/85
TIonms & GRAYsoN, INC.
Pos-r OFFICE Box 299
LA QI:IVTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
(619) 504-ee70 [December 20, 1985
Mr. Lawrence L. Stevens
Community Development Director R E C E AF E
City of La Quinta
P. O. Box 1504 DEC 271985
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mr. Stevens:
CITY OF LA UINTA
COMMUNITY DEVEL PMENT DEPT
Confirming your letter of December 17, 1985, on our Change of Zone
#85-o18, we are pleased to provide the following information on our
proposed Hotel project:
1. The necessary documents requested in your first point are to be
forthcoming prior to the December 31 deadline by Walling S McCallum
S Associates.
2. As to the timing of the development, it is our intention to proceed
directly with this project on an on -going basis, as we are looking to
bring this project to completion as quickly as is possible.
CABLES:
LAM sPEc,
LA QUINTA. CA
3. We are in preliminary negotiation with several developers, which
await a completed Study by Lavanthol E Horwath, who are working
on this Study at the present time. We may or may not end up doing
a joint venture but at the same time we may elect to develop the
project ourselves, and of course we would keep you informed as we
go forward as to which way the partnership elects to pursue this
question.
4. We have now completed financing for The Orchard project, with
a strong equity capitalization in excess of $8,000,000 paid -in
capital from our investors. We are in negotiation with several
lenders, including Prudential and Cigma, who have indicated
interest in a hotel project with not less than 300 rooms, to discuss
the Faracos project financing. We feel with the re -financing of
our own Orchard Project this year we are in a stronger position
to look at developing the Faracos property ourselves, and we feel
this will be enhanced after construction of The Orchard is completed.
We want to retain in any development in our City the same aesthetic
considerations and preservation of the trees that has been the
hallmark of The Orchard at La Quinta, and we feel the village
concept the now have for the Faracos property hotel project reflects
our standards. We think this will be a benefit to everyone, and
of course requires careful planning and financing to support this
quality style of development.
Page Two
Mr. Stevens
December 20, 1985
Please let us know if there is anything further you require or if we
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
MORRIS GRAYSON, Inc.
Lawrence A. Spector
President
For Rufus Associates
A California Limited Partnership
LAS:kmc
cc: John Walling
• I
I
1 will
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUANTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Men-bers of the Planning Commission
From: Catmunity Development Department
Date: November 26, 1985
Subject: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 85-OIS
Location: Southwest Corner of Jefferson Street and Avenue 50
Applicant: Norris and Grayson, Inc./Rufus Associates
Request: Change of Zone from R-1-12,000 (One Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Feet
Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) to R-3 (General Residential) on a 40.2-Acre
Parcel.
1. General Plan
a. Site: Special Commercial
b. Surrounding Area: Special Cannercial to the south and west, Low Density
Residential (2-4 units Per Acre) to the north and west. Riverside County
Comprehensive General Plan designates the area to the east as Agricultural
Area. Riverside County's Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan designates
the area to the east as residential with .4 to 2 dwellings per acre and 1/2
to 2-1/2 acre minimum parcel size.
c. Streets: Jefferson Street - Major Arterial, 120-foot right-of-way;
Avenue 50 - Primary Arterial, 100-foot maximum width.
d. Community Facilities: Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street, Secondary Image
Corridors.
2. Zoning
a. Site: R-1-12,000 (One Family Dwellings, 12,000-Square-Feet Net Lot Area Per
Dwelling)
b. Surrounding Area: A-1-10, R-2, R-2-12,000, R-3/Specific Plan, C-P-S (see
attached exhibit).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is predominantly flat with three small sand dune
areas. The site is currently a producing citrus orchard. There is an existing
house with farm outbuildings located at the southeast corner of the property.
The properties to the north, south and west are also citrus orchards; the land
to the east is in agricultural and rural residential uses with the average parcel
size being larger than five acres.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 2.
Regarding public facilities and utilities, Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street are
both existing two-lane, paved roads. Neither water nor sewer service is available
at the site; both facilities are located at Washington Street and Avenue 50 and
Coachella Valley Water District has stated that there is adequate capacity to
serve this site. Electric distribution lines exist along the north side of
Avenue 50, the west side of Jefferson Street and the west side of the site.
Telephone lines are located along the south side of Avenue 50. A natural gas
transmission line is along the west side of Jefferson Street.
4. Environmental Assessment: An initial environmental study of the project was
prepared by Staff and it was determined tentatively that the project will not have
a significant adverse impact on the environment. Approval of this zone change
request and the ultimate development of the site will result in a decrease in
agricultural land in production. However, the Applicant has stated that, as with
the adjacent proposed hotel site, a substantial majority of the existing orchard
will be retained and remain in production. Review of future land division or
development plans will include consideration of the design with respect to the
preservation and protection of the trees and other environmental concerns.
The project site is located within the La Quinta Redevelopment Project No. 1 area
for which an EIR was prepared and certified. In addition, the proposed Special
Commercial type of development was addressed within the MEA/EIR prepared on the
adopted La Quinta General Plan.
5. Project Description: The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from R-1-12,000
to R-3 (General Residential) to allow future development of a resort hotel on the
40-acre site. No development plans have been submitted on the proposed future
hotel.
In addition to hotels, the requested R-3 Zoning would also allow office cormiercial.
6. Comments from Public Agencies:
a. City Engineer: Applicant shall ccnply with all requirements of the City
Engineer at the time of development, including but not limited to:
(1) Dedications; (2) Construction of Public Facilities, Including
Streets, Storm Drains, Etc.; (3) Preparation of Necessary Improvements
and Grading Plans; (4) Compliance with the Ia Quinta Building, Subdivision,
Grading, Etc., Codes.
b. City Fire Marshal: No comment on the zone change request. Specific recommen-
dations will be made at the time that development is proposed.
c. Coachella Valley Water District: The site is considered safe from stormwater
flows except in rare instances and therefore has been designated Zone C on
Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Domestic water and sanitation service
will be provided to the site in accordance with district regulations.
Additional domestic water pipelines will have to be installed by the subdivider
in order for the District to provide service to all the parcels.
d. La Quinta Chamber of Commerce: No comment at this time.
e. Southern California Gas Company: No comment at this tine.
f. Comments were requested, but not received from Inperial Irrigation District.
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 3.
7. Comments From the Public:
No letters have been received in either support or opposition to the proposed
zone change.
8. Prior Actions:
a. On February 5, 1985, the City Council approved Change of Zone No. 84-013 on
the subject site from A-1-10 (Light Agriculture - 10-Acre Minimum Parcel Size)
to R-1-12,000, the current zoning. No development plans were submitted in
conjunction with this change of zone.
b. General Plan Amendment No. 85-008 was submitted concurrently with Change of
Zone No. 85-018 requesting an amendment in the Land Use Plan from Very Low
Density Residential to General Commercial in order to allow construction of
a hotel. This application has been withdrawn since the new General Plan
designates the subject property as Special Commercial.
c. On February 7, 1984, the City Council approved Change of Zone No. 83-005 from
A-1-10 (Light Agriculture, 10-Acre Minimum Parcel Size) to R-2-12,000 (Multiple
Family Residential, 12,000-Square-Feet Net Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit) and
R-3/SP (General Residential, Specific Plan Required). In conjunction with
this zone change, the City Council also approved Specific Plan No. 83-003
for a resort hotel on 30 acres. (The Applicant submitted an amendment to this
Specific Plan and a Change of Zone on November 19, 1985.)
d. On July 3, 1984, the City Council approved Change of Zone No. 84-011 from
A-1-10 to R-2-12,000 on the 80 acres located adjacent to the west boundary
of the above mentioned hotel site.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Background
This application is the second request for a rezoning of this 40-acre parcel and is
also one of four applications which have been filed on the Applicant's property in
the area. The Applicant's land holdings include the four 40±-acre parcels extending
along the south side of Avenue 50 between Adams Street alignment and Jefferson Street.
The reason for this zoning request is that the Applicant wants his property rezoned
to a classification which allows hotel development. No development plans have been
submitted for the site, nor has the Applicant informed Staff of any comnitment by
themselves or another developer to construct a hotel within the near future.
General Plan and City Policies
The recent redesignation of the site from Very low Density Residential to Special
Commercial permits hotel and accessory tourist commercial development to occur without
time constraints along Jefferson Street. Retail and office cam:ercial, also permitted
uses in the Special Commercial, will be allowed ultimately after the initial priority
of encouraging new ccnTmrcial development in the Village Area is satisfied.
The General Plan implementation policies state that hotels and related tourist oriented
uses shall be allowed at any time in the Special Commercial area. However, policy 6.20
also states the following requirement:
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COdAIISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 4.
"Prior to obtaining development approval and zoning, it shall be the
responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that a committed user
and construction funding are available."
This General Plan policy is consistent with the City's past unwritten policy of tying
rezoning requests to development proposals. The purpose of this approach is to mini-
mize rezoning for purely speculative purposes and to prevent the premature rezoning
of land to more intensive urban uses than is appropriate under current conditions.
Consistency of Request with General Plan
As currently submitted, the Applicant's request is not consistent with the above
mentioned General Plan policy for Special Commercial which requires demonstration of
a committed user and construction funding.
Since the General Plan was only recently adopted, it would be appropriate to continue
consideration of this change of zone request to allow the Applicant adequate time to
provide the necessary information.
Appropriateness of Requested Zoning
In light of the recent change in the General Plan designation for the site from Very
Low Density Residential to Special Commercial, a zoning designation other than the
R-3 Zone requested by the Applicant may be more appropriate. The R-3 (General
Residential) allows residential uses such as apartments which are not permitted under
the new General Plan designation. Also, this zone allows office comercial which,
although ultimately allowed within the Special Commercial area, is not permitted at
the present time.
Staff recommends that the Applicant amend his zoning request from R-3 to C-T (Tourist
Commercial). Although not the ideal zoning, it is the only zoning currently available
which limits uses to tourist -related commercial. Therefore, the recommended C-T Zone
best describes those uses which are permitted to be developed within the Special
Commercial designation at the present time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recom ends continuance of Change of Zone No.
85-018 to January 14, 1985, to allow the Applicant additional time to provide informa-
tion demonstrating that a committed user and construction funding are available.
Staff also recommends that the Applicant be requested to amend the application from
a request from R-1-12,000 to R-3, to a request from R-1-12,000 to C-T (Tourist Comescial).
ZSandrGa L. onn' er.
Principal Planner
- �I
Atchs: 1. Exhibit "A"
2. Excerpt -General Plan
3. C-T and R-3 Zone Requirements
APPROVED B
A— / //-�—
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
E
y�Oecla� �iys•nCltiA/ ' �� Crn 6a i�ptc'^%t//n �uwf
R1onq�
%, TI-A4 JoaJAct
Goff;.Ivr w;ll crex- . dBMC 04fr rnal
7.W fQr)'7m r'c,'^/ velar. 1460c"""l '"'We
veal-j- vYom now a''+/ tr'nca or-;W' 5
C/RL �on 7+✓ G ev7e"C rA:r-1 ofr/vY%.9Mf.
