Loading...
1983 04 12 PCA G E N D A 11 PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting to be held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California April 12, 1983 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Flag Salute 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. A. A public hearing regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding environmental impact, a request for a 61-unit statutory condominium project on 15.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52, The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for adoption. ® B. A public hearing regarding Conditional Use Case No. 83-002, a request r an off -site sign advertising a subdivision, to be located 500 feet north of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Washington Street, Anden Corporation, Applicant. IfJ 1. Report from Associate Planner. (Withdrawn at request of Applicant) C. A public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding height and setback requirements for walls and fences. J6) 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. motion for adoption. D A public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding hone occupations. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for adoption. E. A public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance concerning the temporary use of recreational vehicles .and trailers within the City. 1. Report from Associate Planner. 2. Motion for adoption. AGENDA - PLANNING CQ%'?,IISSION April 12, 1983 Page Two. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 1983. 5. BUSINESS A. Review of Plot Plan No. 83-010, a request to construct a single- family house on a lot located on the west side of Avenida Morales south of Calle Sinoloa, Nick Slowik of Silkwood Hanes, Applicant. 1. Report fran Associate Planner. 2. Motion for adoption. B. Review of Plot Plan No. 83-011, a request to construct a single- family house on the east side of Avenida Obregon south of Avenida Montezuma, Nick Slowik of Silkwood Homes, Applicant. 1. Report from Associate Planner. v V 2. Motion for adoption. /C. Report from Associate Planner regarding the Avenue 52 Specific Plan. ✓D. Report from Associate Planner regarding a joint off -site advertising sign for subdivisions. %11Y. • 1: IYI�Yi 11 . i �J61 ITEM N0. DATE " g 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: 7; o MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: comMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN GOETCHEUS — IMKAMMP — KLIMKIEWICZ — REILLY — THORNBURGH — UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO ABSENT PRESENT VZ — V 1 0 J 1 ITEM NO. DATE Z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 _ -f V , . A—, . / i oZ 0 j - 1 9m MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION: ://U/f ROLL CALL VOTE: THORNBURGH THORNBURGH CO'�2IISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS — IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ '— — REILLY — THORNBURGH — UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO �.JI1 rJl�`a 10 C MEMORANDUM 3.4. CITY OF LA QUINTA To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Corunission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19203, A Request to Divide 13.5 Acres Into Two Lots For the Purpose of Constructing 61 Statutory Condominium Units on Lot 1, The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. The Applicant has requested that this request be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 10, 1983. El C am ITEM NO. ` DATE f ' Z gd PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING O O L� MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CO'MISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT GOETCHEUS — IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO THORNBURGH THORNBURGH PRESENT 11 MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA 3 To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983. Subject: CONDITIONAL USE CASE NO. 83-002, A Request by Anden Corporation for an Off -Site Advertising Sign on Washington Street North of Eisenhower Drive Due to the Planning Commission's support of joint advertising signs for the subdivisions in La Quinta, Anden Corporation has withdrawn its request for the individual sign which would advertise Santa Rosa Cove. Michael O'Rourke, Vice President of Anden Corporation, has stated that he will work with the City in developing a joint subdivision sign program. 40 SLB: clw .Ui; 60 ITEM NO. 0 DATE 7'-9,3 �/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: Ad — %� dV� a MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEW�EILLY THORNBURGH / SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ SILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: 4,,e t Z4 F'm -fie ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS — IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ — REILLY v — THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NOy �1U•.i Ll v C�'�>of TfiE�wSV MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the La Quinta Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 8, 1983 Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Caranission recommend approval and adoption of the prepared amendment which adds Section 18.40 to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, pertaining to the height of walls, fences and hedges. REVIEW This item was continued from the March 22, 1983, Planning commission hearing. The main items of discussion were