Af- V'Jwge are°`/
a Sp�.A/ JWMMC/1Giw-/ �9'+0+ V/JG
cit7� or �i 44 btt11n prc� 4Kc�. Jt
in�[n c�ccl V�n m OLk 14 a AD.,.)
PC✓e%Mtn �t not vnfi ° ce
Pam;or/.f .Cj Crn 6e soa:rkccl.
//�rDvS�'sn /liar beta made, A aMow
7pVIi It ?RG• �'e.f 4VA at AD.&I
11
K �aJri►ntJ w a ccc jvT Ace '"'es
TD OCC✓r Wr
.Aovt 7kme c0n.r1*-"2 f3
dvc A Aeirrwt P%iir)wPAere 6t�
Ae C 41
/MP / o kc�
you c y (0.18 Pk/aR/T':l J!f/iL L 66 61VCAI 7D
ENGov/QA67/1V6 Oci&- MC107 OF
4MMCI'tL11TL P/LOJEC%J /N 7ME
VlaAGE Al2�ry kJ9r?/�R %/9N
oN %)fE 1�Pr�ji.roN s7jZ� Cd+/i/Oai't
4'cc&7- 7N, r NoTU r .,wo
% ELA'� 7avlu-r7
S/-1114, gLc Atzoweo 'IT J TIME
bc-vFmpHu /,nl 7"C- SPEci/Yt
CoN1M,Acll C. 4"wo drE oq oRY
d7119i4- 77* r f1oF4v
/V1.oA{q=r FXA-r7S pVlftlV A O.V&-
i-e as o. klla.
M/c/%L )1vC PR�wz 7a TAvt7ipN
�vnaaci
AFlZP77'Y/L BR 019 45:
Rxrc� 6.20 / /oR 7D oBT.4iN/NG ccwEzo
AMP�Jj
74Mj/V6/T s7�.frG
�E 7rrE �c7PoNsi,Blct�y OF %?�
'OF✓ 7a �k`+�')oNJ 72.1rE 77s.4i
A COMMl7TE0 US�2 �yv0
C"'I'7J2VC77gN FIaIVA(NG
0
ARTICLE IXa
C-T ZONE (TOURIST COMMERCIAL)
SECTION 9.25. USES PERMITTED, The following uses are permitted
provided approval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.30 of this Ordinance.
(1) Automobile service stations, truck service stations.
(2) Automobile sales, truck sales, new and used.
(3) Restaurants, drive-in restaurants, bars.
(4) Curio shops, gift shops.
(5) Signs, on -site advertising.
(6) Hotels, motels.
SECTION 9.26. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following shall be
the standards of development in the C-T Zone, unless a lot is to be
developed to a hotel or motel use. If a lot is to be developed to a hotel
or motel use, it shall meet all the requirements of Section 8.2 of this
Ordinance (R-3 Zone).
(a) The minimum lot area shall be 10,000 square feet, unless a
different minimum is specifically required in a particular area.
More than one use shall be permitted on a lot.
(b) If a lot adjoins a lot zoned C-T, C-1, C-P, C-P-S, M-1,
M-2 , or M-4, there is no side or rear yard requirement for
buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in height, but there
shall be a minimum 10 foot front yard setback. For all
other lots, the minimum front, side and rear yards shall
be 10 feet for buildings which do not exceed 35 feet in
height. On all lots, any portion of a building which ex-
ceeds 35 feet in height shall be set back from the front,
rear and side lot lines not less than 2 feet for each foot
by which the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback
shall be measured from the existing street line or the future
street line as shown on an adopted specific plan for the
10-2-75 49
street. The rear setback shall be measured from the rear
lot line or any recorded alley or easement unless the rear
line adjoins a street in which case it shall be measured
as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall
be measured from the side lot line or from the existing
street line or any future street line as shown on an adopted
specific plan for the street.
(c) All buildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet in
height, unless a height up to 75 feet is specifically per-
mitted under the provisions of Section 18.34 of this
ordinance.
(d) (Deleted)
(e) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required
by Section 18.12 of this Ordinance. Not less than five
percent of the parking area shall be landscaped. No
planting area shall be less than five feet wide at any point.
(f) Trash areas shall be screened with an opaque six-foot high
fence or wall and shall have an opaque gate.
Adopted Effective: September 22, 1960
Amended Effective: July 9, 1969
May 4, 1972
September 13, 1973
October 2, 1975
December 10, 1975
( Ord . 348.635)
(Ord. 348.1023)
(Ord. 348.1201)
(Ord. 348.1469)
(Ord. 348.1481)
12-10-75 50
ARTICLE VIII
R-3 ZONE (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL)
The following regulations shall apply in all R-3 Zones:
SECTION
8.1. USES PERMITTED.
(a)
The following uses shall be permitted provided ap-
proval of a plot plan shall first have been obtained
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30:
(1) Any use permitted in the R-2 Zone.
(2) Apartment houses.
(3) Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls.
(4) Fraternity and sorority houses.
(5) Hotels, resort hotels, and motels.
{6) Nursery schools for pre-school day care.
(7) Institutions for the aged licensed by the Cali-
fornia State Department of Social Welfare or the
County Department of Public Welfare.
(8) Medical and dental offices.
(9) Chiropractic offices.
(10) Law offices.
(11) Architectural, engineering, and community plan-
ning offices; provided there is no outdoor
storage of materials, equipment, or vehicles,
other than passenger cars.
(12) Real Estate offices.
(b)
Accessory buildings, to a specific permitted use, pro-
vided that the accessory building is established as
an incident to a principal use and does not change
the character of that use.
(c)
On -site signs, affixed to building walls, stating the
name of the structure, use, or institution, not to
exceed 5 percent of the surface area of the exterior
face of the wall upon which the sign is located.
(d)
The following uses shall be permitted provided a
conditional use permit is obtained pursuant to this
ordinance:
(1) Deleted.
(2) Deleted.
(3) Parking areas for commercial uses.
(4) Evening nursery school, child care and baby-
sitting facilities, where 5 or more unrelated
children are kept under supervision by a person
licensed by the State Department of Social
Welfare or Riverside County Department of
Public Welfare during any hours between 5 p.m.
and 8 a.m.
(e)
Planned residential developments, provided a land
division is approved pursuant to the provisions of
Ordinance No. 460 and the development standards in
Section 18.5 of this ordinance.
27
3-16-82
E
SECTION 8.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards
of development shall apply in the R-3 Zone, except that planned
residential develo ents shall comply with the development standards
contained in Sectio 18.5 of this ordinance.
(a) The inimum lot area shall be 7200 square feet with
a mi imum average width of 60 feet and a minimum
aver ge depth of 100 feet, unless different minimums
are pecifically required in a particular area.
(b) The inimum front and rear yards shall be 10 feet for
buil ings that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any
portion of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height
shall be set back from the front and rear lot lines
not less than 10 feet plus 2 feet for each foot by
whici the height exceeds 35 feet. The front setback
shalL be measured from any existing or future street
line as shown on any specific street plan of the
Coun y. The rear setback shall be measured from the
exis ing rear.lot line or from any recorded alley or
eas ent; if the rear line adjoins a street, the
rear setback requirement shall be the same as
requ red for a front setback.
(c) The minimum side yard shall be 5 feet for buildings
that do not exceed 35 feet in height. Any portion
of a building which exceeds 35 feet in height shall
be set back from each side lot line 5 feet plus
2 feet for each foot by which the height exceeds
35 feet; if the side yard adjoins a street, the side
setback requirement shall be the same as required for
a fr nt setback.
(d) No 1 t shall have more than 50 percent of its net
area covered with buildings or structures.
(e) The aximum ratio of floor area to lot area shall
not a greater than two to one, not including base-
ment floor area.
(f) All uildings and structures shall not exceed 50 feet
in h ight, unless a height up to 75 feet is speci-
fica ly permitted under the provisions of Section
18.31 of this ordinance.
(g) Dele ed.
(h) Automobile storage space shall be provided as
required by Section 18.12 of this ordinance.
l 28
3-16-82
JLV 0 0-- 0-: � �o 01 —.W
N
Al. 00.03'00"b✓. /2.R299
s�n�o
ry�h
Aaro
v�
0
N 00.09'37"W.
sZ%moo r r
yZ
o•\
y �
9 r;�u•'10
y�p,
IN
N.00.06'/2"IJ. /3/p 32
(N. 00.03'35"W. 2l022627.45
7.33' PE.2 OM. //L/GEJ O O1'1 Z
IEFFE2 S�itJ .STeig, ET 700
@nri ci
0 omo3y A
N �orv�
0° J
RE: /1_-
T.7
ITEM NO.
DATE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
2 ie'l2cl85
MOTION BY: BRA M DE GASPERIN MDRAN PTALLING THORNBURGH
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MDRANCF�i,LING THORNBURGH
DISCUSSION: ���-
ROLL CALL VOTE:
NCO? IISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
BRANDT -
DE GASPERIN -
MORAN -
4FOLLING -
THUMURGH -
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
0
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
December 10, 1985 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.;
he called upon Commissioner Brandt 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 Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens,
Principal Planner Sandra L. Bonner, and Secretary Donna M. Velotta.
3. HEARINGS
HNNkW `184M : 2�n..
A. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Conmissioner Moran, to approve
the minutes from the regular meeting of October 22, 1985.
The minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 1985 were approved as
submitted. Unanimously Adopted.
5. BUSINESS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first two items of business as follows:
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.
B. PLOT PLAN N0. 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.
He then called for the Staff Reports.
1. Director Stevens informed the Ccrmission that these were Earle Krepelin
houses although they were submitted under the names of the property owners.
The houses are similar to those plans previously reviewed and approved at
prior meetings by Mr. Krepelin. These two houses are to be built on five
contiguous lots, so we have a basic concern of doing design variations.
The remaining requirements are the standard conditions attached to each
Staff Report. Staff recommends approval of Plot Plans Nos. 85-213 and
85-214 as outlined in the reports.
There being no questions of Staff, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran to
approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-213 and 85-214 in accordance with Exhibits A, B,
and C, and subject to attached conditions of approval. Unaniumusly Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the 14 items of business to be heard concurrently
as follows:
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.
D. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-222, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the
east side of Avenida Carranza, 100' south of Calle Monterey; H&S Management Corp.,
Applicant.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
December 10, 1985
Page 2.
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.
F. PLOT PIAN 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.
G. PLOT PLAN NO. 85-225, a request to construct a single-family dwelling at the
southwest corner of Eisenhower Drive and Calle Durango; H&S Management Corp.,
Applicant.
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.
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.
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.
K. PLAT 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.
L. PLAT 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.
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.
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.
0. 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.
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 Colima; Paul Lieb, Applicant.
Chain Thornburgh called for the Staff Reports.