the following: 40 o The Oommission indicated that the proposed 3; foot height limitation for fences located within the front yard setback was too stringent, particularly for the smaller lots in the Cove area. o There was discussion on the height restrictions and the necessity for corner cutbacks for fences on corner lots. CJ o The staff indicated that there may be visibility and safety concerns if high fences are permitted along the front property line. A field trip is planned during the Planning Comamission Study Session on Monday, April 11, 1983, at 3:30 p.m. do 00 TO: City of La Quinta Planning Commission City 'tanager Associate Planner FROM: Paul and Angela Morway 77-395 Calle Durango 564-4146 I)ATE: 4arch 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Wall Construction Purpose: This letter is to request that the La Quinta Planning Commission Pass approval on the existing wall at 77-395 Calle 9urango, built from March 15th through 'larch 22nd, 1983. Backnroun Slistakenly, a portion of the wall was built, which we had planned to hold off on at Sandra Bonners request, pending the decision of a pro- posed ordinance to be voted on by the Commission at the Tuesday evening, !larch 22nd Planning Commission meeting. Uhen the City Building Inspector was out, he spoke only with Juan, who was working alone on the wall at the time. Juan misunderstood the final inspection approval and the meaning of being able to complete work, which was given on !larch 21st. On Tuesday, March 22nd, while my wife and I were both at work,Juan poured the cement in the reinforced sections, and completed the six foot section on Rubio. toe thought it was understood that this section was being put off for 'is Bonner awaiting a decision as to what the City would allow. My wife and I were both surprised to see the entire wall up, upon our arrival home from work. Our plan showed the intended six foot wall on the Rubio corner side, and it was our hope to he allowed to have it constucted with approval and in accordance with all City ordinances in the end. Our purpose in fencing in our home was for several reasons, such as: 1) to add personality and individuality to a somewhat plain tract house. 2) to improve the exterior appearance and upgrade the property. 3) to keep out the ten (or more) area dogs that frequent our property and knock over trash cans, dig up azaleas, camelias, and defecate all over the yard. 4) to allow us an enclosed yard area for family use in privacy. 5) to conceal from view our future Jacuzzi (or maybe a pool) for pro- tection and safety of neighborhood childen, and to protect us from hazards, liabilities, and charges of attractive nuisance. +.:Jli G!G Current Ordinance: Current City requirements on walls of six feet or less in height are excluded from any set -hack requirements and have been permitted on property lines. Current interpretation has restricted fencing in the front of homes to 30 inches in height, even though all neighboring communities limit these front walls to from 42 to 48 inches in height. As pointed out at the March 22nd Planning Commission meeting, the purpose of this front height restriction is based on allowing drivers and pedestrians good visibility of the road and especially entering and exiting driveways. Also to add to the homeowners protection by by increasing home security by allowing visibility of the front of the house from the street for neighbors and police. Our Nall: The design of our wall was originally done with visibility for drivers and pedestrians in mind, as explained to me by Associate Planner, Sandra Bonner in the beginning of !larch of this year. The wall across the front of our home affords excellent visibility in all directions, and is yet high enough to prevent most area mongrels from jumping it to enter our yard. (40 inches) From the corner of our property, the six foot wall is 10 feet hack at a 450 angle. The planter area is 24 inches in height. Visibility across this corner from car to car is 35 feet before the stop sign. There are stop signs in both directions on "uhio, allowing excellent traffic control and safety for both motorists and pedestrians. The wall is to be painted white, with a clay brick capping. The house will be painted white also, with wood trim to be painted in a brick red color. The roof is of a reddish tone. The wall and house together will add enhancement to the neighborhood without encroaching on the safety of motorists or pedestrians. In Summation: Since the existing wall is not in violation of the current ordinance, nor in any way an impairment to vision of motorists, pedestrians, or the owner, I see no need for a formal application of variance. It is requested that the City Planning Commission come view the wall and grant approval. J.Jli Oil NAP OF INTERSECTION OF RUBIO AND nURANGO (not to scale but drawn in proportion) Ty�oio�N S x T rret v 1,. n 4 4 A 4 Am 4 is --4 1 3 S pzec', 1 �S 7 r To: MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA , The Honorable Chairman and Members of /the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: March 22, 1983 Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING STANDARDS FOR WALLS AND FENCES RL'WM111:2MPtTION That the Planning Comnission recommend to the City Council adoption of the prof -used ordinance am ndmnent concerning standards for walls and fences for residential uses, as stated on FSchibit "A" and in accordance with the findings. Parnose Tmis ordinance is intended to provide clarification of the