1. Director Stevens informed the Commission mission that there are 14 single-family
dwelling applications; 5 under the name of H&S Management, 4 under the
name of Jerico Construction, and 5 under the names of Paul Lieb. They
are fairly scattered throughout the Cove. The plans have had a number of
design changes before they were presented to the Commission. All 14 plans
are basically the same with little variations, based on the site conditions.
Director Stevens advised that Staff essentially recommends approval of these
14 houses; Staff has, however, noted in a number of the reports, based upon
the type and style of houses in the particular location of that house, that
tile roofs would be more appropriate than composition roofs. This was not
requested in all of the reports, as Staff felt in some areas there was
clearly a predication toward composition roofs, so there was no reason for
requiring a change. In some areas where Staff requested tile roofs there
is virtually no development, so it was felt that was the trend to encourage
there. The reports with required changes are as follows:
° Item 5.D. - Plot Plan No. 85-222 - Report requested tile roof
and should not have.
° Item 5.G. - Plot Plan No. 85-225 - Report did not request tile
roof and should have.
° Item 5.0. - Plot Plan No. 85-233 - Report did not request tile
roof and should have.
° Item 5.P. - Plot Plan No. 85-234 - Report did not request file
roof and should have.
MINUTES - PIANNING COMMISSION
December 10, 1985
Page 3.
Director Stevens advised that the remaining conditions being required are
the standard required on all single-family dwellings. He noted that this
concluded Staff's comments.
Chairman Thornburgh asked the Applicant if he had any comments to make.
Mike Rowan (Applicants' representative), 145-B W. Whiting Street, Fullerton,
California, stated the only argument they had was with regard to the tile
roof requirements due to the cost consideration. He stated, however, that
if the Commission is requiring that tile roofs be used, then they would put
tile on all of the homes. He also made note of a statement in the Staff
Report requesting that the garage be offset an additional 5 feet to make the
house look wider.
Director Stevens responded that the statement about the garage was just a
suggestion and not a condition or requirement.
Mr. Rowan went on to state that they have 3 different roof designs for these
units and where there are 2 hones together, the plans have been reversed.
Chairman Thornburgh asked for convents from the Commission.
Commissioners Moran and Brandt had concerns regarding this request with
regard to the units being a minimal house and the planned use as rentals.
They felt that there is a difference between the way a house is kept when
it is a rental and when it is not a rental. They felt that the reason the
City adopted the 5-unit limit was to prevent speculators and/or rentals being
built with the possibility of being abandoned and taken over by the bank.
Connissioner Moran stated she did not feel comfortable approving this request.
Commissioner Brandt felt that these units are not consistent with the trend
of units we have been approving in the Cove area. She felt that, if anything,
we have been trying to upgrade the area, as we do have plenty of housing that
is not aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Brandt felt that the Cove is a
unique area with a variety of homes and felt we should continue with the trend
of units that have been approved in the past, and that these units would not
enhance the neighborhood.
At this time, Mr. Rowan displayed a rendering of the three different roof
designs for the Commission to see.
Commissioner Brandt further stated concerns for the upkeep and maintenance
of the landscaping of the proposed rental units.
Mr. Rowan advised that the Applicants do have a landscaping maintenance
service in mind to provide this service to these hones.
Director Stevens stated that the application states that these homes are
being provided as rentals, but obviously that does not mean that they cannot
be sold. If you are concerned that they would remain as rentals and would
have a maintenance problem, in general, they are responsible for maintaining
the landscaping because of conditions in our Municipal Ordinance. Staff does
not go out and periodically check this, but we could verify, at the time of
final, that if the units were being occupied as a rental instead of by an
owner, that there was some agreement relative to continuing maintenance of
the landscaping. Director Stevens felt it would be difficult to impose more
restrictive requirements on a house.
Commissioner Moran felt a concern that 14 hones, of basically the same plan,
are to be constructed by a developer who has not built in our community
previously.
There was further discussion of care of landscaping with regard to desert
heat and need for daily watering of grass, plants, etc. There would seem to
be a need for an automatic sprinkler system, especially if these units are
indeed used as rentals. There was also some discussion regarding the need
of more design details being used on the outside of these units.
MINUTES - PLANNING CCHMISSION
December 10, 1985
Page 4.
Discussion ended, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Champ Thornburgh made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walling, to
approve Plot Plan Nos. 85-221, 85-222, 85-223, 85-224, 85-225, 85-226,
85-227, 85-228, 85-229, 85-230, 85-231, 85-232, 85-233 and 85-234 in
accordance with Exhibits A, B and C for each plan and subject to the
conditions of approval, as amended, attached to each plot plan.
Chairman Thornburgh called for a Roll Call Vote which resulted as follows:
Commissioner Brandt - Aye
Commissioner De Gasperin - Aye
Commissioner Moran - No
Commissioner Walling - Aye
Chairman Thornburgh - Aye
Director Stevens advised the Commission that Staff would report back to the
Commission at the next Study Session with regard to any changes presented to
Staff by the Applicant with regard to this matter.
Chairman Thornburgh introducted the next item of business as follows:
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 Campagna,
Applicant. He then called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens advised the Commission that there were no major problems
with Mr. Campagna's house plans. There were a couple of minor concerns;
one being the relative dimension in the garage and some basic clarification
relative to a guest roan as it related to a granny housing type of an issue
so there are no misunderstandings. Staff recommends approval subject to
conditions in the Staff Report. This ended Staff's cammrents.
There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called
for a motion.
2. Commissioner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner De Gasperin, to
approve Plot Plan No. 85-236 in accordance with Exhibits A through E, and
subject to conditions of approval. Unanimously Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the last three items of business as follows:
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.
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.
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.
Chairman Thornburgh called for the Staff Reports.
1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that basically, these three houses
are consistent with the requirements of the R-1 Zone and the goals and
objectives of the La Quinta General Plan, the building designs are compatible
with area development and the projects will not have a significant impact on
the environment. He noted that the two houses being built by Mr. Howard are
located in the Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat and therefore the fees must be paid
in that regard.
There was a short discussion regarding the house plan submitted by A.C. Hipp
with regard to the lack of design on the garage door. It was felt that the
Applicant should be required to remedy that concern. The Commission also
complimented the house plans presented by Mr. Howard.
MINUTES - PLANNING CCHY1ISSION
December 10, 1985
Page 5.
There being no further questions or discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for
a motion.
2. Commmissicner Brandt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to approve
Plot Plans Nos. 85-238, 85-239 and 85-240 in accordance with Exhibits A, B
and C and subject to conditions, as amended, in the Staff Reports. Unanimously
Adopted.
There being no further items of Agenda to cane before the Planning Commission this
date, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn to a Study Session.
Cormissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to adjourn
to a Study Session this date. Unanimously Adopted.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
was adjourned to a Study Session at 7:55 p.m., December 10, 1985, in La Qmunta City
Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quintal California.
Due to the holidays, the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
which would fall on December 24, 1985, has been cancelled. The next meeting of the
Planning Camtisssion will be January 14, 1986.
I
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.
November 26, 1985 7:00 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Thornburgh called the Planning Coinnission meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. He then called upon Cammissioner Walling 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 was Community Development Director Lawrence L. Stevens, Principal
Planner Sandra L. Bonner and Secretary Donna M. Velotta.
3. HEARINGS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the first hearing item as follows:
A. Tentative Tract Map No. 21120 ("Santa Rosa Cove"), a request to divide 14±
acres north of Avenida Fernando, within Santa Rosa Cove, approximately 3600
feet west of Eisenhower Drive at Avenue 50, into 37 lots for custom, single-
family housing; Anden Corporation, Applicant. He then called for the Staff
Report.
1. Director Stevens advised that this is a request by Anden Corporation to
divide 14 acres into 37 lots for the purpose of constructing custom,
single-family houses. This property is located within Specific Plan 121-E
(La Quinta Cove Golf Club) which was approved by the County a number of
years ago. It is in essence a resubdivision of an area previously desig-
nated for condos typical of those constructed within the Santa Rosa Cove
project. The approved density under the tentative tract that inplenented
this particular portion of the property is 5.09 dwellings per acre. In
this case, the proposal would reduce this density down to 2.51 dwellings
per acre. The design of the project was referred to on a rendering by
Director Stevens who explained that this is a cul-de-sac extension of some
existing improvements. A series of lots are proposed generally between
11 and 12,000 square feet in size and it would be intended that individual
purchasers of the lots would then approach the Homeowners Association and
then the City with their plans for approval to build custom homes on the
lots. Director Stevens stated that Staff has reviewed the proposal with
the affected public agencies and their comments have been incorporated
into the Staff Report. It is Staff's judgment that the proposal is con-
sistent with the previously approved Specific Plan and that it otherwise
complies with applicable zoning regulations and with the requirements of
the Subdivision Map Act. Based upon the findings in the Staff Report,
Staff recommends that the Commission approve Tentative Tract Map 21120
subject to the 25 conditions contained in the Staff Report, most of which
are relatively standardized. Director Stevens directed the Planning
Commission's attention to Staff's suggestion that there be an Architectural
Review Committee, if one is not currently established within the CC&R's.
He advised that this is being added because Staff is not certain of one's
existence, although we know that there is a Haneowner's Association. He
stated that this concluded the Staff Report.
Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions of Staff. There being none,
he opened the hearing for public comment at 7:05 p.m.
Mike Smith, 78-760 Runaway Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, representative of the
Applicant, stated the Applicant and he had reviewed the conditions of
approval and found no problem with any of then.,
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 2.
There being no other public cam Tents, Chairman Thornburgh closed the
public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
There being no questions or discussion from the Commission, Chairman
Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Commissioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to
approve Tentative Tract Map No. 21120 based on the findings in the Staff
Report in accordance with Exhibit A and subject to attached conditions.
Unanimously Adopted.
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the next item of hearing as follows:
B. Change of Zone No. 85-010, a request for a zone change from R-1-12,000 (One
Family Dwellings, 12,000 Square Foot Net Lot Area Per Dwelling) to R-3 (General
Residential) on a 40.2-acre site; Morris and Grayson/Rufus Associates; Applicants.
He called for the Staff Report.
At this time, Commissioner Walling informed those present that he has a business
relationship with the Applicant in this matter so therefore must exclude himself
fray the discussion and ruling of the request.
1. Director Stevens informed the Commission that this is a request filed by
Norris and Grayson/Rufus Associates requesting a change of zone on a 40-acre
parcel located on the southwest corner of Jefferson and Avenue 50. Several
of the Commissioners may recall that almost a year ago they considered a
zone change on this property from A-1-10 to R-1-12,000 and that request was
approved, based upon the General Plan and densities in effect at the time.
In this case, the Applicant is requesting a change to R-3, although in
discussion at the Study Session, the Applicant indicated they would be
willing to change that request to C-T rather than R-3. Director Stevens
addressed the fact that this site had been the subject of some discussion
throughout the General Plan process and is included within the area designated
in the new General Plan as Special Commercial. The Special Commercial cate-
gory was basiclly intended to facilitate sore hotel and/or recreation
development, essentially when it was determined that there was a committed
user and developer for a project and would also allow some office and retail
commercial uses, with the understanding that our initial priorities related
to development of the Village area as opposed to the Jefferson area for
those types of uses. The site is undeveloped, it is immediately east of the
30-acre site designated for The orchard at La Quinta project, which is a
much lower density hotel/spa resort activity. Director Stevens noted that
it is Staff's understanding, based upon discussions with the Applicant, that
their intention is to develop a 300-roan hotel with related accessory
facilities on this 40-acre site and that is the purpose for which they are
requesting the zoning. At this time, there have been no development plans
submitted, although effort has been made to prepare at least some preliminary
plans relative to the development of the site. In reviewing the request, it
is clear to Staff that the General Plan intends to accommodate this type of
use and intends to accc modate change of zoning from R-1-12,000 to an
appropriate zone.
Director Stevens stated he believes there is sane question, particularly
in light of Policy 6.20 in the General Plan, as to whether or not this is
the time to grant that zoning. Policy 6.20 states, "Prior to obtaining
development approval and zoning, it shall be the responsibility of the
developer to demonstrate that a committed user and construction funding
are available". The text of this policy was not available to the Applicant
at the time of submittal of this application, but Director Stevens stated
he believed that it is still appropriate for the Commission and subsequent
Council consideration relative to this request. Staff's concern is that the
request is simply premature until we get more information about the
committed user and about the imminence of construction as it relates to the
availability of funding. For that reason, it is Staff's recanrendation
that this matter be continued to allow the Applicant additional time to get
this information together for our consideration. Director Stevens stated
that Staff is requesting continuance to the January 14, 1986 meeting.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 3.
Staff has also suggested that C-T Zoning could be more appropriate than
R-3. Previously, we used the R-3 Zoning for "The orchard" site because
we did not want to use a commercial zone since the General Plan was
residential in nature. Now that the General Plan is Special Commercial,
we should use a more appropriate commercial designation, such as C-T,
which would generally permit most of the uses being proposed. There may
be sere office and related facilities, which could not strictly fall within
the C-T Zone, but they may end up being part of a phase program, etc.
Right now, however, Director Stevens advised that C-T is the best zoning
we have available, based on our understanding of the basic nature of the
development. He went on to state again that it would be Staff's reccmnenda-
tion to continue this matter to allow the Applicant to put together additional
information to respond to the concern of prematurity. He noted that this
concluded the Staff Report.
As the Crnmission had no questions of Staff at this time, Chairman
Thornburgh opened the hearing to public comment at 7:15 p.m.
Lawrence Spector, P. 0. Box 867, La Quinta, CA, Applicant, advised the
Planning Cam ission that they are in agreement with the C-T Zoning over
the R-3. He noted that the situation being addressed by then at this time
really relates to the question of timing. In the Staff recanmendation,
the question is one of prematurity and available funding with a committed
user sufficient to this purpose. He informed the Conmission that their
response to this is that they feel this is the appropriate time for them
to get the zoning for the hotel. He went on to say that they are not in
La Quinta to be land speculators; they have an ongoing project which has
been ongoing for quite some time. He felt there was some question as to
whether they had just quickly developed some plans in the last few weeks
and advised that statement is incorrect. They have been working on this
project since March and they do have a committed user and have really been
wrestling with the question of funding. He stated they simply are not
strong enough to finance the preliminary expenses of this project without
a commitment fran a user and advised that their reality is those joint
venture developers with then need to know that they have the zoning for
the hotel pinned down before they will finance or begin to finance enormous
costs. Mr. Spector stated they were astonished at the costs of developing
plans for The orchard, which they had financed before successfully getting
the zoning they requested.
Mr. Spector stated that they are taking note of the fact that they are
really the only other people within that Special or Tourist Commercial
Zoning, other than neighboring Landmark, who have been granted that zoning,
so they don't really see it as a precedent and they do not see it as a loss
of control by the Planning Commission because they will be caning back with
a Specific Plan for review and approval. He directed the amnission's
attention to the wall rendering of the proposed use, a 300-roan hotel, and
advised that they are not displaying nor are they approaching at this time,
the intended commercial use. It is the hotel that they are seeking zoning
for. Mr. Spector stated that they do have a plan developed and they find
that this cart or the horse problem of which comes first, the zoning or
the putting in position of their people and venture capital, they have found
that they need to be able to say to their co -venture partner, we have the
zoning in hand, we have the General Plan in hand, we have the specific zoning
in hand, so we now come before you for the Specific Plan approval. He went
on to state that the City's 8% on this represents, at a reasonable occupancy,
$980,000 in tax base. Mr. Spector reiterated that they do not see the
Planning Commission losing control and they see the Specific Plan protected.
In conclusion, he stated that for then it is not premature at all, it is a
matter of being able to move forward.
There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the
public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
MIN[TPFS - PLANNING COMIIIISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 4.
Chairman Thornburgh conuented that he felt this request is a proper use for
the requested zoning. It is not a proper use for the R-1-12,000 zoning we
approved previously and he stated he would hate to see it developed into
one -acre parcels. Chairman 'Thornburgh felt that the hotel would be a proper
use at this time; he noted that we are zoning the property and to his
recollection, the only other time we got into this was concerning having a
valid tenant or financial feasibility study and somebody as a tenant would
be under the Special Comreroial.
Director Stevens responded by noting that in trying to assess those policies
for the Special Commercial land use category, there is no question that the
hotel and related uses are appropriate at any time without benefit of
supportive market analysis. He believes that was clearly oriented toward
the retail/office uses. Director Stevens stated he believes the concern
that Staff is trying to convey is that maybe we need a little more informa-
tion before we grant this zoning. He reminded the Commission that they had
a debate on this property when the R-1-12,000 was requested, in that they
felt they really needed a development plan or a preliminary development plan
or more information. He advised the Commission that the plan (rendering) the
Applicant presented this evening was initially seen by Staff the day before.
He felt that sane of this type of information is really pertinent to the
Commission's consideration of the zoning. As an example, the zoning for The
orchard has been in place for three years and nothing has happened. Will
that be the same situation on this parcel? Director Stevens stated he felt
the General Plan gives potential financial supporters clear evidence that
the City would support camiercial, tourist, hotel type development on the
site and that we want to retain our zoning control and consider processing
zoning changes with development plan approvals rather than separately. If
you grant the zoning now, and he stated he was not saying this is the
Applicant's intention, but you have seen it with other applications that the
minute you grant the approval, the Applicant puts up a "For Sale" sign.
Director Stevens advised that Staff is looking for more of a cc mitment from
the Applicant in terms of what is going to be there and the nature of what
is going to be there before we grant the zoning.
Chaamman Thornburgh again reiterated his feelings that this corner should
be for a Tourist Co miercial type use and that this hotel should be built
here.
Commissioner Moran questioned Staff as to whether or not a development
agreement of sore sort would work in this situation.
Director Stevens responded that the problem you run into with that is what
you call conditional zoning which has generally been frowned upon by the
California courts. As Chairman Thornburgh indicated before, the zoning
is really based on the characteristics of the property, not who owns it.
Even if we had a development plan and we use that as criteria for granting
the zoning, that is not to say that the plan cannot change and the developer
cannot change, so that issue is still there.
Commissioner De Gasperin stated she tended to agree with Staff's recommenda-
tion that this matter be continued to January 14. Her reason is that the
property in question is vacant, undeveloped property and she preferred to
have a tighter control on how the City controls the development of that
property. This particular Applicant does have a small history of speculation
with regard to this corner. There is a history of a previous request for
zoning and apparently the Applicant was not able to follow through, for
whatever reasons. Commissioner De Gasperin went on to cannent that we have
now designated this corner Special Commercial, which should tell the financiers
in what direction the City is going, so that Mr. Spector should be able to
become more firm. She advised that she would like to know exactly what is
going to happen on this property to the extent that Mr. Spector can tell us
before we shift everything and call it a particularly zoned area, to avoid
losing control. To give Mr. Spector the benefit we can, she advised she
would prefer to see this request continued, so the Applicant can firm up his
plans before we camut ourselves to a zone change.
0
November • 985
Page 5.
Commissioner Moran commented that she is inclined to agree with Chairman
Thornburgh. She felt that in order for Mr. Spector to go to his lenders,
he will need to show the zoning for this property in order to get financing.
Ccnvdssioner Brandt advised that she would like to see more information
and therefore agreed with Staff's recommendation of continuance.
Chairman Thornburgh requested of the Commissioners what they felt the
Applicant should bring back to than at the January 14 meeting to justify
this request.
Commissioner De Gasperin stated she would like to have a feeling from
Mr. Spector of the direction he is going; what efforts he has made to get
financing, etc.
Chairman Thornburgh requested Director Stevens to clarify what the Applicant
should bring back to the Conmission.
Director Stevens responded by advising that the Applicant should at least
bring back a preliminary plan, so we can evaluate that and make some general
comments on a concept basis. The second thing he would expect is some
written description or material from the Applicant indicating who the
intended developer is (he noted that there was some discussion at the Study
Session that Norris and Grayson or Rufus Associates would be the developer)
and then he would look for additional information as to what financing
efforts, if any, have been sought.
There was further discussion regarding the zoning and then Chairman
Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Ccnrmmissioner De Gasperin made a motion to continue Change of Zone 85-010
to the January 14, 1986 meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the
Applicant additional time to provide information demonstrating that a
committed user and construction funding are available. Commissioner Brandt
seconded the motion. Unanimously Adopted with one abstention.
Chain»an Thornburgh introduced the last item of hearing as follows:
C. Plot Plan No. 85-217, a request for approval to construct an 88,575-square-foot
cammercial/office plan made up of four separate structures on 5.58 acres, in
conjunction with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan No. 83-001, Amendment No. 2;
Landmark Land Company, Applicant. He called for the Staff Report.
1. Director Stevens commented that he believed everyone was familiar with this
piece of property as the Commission had just recently finished processing a
Change of Zone, Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment on it, and it was
also the topic of considerable discussion during the course of the General
Plan process as to whether it should be included within the Village Commercial
area. At the end of the General Plan process, it was the consensus that it
should be included in that category. We granted C-P-S zoning to this area
in the interim to allow development of a Village Commercial Zone and the
Applicant has prepared a development plan to actually start construction on
the site. This development plan that is before you is actually a request to
construct office building #1 which is located in the northeast corner of the
site and for a general layout approval of the site. Subsequent plot plans
will be necessary for the remaining buildings and Director Stevens felt, when
the conditions of approval have been completed, that we will probably be
looking for sane additional modifications of the overall site plan itself
before we reach a final conclusion. He advised that this application was
structured this way for two basic reasons. First, we don't have any detailed
information on the other three buildings and that makes it difficult to grant
any approvals. Secondly, the Applicant has a very strong desire to begin
site development because of an agreement with the developer of the site prior
to January 1. So, by getting this building approval and general concept
approval of the site plan, Staff is confident that it will be enough of an
approval so they can begin the grading work prior to that deadline date.