regulations pertaining to tie location and height of walls, fences and landscaping so as to protect the health and safety of pedestrians and motorists using the sidewalks and streets. Background The current Municipal Land Use Ordinance limits the scope of its direct discussion of walls and fences to their mandatory use for the screening of parking lots and the separation or screening of specific land uses (e.g., planned residential developrents). Thus, the regulation of fences constructed for other purposes, such as to enclose the yard of a single-family house for privacy, have been based on the interpretation of the intent of the ordinance. Differences of opinion have arisen regarding the permitted height of fences built in the front yard (and also the side yard for corner lots) of single-family hones. Therefore, this proposed ordinance is needed to pro%,ide clear standards for fences constructed in residential areas. Current Citv Rewirerients for Fences As mentioned above, the regulation of walls and fences for residential uses has been T. based on the interpretation of the ordinance. A result of this has been a change in those standards used by Riverside County prior to incorporation due to a different interpretation of the following sections of the ordinance. Section 21.75 defines "yard" as follows: "An open and unoccupied space on a lot on which a building is situated and, except where otherwise provided in this ordinance, open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." The ordinance does not specifically state whether.fences and walls for single-family houses are peon tted-in this area. t cause the ordinance currently excludes walls and fences __6 feet or,less in height frun its definition of "structure" (Section 21.69), Riverside County DepartiTent of Iuilding and Safety interpreted the ordinance to mean that fences were excluded fro, the yard sethack requirements. Therefore, it permitted the construction of fences un to 6 feet high along all property boundaries including the front and corn:-m (A.;04i' Q l v 1 `f-''bRANDLN - The Honorable Chairman and D7nbcrs of tale Planning Contiussion March 22, 1983 Page Ito. The City Planning staff has interpreted the ordinance to mean that the height of fences located within the front yard is restricted. [ffR�ause_no spec fj^ jjl� [ice=e3tabiished for fvences an residential-prO�ertj, staff followed the criteria set forth in Section 18.12 pertaining to parking and'1arx9scapuig r — equirementy, which states that any wall within 10 feet of any street or alley shall be 30 inches high. C Me Purpose behind this restriction is to limit the height of walls and fences within those areas i - -- -- - twliicli may- ur�ede fine unotorast s view when entering, the street fran thy; CPr�I'tY. thereby creating a safety hazard for other motorists and pedestriang. Survey of Fence Ordinances in other Cities Staff conducted a phone survey of the other cities in this area to gather information on their ordinances regarding walls and fences, specifically for single-family hares. The results were as follows: 'I"rye Reasons for Fence Meight Restrictions 'i"he;results of the phone -survey indicate that all the cities in our area ol,, e soar restriction on fence height in the front setback area. �Tne majority of the cities allow a maximum height of 3-1/2 feet, while Palm Desert and Palm Springs peimit fences _up to 4-1/2 feet high. Coachella permits solid fences up to 3-1/2 feet in height and non -solid fences (e.g., cyclone fences) up to 4 feet tall. ,The reasons forJindting the height of fences on residential lots include the following: lower fences do not block or;impede the motorist's vies of .other cars:_ (and pedestrians when entering or backing `onto the street; lower fences on corner lots ado not obstruct the motorist's vision at intersections; laver fences permit police and neighbors to see the front of the house thereby increasing security; and lower fences are desired for aesthetic reasons, whereby the view from the street is of houses and yards rather than of just walls. The reasons for permitting higher walls within the front yard (and sideyard for r corner lots) include the following: the shall lot size in the Cove area, combined with the large house size, limits the amount of available -yard space;, the higher fence in the front yard provides additional private space for the resident's use; on corner lots, particularly if the house is sited facing the side street, Cheight� trestrictions would significantly reduce the area which would be screened for privacy;' and higher fences help prevent people fran entering the property. �.il i� 014 AML ITEM NO. u DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COhMT SSIONERS: AYE / GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH WSJ UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES_jZ ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT RX J:,G oi.1 C 11 1 vy/ O s C���OF TNb�wS MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA 3.