This will necessitate, however, based on some of the issues raided in the
report and the conditions, a little give and take on both sides as we get
farther down into the detailed plans of the subsequent buildings.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 6.
Director Stevens advised that he felt it important for the Omission to
understand what they are approving, which is basically building #1 and a
basic concept of the site plan.
He went on to advise the Commission that Staff has sent the development
plan out on a relatively short notice to various agencies and their comments
are incorporated in the Staff Report and the conditions. Staff sees a number
of concerns with regard to this matter. Generally, it will fit into our
General Commercial concept. There are some detailed items relative to pedes-
trian access, etc., but he felt they were workable with the proposed site plan.
There are some concerns with buffering the residential area, but again he felt
this a soluble problem. Staff is a little concerned with the nature of
pedestrian orientation on the site - we have identified in the conditions of
approval some additional amenities felt to be appropriate which will probably
impact the parking area to some degree, but not significantly. Staff is not
overly concerned with building design, particularly as it relates to the
Village Commercial and the architectural work we are doing because we anti-
cipate several different architectural styles within the overall village
concept and this, in fact, is one that already exists. Director Stevens
stated that he felt we could work around landscaping and pedestrian and other
amenities that one would expect to use as our principal link for within the
village. We really are not being restricted by granting this approval with
regard to those issues.
Director Stevens went on to address one of Staff's major concerns which
relates to parking. He stated that Staff is concerned that the amount of
building square footage being proposed is excessive in light of what we
expect the parking demands on the site to be. For example, both of the
office buildings at the rear of the parcel are designated office/camiercial.
There can be considerable variation in what the requirements are based on
how much of that square footage is used for office versus how much is used
for comrercial. This really makes it pretty difficult without precise
information, particularly on the larger of the two buildings, to came to
real conclusions on parking. The restaurant parking is an additional example
based on the amount of serving area. There is a 7500-square-foot pad, but
we haven't the foggiest idea of how much serving area will ultimately end up
in the restaurant. Wat we are really saying is that there are some details
of those three additional buildings that we really need in order to give final
site plan approval and we may came down to approving the medical building,
which will probably be the next plot plan we'll see, and the restaurant, which
will probably be the third plot plan; and may have to limit the square footage
of building #4 based on the available number of parking spaces. There may be
some opportunities of joint use of parking, but Director Stevens felt we really
need to know more about the uses before we can evaluate that joint use oppor-
tunity. He advised that, at this point in time, we can give a concept approval,
but with the understanding that as we see future buildings and we start to tie
down the planning requirements more specifically, we may need to impose addi-
tional limitations; and the Applicant needs to be aware that, in fact, those
limitations may cause him to reduce the building area from what is shown. If
that becomes critical to their financing, that they need to be more specific
before they can get the level of commitment that we can give them under our
regulations. This is not a problem with the proposed building, as we can
find the number of parking spaces for it, but it could became an issue with
future buildings.
Director Stevens addressed another issue regarding circulation; basically,
what kind of access is appropriate for the property and what type if improve-
ments are appropriate. Calle Tampico has three different category designations
in the General Plan. One is Primary Arterial, which is a designation used for
many streets and basically establishes its width and whether or not a median
is required; second designation is Secondary Image Corridor, which means we'll
set sae more detailed landscaping standards relative to the type of materials,
etc., and the last designation is a Ceremonial Street, which would anticipate
additional standards relative to landscaping and related aesthetic type features.
These designations do not demand more road width or those types of things, but
would affect the design of the road and particularly the aesthetic character-
istics. Again, Director Stevens reiterated that Staff may have some detail
MINUTES - PLANNING COMNIISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 7.
disagreements with the Applicant, but he does not believe they are substantive
in light of building #1 requested. Staff does, however, suggest - because of
the nature of the street - that median openings should be limited. The
General Plan suggests, on Primary Arterials, that medians be sited at inter-
sections, and we would perceive a median opening as an intersection, should
be spaced at intervals of 1200 feet. The site is 600+ feet across, so Staff's
suggestion is that there be one median opening. We feel that we can anticipate
other users on the west side of Desert Club Drive, so the median should be at
Desert Club Drive and not at the project driveway entrance. This is one of the
issues that Staff and the Applicant do not agree upon, so we will leave the
decision to the Cartmission. Staff is recarmending that the two driveways on
each street be approved.
Director Stevens also addressed Staff's request that Desert Club Drive be
improved as a local street along the west side of the property and what we
envision, primarily because of the depth and amount of commercial property
on the north side of Tampico, that we will probably need some kind of a limited
collector road system within that area north of Tampico, so this is the
beginning of that. Vie are not certain as to the appropriate design since we
have no development proposals to the west, but we need to reserve that oppor-
tunity. Wp may decide, based on the phasing plan, not to construct that
improvement right away and see what happend with adjacent property.
Director Stevens advised the Applicant and the Commission that they were
given sane revised conditions based on additional discussion Staff had with
the Applicant's representative this date. A lot of the changes were editorial
in nature, sane were just coming to an agreement on common language. He
then briefly reviewed those changes.
Condition No. ll.a. was changed to note exact road width relative to Tampico
and Desert Club Drive.
Condition. No. 12.b. changed to show the requirement of a 20' landscaped
parkway along the frontage of the project on Calle Tampico. What that does
to the project is take out the first tier of parking or at least requires
substantial redesign relative to that front tier of parking. The Applicant
shows a three-foot setback and the landscaping is within the City's parkway.
That is a long way from what we anticipated in terms of the General Plan
issues and the appropriate designation along Calle Tampico. within that
Condition 12.b., you will probably hear a disagreement from the Applicant
regarding a meandering sidewalk.
The remaining issues relative to parking and landscaping are not major
concerns and generally reference existing regulations and set some standards
for parking lot landscaping. Director Stevens stated that from Staff's
perspective and based upon discussion with the Applicant this date, there
are only three issues:
1. Setback - whether it should be 20' or not.
2. Meandering sidewalk
3. Mether or not an additional median opening
on Calle Tampico should be permitted.
Based on the discussion at the Study Session, Director Stevens addressed an
additional concern from the Planning Commission. It relates to the design
and location of the covered parking, particularly the parking along the
Tampico frontage. The Commission expressed a concern of whether or not
that really created an appropriate visual environment along Calle Tampico
and whether or not it should be redesigned, deleted or something else. It
is possible because we are reserving some additional review of the site plan
that the issues related to that, particularly the setback, could be something
we could defer final amprovement on; for exarple, to the second building, and
let the Applicant start the project if we felt that issue warranted more
consideration or time before we reached a final conclusion.
In conclusion, Director Stevens stated that it is Staff's recarmendation that
the Commission approve the plot plan subject to the revised conditions sub-
mitted to then tonight.
MINUTES - PLANNING CCTMIISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 8.
Chairman Thornburgh asked for any questions of Staff.
Cormmissioner Brandt asked if Staff knew what improvements would be done in
conjunction with the first building.
Director Stevens responded that generally there would be a general site
grading, they would provide a minimum of 89 parking spaces and an access
directly to Tampico. ;H noted that , in fact, it may be the City's desire
that all of the improvements not be made because Staff is working on the
Village Specific Plan.
Commissioner Walling asked if signalling was anticipated between Washington
Street and Eisenhower on Tampico.
Director Stevens responded that no signalling was anticipated at the present
time, although ultimately we will probably have something at Tampico and
Bermudas.
Commissioner Walling asked if stop signs are anticipated.
Director Stevens replied that there probably would be a two-way stop sign
at Desert Club Drive.
After a discussion period, Chairman Thornburgh opened the hearing for public
comment at 8:30 p.m.
Kaye Chandler, P. 0. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA - representing Landmark as a
seller, representing Skip Fonner and his associates as a buyer, and repre-
senting Dixie Federal who are involved in approving a loan, and also
representing themselves as they will be occupying one of the buildings.
Mr. Chandler discussed the issue of parking explained earlier as a concern
of Staff. With regard to improvements to Desert Club Drive, he agreed with
Staff's request. On Staff's request for only one median cut on Tampico, he
did not feel he could agree. On the issue of the 20' setback on the Tampico
frontage, which would eliminate the covered parking proposed there currently,
Mr. Chandler felt if they did give it up, it could be moved elsewhere on the
site. He further felt that the 20' setback brings up the problem of going
back to try to maximize the site. Mr. Chandler stated that he always has a
problem with cities that say they want a 100' right-of-way or 120' right-of-way
so they design to that right-of-way and later find there are setbacks on top
of that. He suggested that in future, if the City wants a 100' right-of-way
for a street that is one thing, but if they want the setbacks on it, they
should call for 150' outright. This would make it a lot clearer to developers
and this issue would not be a concern at this point in the application process.
With regard to the 20' setback requirement, Mr. Chandler advised they must go
back to the buyer, Skip Fenner, and his associates, to see what that does to
his financial plan in reducing the building size. He addressed the issue of
pedestrian access stating they did not believe the central parking area in
this size of a project is really large enough to warrant installing pedestrian
sidewalks. He stated that the key matter is they need a ruling on this matter
tonight in order to go forward with the next step of going into a grading plan.
Part of their agreement with the group is that Landmark would produce buildable
pads on such and such a date. Obviously, they do not want to mass grade the
site and compact it, put utilities in and then find out that none of the
buildings in the front will work because of the way the parking lot is laid out.
So, when we say we are going to get a conceptual approval, we should all have
some understanding conceptually of what will change and what will not.
Bruce Cathcart, P. O. Box 346, La Quinta, spoke in behalf of the Applicant.
He informed the Commission that he could almost assure then that the medical
building, Landmark's building and probably the restaurant would all start
construction at the same time. He felt that the 20' setback would be an
issue, but stated what we are dealing with here is aesthetics and aesthetically,
he felt it important to consider the difference of 12' and 20' and the viability
of making this project work and go forward. Addressing the median requirement,
he felt it important that the project have access from both directions.
MINUTES - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 9.
Mike Smith, 78-760 Runaway Bay, Bermuda Dunes, CA, addressed Condition
No. 18.a., where it states the Applicant shall provide a 40' easement to
the district parallel to the west property line. He stated that exceeds
the right-of-way provided for Desert Club. (Mr. Stevens advised that this
is Condition 17.a. on the revised set of conditions.) Mr. Smith went on to
state that they would like to have the opportunity to negotiate with the
district on this matter, rather than having this condition direct them.
The 40' easement requirement extends into the parking lot area. The road
is only a 30'-wide dedication and probably 10' of that will be parkway.
Director Stevens advised that it would be agreeable with Staff to delete
the "40 1" notation in the condition, so the condition would just require
the Applicant to provide an easement to the district.
There being no further public comments, Chairman Thornburgh closed the
public hearing at 8:50 p.m.
Chairman Thornburgh requested Director Stevens to clarify exactly what the
Omission should rule on tonight and what could be attached to future
applications for the project.
Director Stevens advised the Commission they could procrastinate on the
covered parking issue and insert a condition that you want to review the
location and final design. On the setback, he felt the Commission should
cane up with a number or range of a number so they know what to design it
to, as that is critical to the building square footage and the design.
Regarding the median openings, he felt it could be deferred, but would
rather have a decision tonight. He also felt they should make a decision
on the meandering sidewalk, but noted that it is not a critical issue.
Comissioner Walling stated he felt it possible to move the parking tier,
proposed on Tampico, back to provide the 20' setback and with some minor
building changes, it should work without losing the parking spaces.
Commissioner Moran felt that the setback is a major issue as Tampico is
the entrance into the Village area. She suggested a meandering setback
where you could utilize parking area and then give up a portion.
After sane discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to
require an average 15' setback along the Calle Tampico frontage.
After discussion of the parking issue, it was the consensus of the Commission
that there be no covered parking along TaTTico. It was also determined that
a 6-foot-wide sidewalk be incorporated into the parkway.
After discussion of median openings, it was the consensus of the Commission
that median openings on Calle Tampico shall be allowed at the westerly
driveway and at Desert Club Drive. A maximum of two driveways each on
Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive shall be permitted.
All discussion concluded, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. CamLlssioner Walling made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brandt, to
approve Plot Plan No. 85-217, in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and
subject to revised conditions per consensus of the Planning Commission.
Unanuiio sly Adopted.
Director Stevens advised the Commission that this matter will go to City
County hearing at their December 3, 1985 meeting.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Caanissioner De Gasperin made a nation to approve the minutes from the regular
meeting of November 12, 1985. Commissioner Moran seconded the motion.
1. The minutes of the regular meeting of November 12, 1985, were approved as
submitted. Unanimously Adopted.
AIN
MR UT S - PLANNING COMMISSION
November 26, 1985
Page 10.
5. BUSINESS
Chairman Thornburgh introduced the four items of business as follows:
A. Plot Plan No. 85-211, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the
west side of Avenida Herrera, 50' north of Calle Madrid; David Mittleholtz,
Applicant.
B. Plot Plan No. 85-218, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the
north side of Horseshoe Road at the cul-de-sacs; Joe Stemmer, Applicant.
C. Plot Plan No. 85-219, a request to construct a single-family dwelling on the
west side of Avenida Velasco, 294' south of Calle Ensenada; Roy D. Morris,
Applicant.
D. Plot Plan No. 85-220, a request to construct a single-family dwelling fronting
on Avenida Madero, 150' north of Calle Temecula; Rick Johnson Construction,
Applicant.
He then called for the Staff Reports.
1. Director Stevens stated that all of the requests are consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan, are consistent with the standards of the R-1 Zone and the City's
adopted policies for single-family houses, their design as modified by the condi-
tions of approval is compatible with area development, and the conditions of
approval provide adequate mitigation of possible significant adverse impacts on
the environment.
He addressed a minor concern for Plot Plan No. 85-218 with regard to roof pitch,
but after a short discussion with the Commission, it was their consensus to delete
Condition No. 12 for that plot plan.
There being no further discussion, Chairman Thornburgh called for a motion.
2. Cammmissioner De Gasperin made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Moran, to
approve Plot Plans Nos. 85-211, 85-218, 85-219, and 85-220, in accordance with
Exhibits A, B and C, and subject to conditions of approval as amended.
Unanimously Adopted.
There being no further items of agenda to cone before the Commission, Chairman
Thornburgh called for a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Walling made a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the
Planning Commision to be held December 10, 1985, at 7:00 p.m., in the La Quinta
City Hall, '78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. Commissioner Moran seconded the
motion. Unanimously Adopted.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
was adjourned at 9:20 p.m., November 26, 1985, in the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105
Calle Estado, La Quinta, California.
ITEM NO. S • A d S.
DATE
{% �JP,LANNING COMMISSION MEETING
�85-247/g5-2ercgl�F
8S-zs�s
C�('_ ,TLA
MOTION BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MAN (LWg1i•LTNG THORNBURGi
SECOND BY: BRANDT DE GASPERIN MORAN WALLING THORNBUR21i
DISCUSSION:
ROLL CALL VOTE:
CO^KISSIONERS:
AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT
UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Conmission
From: Cinnunity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-242
Location: East Side of Avenida Diaz, 200' South of Calle Potrero
Applicant: Larry McMachon/Derrick Kramer
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling (Presold)
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: P.-1*++ (one Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical Cove area lot with dimensions of
50' x 1001, located on the east side of Avenida Diaz, 200' south of Calle Potrero.
The block is predominantly vacant; however, all four of the units existing on the
block are within 50' of the proposed site (20 of the 24 lots on the block are
vacant). The surrounding area is also sparsely developed. All of the units in
the vicinity are stucco with gravel or asphalt shingle roofing. One tile -roofed
structure exists immediately southeast of the site. Roof pitches range from 1/12
to 5/12, with heights ranging from 12'-15'. The lot has frontage along Avenida
Diaz, which is a local street with a designated right-of-way of 60'. Adequate
right-of-way currently exists along Avenida Diaz.
4. Environmental Assessment: The 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.
5. Description of the Request: The Applicant proposes a single-family home which has
a usable living area of 1261 square feet, based on the actual dimensions measured
on the plan by Staff. Many of the measurements called out on the floor plan do
not coincide with the actual dimensions. The Applicant will have to address this
condition at final submittal; however, based on the actual dimensions, the usable
living area requirement has been met. The actual garage dimension is 19' x 231,
although the plan calls out 20' x 24' as the clear dimension. The unit itself is
a two -bedroom, 1-3/4 bath design with a den. The exterior of the unit will be
covered with a dove gray stucco and dark brown wood trim, and a red and burnt -red
mix tile roof of 3.5 and 12 pitch. The height of the house will be 14.5'. This
unit incorporates the same floor plan as the second unit submitted by the Applicant
under Plot Plan No. 85-243. The following setbacks are delineated on the plot plan:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
° 5' Side Yards
° 10' Rear Yard
° 31' Front Yard
A six -foot -high fence or wall shall also be provided along the rear and side
Property lines. This fence will be gated along the side yards at a point 45.5'
from the rear property line.
COMMENTS
Larry McMachon and Frank Roberts (Applicant and representative, respectively) have
received one prior approval under both their names. Mr. Roberts has also received
one approval as an Applicant. Both units are built and occupied. The dwelling
proposed conforms with policies and standards of the City of La Quinta and the R-1*++
Zoning regulations.
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 RECOMM'JENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Camunity Development Department recamiends
approval of Plot Plan No. 85-242 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject
to the attached conditions.
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WN:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APPROVED BY:
C' a-z1„L-
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Campmuty Development Director
2%'S APPROVAL IS SAM TD 7HE FMIDWIM CONDITICS.
1. 2fie development of the site ahall be in oonformance with ndnibits A,
B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-242 , the he otherwise
amended by the fallowing amditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date;
otherwise, it shall become mull and void and of no effect whatsoever. ay
'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 ompletion.
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
Diiform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta.
S. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall w t dt
and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard shmdng
the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials including
a minnin m 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 Cocupancy, 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. dhe beating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be grand mnounted, or
screened entirely by the roof structure.
7. Refuse containers 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. 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
l
° Community Development Department, 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 pennit. A letter from Desert Sands Unified school District stating
that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the Ccmmmunity 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. 85-242
12. Applicant shall correct the floor plan to show actual dimensions to verify those
called out on the plans.
13. The garage shall be 20' x 24' clear, as indicated on the floor plan.
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Camnunity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLDT PLAN NO. 85-243
Location: West Side of Avenida Alvarado, 50' North of Calle Potrero
Applicant: Lamy McMachon/Matt Roberts
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling (Presold)
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot:
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a typical Cove area lot with dimensions of
50' x 100', located on the east side of Avenida Alvarado, 50' north of Calle
Potrero. This location was originally approved for single-family development
under Plot. Plan No. 85-126 for Rick Johnson Construction on March 12, 1985.
This particular block has remained primarily undeveloped; 18 of the 24 lots are
vacant. Zne existing units in the area are predominantly stucco sided, while
roof materials and designs vary. Roof pitch varies from 3/12 to 6/12, while
materials include rock, gravel, tile and asphalt shingle roofs. The height range
is fran 13-16 feet.
Regarding the prior approval given Rick Johnson Construction, Staff has contacted
Mr. Johnson's firm and has confirmed that the approval will not be utilized. A
letter has been prepared for transmittal to Rick Johnson informing him that his
approval gill became void (see attachment) upon approval of this application, as
the property is currently owned by the representative for this application.
4. Environmental Assessment: The 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.
5. Description of the Request: The Applicant proposes a single-family hone which
has a usable living area of 1261 square feet, based on the actual dimensions
measured on the plan by Staff. Many of the measurements called out on the floor
plan do not coincide with the actual dimensions. The Applicant will have to
address this condition at final submittal; however, based on the actual dimensions,
the usable living area requirement has been met. The actual garage dimension is
19' x 231, although the plan calls out 20' x 24' as the clear dimension. The unit
itself is a two -bedroom, 1-3/4 bath design with a den. The exterior of the unit
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMNIISSICN
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
will be covered with a dove gray stucco and dark brown wood trim, and a red
and burnt -red mix tile roof of 3.5 and 12 pitch. The height of the house will
be 14.5'. This unit incorporates the same floor plan as the first unit :submitted
by the Applicant under Plot Plan No. 85-242. The following setbacks are delineated
on the plot plan:
° 5' Side Yards
° 10' Rear Yard
31' Front Yawl
A six -foot -high fence or wall shall also be provided along the rear and :side
property lines. This fence will be gated along the side yards at a point 45.5'
from the rear property line.
Larry McMachon and Frank Roberts (Applicant and representative, respectively) have
received one prior approval under both their names. Mr. Roberts has also received
one approval as an Applicant. Both units are built and occupied. This particular
unit will be a residence for Mr. Matt Roberts. The dwelling proposed conforms with
policies and standards of the City of La Quinta and the R-1*++ Zoning regulations.
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 RECCY44DMATION
Based upon the above findings, the Omm mity Development Department recamiends
approval of Plot Plan No. 85-243 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject
to the attached conditions.
Wallace Nesbit:
Planning Assistant
M:dmv
APPROVED BY:
66-ti
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
3. Letter to Rick Johnson Construction
+ VMS AMOVAL Is SILT 7V mm i'Odd17 m CoNDrrIce
1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A,
s and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-243, Mess otherwise
a o%W 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. sy
°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 oaipletion.
3. hater 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.
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 aaterials, including
a minimum of two (2), B-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 Cocupancy, the Applicant
shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
All trees and plans 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 stricture.
7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be coaoealed 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. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following
agetries prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for
plan c beck:
° Riverside County Health Department
° City Fire Marshal
° Community Development Department, Planning Division
° Desert Sands Unified School District
10. she 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 Camu nity 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. 85-243
12. Approval of this Plot Plan No. 85-243 shall void the approval given under
Plot Plan No. 85-126 and shall nullify any subsequent activity under that
approval.
13. Applicant shall correct the floor plan to show actual dimensions to verify
those called out on the plans.
14. The garage shall be 20' x 24' clear, as indicated on the floor plan.
AI
78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564-2246
January 8, 1986
Mr. Rick Johnson
Rick Johnson Construction
P. O. Box 2288
Indio, CA 92202
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is in regards to a previous approval given for one of your
single-fardly hones. The unit was approved on March 12, 1985, by the city
of La Quinta Planning Commission to be located at 54-735 Avenida Alvarado
(Co unity Development Department Case, Plot Plan No. 85-126).
The Riverside County equalized assessment rolls currently show the legal
property owner to be Mr. Frank Roberts. Mr. Roberts renresents an application
for a single-family dwelling proposed for the above referenced location, which
is currently being reviewed by the Cmrunity Development Department. As the
property in question is currently in Mr. Roberts' name, and there is no deed
or escrow instruction in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-126, approval of the
current request (Plot Plan No. 85-243) will void the approval given originally
back in March.
Should you have any questions regarding this, please contact the Ccmnmiity
Development Department.
Very truly yours,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
11411i4-� W"e�
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WN: dmv
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
I
IivA4 irol T�17T1
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Ccm-tission
From: Cam unity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-245
Location: East Side of Avenida Navarro, 160' North of Calle Nogales
Applicant: Robert L. Harmon/Linda Josie 11
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Idling Intended for Sale
1Y11.1\Vl\V V1YY
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (one Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 100' lot as ccnmonly found in the City's
Cove area, located on the east side of Avenida Navarro, 160' north of Calle Nogales.
only five of the twenty-four lots on this block are developed and the surrounding
area consists mostly of stucco -sided, gravel -roofed hones. Building height is
generally 141, while roof pitch ranges from 3:12 to 6:12. Beige and light brown
are predaninant colors on the west side of Avenida Navarro, as is the dark brown
trim. Avenida Navarro is designated as a local street and currently has an adequate
right-of-way (601) for that designation.
4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exenption will
be filed with the County Recorder.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant proposes a modular dwelling unit (precon-
structed wall frames and roof trusses, to be assembled on site as the framework
for interior and exterior construction to continue) consisting of two bedrooms and
1-3/4 bathrooms. The floor plan calls out space for an optional third bedroom
adjacent to the living room. The Applicant has delineated changes to the floor
plan which will bring the usable living area up to 1214 square feet (see Exhibit D),
and has also increased garage depth to 20' x 24' clear (see Exhibit E). The garage
has pedestrian access into the unit itself and into the side yard area. With the
described changes, the setbacks will be as follows:
r ° Front Yard - 20'
° Rear Yard - 21.5'
° Side Yards - 5'
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CCMISSION
January 14, 1985
Page 2.
The exterior of the house will be a light beige stucco with dark brown trim and
red tile roof. The height of the structure is 15', with a roof pitch of 4:12.
The entry patio will be arched on the front and right side elevations. The
overhangs are 24" on all sides of the house.
The Applicant has been involved in six previous submittals, all of which have been
approved. The proposal, as revised, is consistent with the standards and requirements
of the R-1*++ Zoning. Staff maintains that the color of the house stucco and trim be
changed due to the lack of color variation in the immediate area.
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 canpatible 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. 85-245 in accordance with Exhibits A, B, C, D and E and
subject to the attached conditions.
PREPARED� BY:
_�
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WN:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B, C, D and E
APPROVED BY: — `
9'r-, �/ " �'
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Camiuzity Development Director
MUS APPROVAL IS VOECT TD M Fo.IAWI C CONDITI
1. The development of the site shall be in Owdcamannoe with the Exhibits A.
8 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-2458 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 oonstruction, 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.
a. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the
Uniform Fire Axle as adopted by the City of La Quinta.
S. Prior to the issuance of a building pemit, 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 minunan of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. one 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. 1he 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. ne Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or pennits from the following
agencies prior to submitting these plans to the Building Department for
plan d*ck:
" Riverside County Health Department
° City Fire Marshal
" Coa n-Lity Development Department, Planning Division
° Desert Sands Unified school District
10. lire Applicant shall pay a school development fee as detendned 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 Co mrnity Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. Zhe structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
CONDITIMS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-245
12. The garage shall measure 20' x 24' clear, as revised by Exhibit "E" attached.
13. The design change shown as Exhibit "D" shall be incorporated as a minimm in
meeting the usable living area requirement of 1200 square feet.
14. The color of the stucco siding and trim shall vary from existing development
to a reasonable extent.
r D
�1CT�N5✓ o� CAS Gi�/U'r+� �EPnq Z•J /
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Co mtiss,on
From: Community Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT ,PLAN NO. 85-246
Location: west ,Side of Avenida Madero, 200' South of Calle Chillon
Applicant: Rick Johnson Construction
11
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling intended for Sale
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre). `
2. Zoning: R-1*i+ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minin mu Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 100' lot located in the Cove area of
the city, on the west side of Avenida Madero, 200' south of Calle Chillon. The
surrounding area is fairly well developed, while 12 of the 24 lots on the block
are built upon. The general development pattern is stucco siding with gravel,
tile or asphalt shingle roofing of a 4:12 pitch, with an af about
verage height o
141. The two contiguous units adjacent to the site on the north side are the
same house plan as submitted under this application and under Plot Plan No. 85-247
being considered at this meeting. The only substantial variation is in the roof
style and material. Both existing units have asphalt shingle, gable roofs. The
unit immediately adjacent of the north is adobe colored with a medium brown trim.
Avenida Madero is designated as a local street of 60' right-of-way in the La Quinta
General Plan. The existing 60' right-of-way is adequate with regards to circulation.
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 has submitted this house plan for approval
under Plot Plans 85-246 and 85-247. Rick Johnson has obtained 38 prior approvals
to this date, with all of those units having been presold prior to approval. These
units have either already been built or are in various stages of construction.
Regarding this application, the house is a three -bedroom, 1-3/4 bath unit with a
usable living area of approximately 1416 square feet. Bedroom #1 does not meet
the 10' x 10' minimum clear dimension requirement, as it is 9.25' x 8.75' from
interior walls to the outermost closet corner. The garage is also undersized for
laundry and does not meet the 20' x 20' clear dimension, measuring 19.25' x 20.51.
i�
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CCMUSSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
The exterior construction of the house will consist of meadowbrook (a very light
beige) stucco siding with brown trim and a marigold and brown colored tile roof.
The roof has a Dutch gable at the front elevation over the garage, with a 4 and 12
pitch, while the side elevations show a 4.5 and 12 pitch. Height of the unit is
16.75'. The following yard setbacks are given on the plot plan:
° 20' Front Yard
° 16' Rear Yard
° 5' Side Yards
The house plan also shows that bay windows will be incorporated at the kitchen and
at two of the three bedrooms on the exterior window frame area. The house adjacent
to the north of this unit features the same treatment of those window areas.
The house plan as submitted meets all of the standards and policies of the City of
La Quinta, with the exception of those deficiencies previously described. The Applicant
has agreed to address these items as set forth in the conditions for approval. In
addition to the variation in roof design and material, other similar methods such as
plant-ons, etc., should be incorporated to show a more substantial variation from the
adjacent units.
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 RECUMMIDATIONS
Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of Plot Plan No. 85-246 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject
to the attached conditions.
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WN:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APPROVED BY:
�� �-.--
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Community Development Director
THIS APPROVAL Is AwT To Ttx m.Iaam CONDrri
1. The development of the site shall be in cmfownenoe with the EKhibits A,
B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-246, unless otherwise
amended by the following conditicns.
Y. 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 thereafter diligently pursued to completion.
3. {biter and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the requirements of the Riverside 0ou my 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 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 ocnditicn 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 oomnoealed 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 fran the following
agencies prior to suIz fitting these plans to the Building Department for
plan d*rk:
" Riverside County Health Department
° City Fire Marshal
° Cmmmity Development Department, 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 Commminity Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
CDNDITIONS (Cont'd) - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-246
12. The garage shall measure 20' x 24' clear if laundry facilities are to be installed.
13. Bedrocrn #1 shall have a minir= 10' x 10' clear dimension.
14. Minor design changes or additions shall be made in order to provide sane additional
variation from existing adjacent units to the north. The type of changes or addi-
tions to be made will be at the Applicant's discretion subject to approval by the
Camnrnity Development Department.
no-71
('ill
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA QUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Catmission
From: Camamity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-247
Location: West Side of Avenida Juarez, 100' North of Calle Madrid
Applicant: Rick Johnson Construction
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for Sale
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The site is a 50' x 100' lot located in the Cove area of
the City, on the west side of Avenida Juarez, 100' north of Calle Madrid.
Development in the surrounding area is moderate and 9 of the 24 lots on the block
are built upon. The general development characteristics consist of stucco sided
homes with rock or gravel roof material, with a roof pitch of 4 to 5:12 and
average height of 141. The predominant roof designs are gable and Dutch gable
styles. There is one structure which deviates from this pattern, located
immediately northwest of the site. It is a green, wood -sided, cabin style unit
with about a 751 roof pitch, extending to approximately 18" above finished grade,
and it is about 17'-18' high. Avenida Juarez is currently a 60' right-of-way
local street, which is sufficient with regards to the La Quinta General Plan.
4. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt from the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exenption
will be filed with the County Recorder.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant has submitted this house plan for approval
under Plot Plans 85-246 and 85-247. Rick Johnson has obtained 38 prior approvals
to this date, with all of those units having been presold prior to approval. These
units have either already been built or are in various stages of construction.
Regarding this application, the house is a three-bedroon, 1-3/4 bath unit with a
usable living area of approximately 1416 square feet. Bedroom #1 does not meet
the 10' x 10' minimum clear dimension requirement, as it is 9.25' x 8.75' from
interior walls to the outermost closet corner. The garage is also undersized for
laundry and does not meet the 20' x 20' clear dimension, measuring 19.25' x 20.51.
STAFF REPORT - PIANNING OANMSSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
The exterior construction of the house will consist of adobe colored stucco
siding with brown trim and a cedarshake-colored composition shingle roof material.
The roof has a Dutch gable at the front elevation over the garage, with a 4 and 12
pitch, while the side elevations show a 4.5 and 12 pitch. Height of the unit is
16.75'. The following yard setbacks are given on the plot plan:
° 20' Front Yard
° 16' Rear Yard
° 5' Side Yards
The house plan also shows that bay windows will be incorporated at the kitchen -and
at tv,o of thee three bedrooms on the exterior window frame area.
The house plan as submitted meets all of the standards and policies of the City of
La Quinta, with the'exception of those deficiencies previously described. The
Applicant has agreed to address these items as set forth in the conditions for this
approval. Due to the existing development characteristics, the proposed shingle roof
material is considered consistent with the existing units in the area.
FTNDTNC.q
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 RFX OMINMATION
Based upon the above findings, the Cormunity Development Department reccmrends
approval of Plot Plan No. 85-247 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject
to the attached conditions.
�G� X�
Wallace Nesbit
Planning Assistant
WN:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APPROVED BY:
A--, X
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
Cc mninity Development Department
THIS APPRWAL IS M09CT M THE FCYSaMC OCNDITIO*
1. The develcganent of the site shall be in cmdamftnoe with the Exhibits Al
8 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-247, unless otherwise
wended by the fallowing conditions.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date;
otherwise, it atoll beoame null and void and of no effect whatsoever. gy
°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. rater and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the requirments of the Riverside County Health Department.
e. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the
Uniform 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 miniman 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 mooted, or
screened entirely by the roof structure.
7. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed
or landscaping. by fencing
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. The 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
° Om runty Development Depar*Aent, Planning Division
° Desert Sands Unified School District
10. The Applicant shall pay a school development fee as detexm ned 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 Community Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. The structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
CONDITICNS (Cont'd) - PLCT PLAN NO. 85-247
12. The garage shall measure 20' x 24' clear if laundry facilities are to be
installed.
13. Bedroom #1 shall have a minimum 10' x 10' clear dimension.
y
Tr
i
%� T • •
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
TO: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
From: Omr unity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-248
Location: North Side of Fiesta Drive, 740 Feet West of Jefferson Street
Applicant: william Hartung
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family Dwelling Intended for
Personal Residence
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: low Density Residential (3-5 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The 8,000-square-foot lot is located within the Indian
Springs Country Club facing onto Fiesta Drive. The house will also face onto
a golf course. The surrounding neighborhood has been developed with a uniform
California Ranch style architecture. All homes on Fiesta Drive contain sloping,
dark brown wood shake roofs. House sidings contain a combination of wood and
stucco compositions. Of the 25 lots on Fiesta Drive, 15 are developed. All
houses in the neighborhood are sited on large 8,000-square-foot lots.
4. Environmental Assessment: The proposed project site is located within the
Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat area. Prior to the disturbance of
any land within this habitat area, the developer is required to pay a mitigation
fee of $600 per acre, or fraction thereof. Pursuant to the requirements of the
Federal Endangered Species Act, the fees collected from development within the
habitat area will go towards acquisition of a habitat reserve for the lizard.
Other than the project's impact on the Fringe -Toed Lizard, the project will not
result in a significant impact on the environment. The development of this house
is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQ,A Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption will
be filed with the County upon approval of this project.
5. Description of Request: The Applicant is requesting approval to construct a
single-family house for his personal residence.
I
0
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COPIDIISSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
The house has 2300 square feet of usable living area, with three bedrooms
exceeding the 10-foot clear dimension, twu bathrooms, and an attached, two -car
garage with connecting pedestrian door into the house. The house will have a
stucco siding with many attractive, highlighting details. The sloping roof will
be covered with flat tile. There are 24" eaves and a 4 and 12 oitch roof. The
overall height of the building is 15 feet. Setbacks of the proposed house are
as follows:
20' Front Yard
° 27.2 ' Rear Yard
° 5 ' Side Yards
STAFF COMENTS AND ANALYSIS
Although the project site is not located in an area subject to the City's adopted
standards for single-family houses, the house meets all requirements of the R-1*++
Zone.
The house is sited between vacant lots; however, the majority of the neighborhood
along Fiesta Drive is developed. The house is within the Indian Springs Country Club
and is therefore subject to the Westward Ho Golf Estates CC&R's.
The architecture of the house is California Ranch style and is compatible with existing
and planned neighborhood development. The house plan utilizes a garden patio with a
proposed seven -foot high wall along the front portion. Based on City ordinance and
the Westward Ho Golf Estates CC&R's, no wall shall exceed six feet in height. The
plans should be revised to limit wall heights to not more than six feet in height.
House colors within the surrounding neighborhood are subdued earthtones with dark,
brawn -colored wood shake roofs. The Applicant has not submitted a color scheme of
his house. The Westward Ho CC&R's specify that development should have a unifying
style and architecture theme. The Applicant should submit, for Planning review and
approval, a color scheme of his proposed house which will blend in well with the
existing development. The Applicant is encouraged to use brown, flat roof tile and
earthtone-colored stucco siding.
Overall, the proposed house is compatible with the surrounding development. The
overall design, roof style, mass, bulk and height of the house is compatible with
existing and future development.
The house complies with the Westward Ho Golf Estates CC&R's and the City's adopted
standards for single-family development.
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.
1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CCRUSSION
January 14, 1986
Page 3.
4. The project is consistent with the Westward Ho Golf Estates CC&R's.
Based upon the above findings, the Com mity Development Departrrent recaruends
approval of Plot Plan No. 85-248 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject
to the attached conditions.
GC --.Al w'�
Gary W. Price
Associate Planner
GWP:dmv
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APPFP'm BY:
Lawrence L. Stevens, AICP
CcmTunity Development Director
2MS APPROVAL Is ReIrT TAD 7ME F LIDWIM COMMA
1. The development of the site shall be in cadara;noe with the Exhibits A.
g and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-248 # unless otherwise
amended by the fallowing omditionns.
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date;
otherwise, it shall beccoe null and void and of no effect whatsoever. gy
Ouse" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including
grading, conteplated 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 anmty stealth Department.
4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the
LInifor m 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 ape plan for the front yard showing
the species, size, location and spacing of all planting Imterialso including
a miniman 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 0=4kvicy, 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 contain+eTs shall be ocecealed by fencing
or landscaping.
6. 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
° Ommuiity Development Department, 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 Cc m =ty Development
Department, Building Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. Me structure shall have a Class "A" roof covering.
J
CONDITIONS (Cont'd - PLOT PLAN NO. 85-248
12. Prior to issuance of a building perntit for this approval, the Applicant
shall pay a Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard impact fee of $600 per
acre or portion thereof in accordance with Resolution No. 85-7 which
adopted the Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
13. A color scheme of the house shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Com mitt' Development Department prior to issuance of a building
permit.
14. The garden patio front yard wall and all other walls proposed in the
project shall not exceed a height of six feet.
I TO
.,K9 1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF LA OUINTA
To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Cannission
From: Cam mity Development Department
Date: January 14, 1986
Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 85-249
Location: West Side of Avenida Herrera, 250' North of Calle Nogales
Applicant: Larry Rogers/Jim Pettus
Request: Approval to Construct a Single -Family House Intended for the Applicant's
Residence
BACKGROUND
1. General Plan: Medium Density Residential (4-8 Dwellings Per Acre).
2. Zoning: R-1*++ (One Family Dwellings, 17' Height Limit, 1200-Square-Foot
Minimum Dwelling Size).
3. Existing Conditions: The 50' x 100' lot is located within the subdivided Cove
area along Avenida Herrera, north of Calle Nogales. There is substantial develop-
ment along this block with 13 of the 24 lots built upon, for a total of 11 houses.
Two of the houses are built on double lots.
Regarding the design of the existing development, the surrounding houses have the
typical California Ranch and Spanish styles cammn in the Cove area. With the
exception of one house, all the buildings have stucco siding. The vast majority
of the houses have gravel or rock roofs, with the remainder having asphalt shingle
or tile roofs. The houses directly adjacent to the site have asphalt shingle and
gravel roofs. The majority of the houses have low-pitched roofs (3 and 12 or less).
4. Ennviornmental Assessment: This project is categorically exempt fran the require-
ments of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a Notice of Exemption
will be filed with the County Recorder.
5. Description of the Request: The co -applicants on this request are Larry Rogers
and Jim Pettus. Larry Rogers, a contractor, will be building the house for his
co -applicant's personal residence. Mr. Rogers has received three previous approvals
for single-family houses, all of which are presold and under construction,
The house has 1412 gross and 1268 net square feet of living area. There are three
bedrooms, all of which have interior clear dimensions exceeding 10 feet, and two
baths. The attached double -car garage has a pedestrian door into the house. The
overall dimensions of the house are 39' x 661.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMISSION
January 14, 1986
Page 2.
The proposed house has typical California Ranch style architecture. The house
will have cream -colored stucco, tan trim and a brown asphalt shingle roof. The
overall height is approximately 13 feet. The roof will have a 3 and 12 pitch
and two -foot -wide roof eaves.
The setbacks are 20 feet in the front, 5 and 6 feet on the sides and 14 feet in
the rear.
STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS
The overall size, height and siting of the house carply 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 equal or exceed the minimum standards.
Regarding the City's adopted standards and policies, there is a minor concern regarding
the interior dimensions of the garage. The garage's width must be increased from 19'
to 201, and the depth from 21' to 23' to comply with the City's policy of providing a
20' x 20' clear area for parking within the garage (the washer and dryer will be
installed at the back of the garage, thus requiring the additional three feet in depth).
The recommended conditions of approval will bring this house into compliance.
Concerning compatibility, the house's proposed design, size and bulk will be consistent
with the existing area development. Staff recommmends that the window trim proposed for
the front and north sides of the building also be put on the other elevations.
FINDINGS
1. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan.
2. If constructed in accordance with the conditions of approval, the house will be in
compliance with the requirements of the R-1*++ Zone and the City's adopted standards
for houses.
3. Approval of the request will not result in a significant adverse impact on the
environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval
of Plot Plan No. 85-249 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to the
attached conditions.
Sandra L. Bonner
Principal Planner
Atchs: 1. Conditions
2. Exhibits A, B and C
APPROVED BY:
Lawrence
L. Stevens, AICP
Comunity
Development Director
1HIS APPROVAL IS 4p= M 7VM FC MWIM OONDITICO
1. the developm3nt of the site shall be in conformance with the EXhibits A,
8 and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 85-249, unless otherwise
amended by the following conditions.
2. 2he 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. $y
'use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including
grading, oontenplated by this approval which is begun with the two, -year
period and is thereafter diligently pursued to oompletion.
3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with
the requiremments of the Riverside Oou my Health Department.
4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the
thufonm Fire Code as adopted by the City of la Quinta.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall maz t
and have approved, a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing
the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including
a miniman of two (2), 15-gallon, street trees. one 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. 'hne 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.
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. 4tne Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits from the following
agencies prior to sutmittiig these plans to the Building Department for `
plan check:
° Riverside County Health Department
° City Fire Mumhal
° Community Development IDqpartament, Planning Division
° Desert Saris 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-
mant as approved by the City Council and in effect at the time of issuance of
a building permit. A letter fron Desert Sands Unified School District stating
that these fees have been paid shall be presented to the cmru pity 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 have a minimum 20' x 23' clear interior dimension for
vehicular parking and laundry facilities.