� To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Ccmmission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE NO. 348 REGARDING HONE OCCUPATIONS 175796 • That the Planning Commission recormend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 regarding Home Occupations. Background and Analysis Both the existing zoning ordinance and this proposed amendment recognize the basic fact that there are certain uses which can be conducted by residents within their 19 dwellings which provide a benefit to both the individual and the community as a whole, and which do not adversely affect either the residential character of the neighborhood or the public's health, safety and general welfare. These home occupations include those businesses which are conducted by the resident which do not require a store or office open to the general public, such as bookkeeping services and businesses where the resident performs his work elsewhere, but conducts the related office work within his home; such as an electrician. Both the current and proposed ordinances require that all home occupations have the following general characteristics: that only the residents of the dwelling be employed on the premises, that the use is clearly secondary and incidental to the principle use of the dwelling as a residence, and that the use does not change the character or appearance of the dwelling or adversely affect the other dwellings in the vicinity. Purpose of the Ordinance This ordinance has been proposed in response to numerous complaints and negative comments received by City Staff regarding the types and appearances of many existing businesses being operated out of hones in the cove area. The most common complaint is that uses which are clearly not cor¢patible with residential neighborhoods, such as heavy equipment and semi -trucks and trailers being parked and dispatched from homes, are an eyesore, a nuisance and devalue the adjacent -hones. Another common com¢nent is that when one travels through the Citv and sees this great variety of commercial and industrial uses within the residential area, it creates a generally unfavorable impression of the quality of the area. This, in turn, discourages the construction of higher quality homes in the cove area. Prior to incorporation, borne occupations were not actively regulated unless a complaint was filed with the County Department of Building and Safety. Even when this was done, the County oftmin did not parsue a case to its end and require a recalcitrant businessman to cease operations. Thus, a wide range of commummercial and industrial uses were established in La Quinta. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION April 12, 1983 Page Two. Purpose of the Ordinance (Cont'd) The proposed ordinance amendment is intended to accomplish two major objectives. First, the more definitive criteria in subsection (a) is intended to provide both the public with a more clear understanding of what is permitted and also the City Staff with some uniform standards for implementing and enforcing the ordinance. Secondly, the addition of subsection (b) establishes a uniform procedure for establishing and regulating hone occupations. This is needed for the following reasons: (1) It helps to ensure that the use is consistent with the intent and requirements of both this ordinance and other City ordinances concerning the health, safety and general welfare of the public, such as the fire and building cedes; (2) It provides a mechanism whereby uses which are not conducted in accordance with the requirements of the City's ordinances and codes are required to correct the deficiencies or terminate the use; (3) It provides a mechanism whereby each hone occupation is reviewed annually to assure that it is operating in compliance; and (4) It aids in enforcing the requirement that all hone occupations obtain a City Business License. Existing Uses and Compliance with the Proposed Ordinance There are a number of businesses within the City which are operated from residents' hones, but do not comply with the requirements of the proposed ordinance. The most conron example is contractors who park their trucks, equipment and trailers on their property or along the street. Even though uses such as this did not comply with the County's standards for home occupations, the fact that they have operated over a period of time prior to incorporation leads to the opinion by sane people that they should be allowed to continue. A related concern is that uses such as the above example (defined as contractors office and equipment storage yards by the zoning ordinance) are permitted only in the industrial zones of which the City has none. Thus, enforcement of the ordinance would require these businesses to leave the City, which would not be in the best interest of the individual or the coanunity as a whole. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission and City Council establish a policy in conjunction with the adoption of this ordinance amendment which will provide for the rational and reasonable implementation of the intent of the ordinance. The policy could contain the following phased implementation plan: (1) All new uses must comply with all the requirements prior to the issuance of a permit and business license. (2) Existing uses which are permitted shall obtain a permit and license within two months after adoption. Any violation with the ordinance, such as the outdoor storage of materials, shall be corrected prior to issuance of the permit. (3) Existing commercial uses which are not permitted under the criteria contained in subsection (a), such as a retail business, shall have six months to move the business. City Staff will provide assistance for the person to relocate to comnercially zoned property within the City. (4) Existing light industrial uses shall have one year to move the business, unless otherwise determined that the business is creating a nuisance as defined by the Municipal Code. This will provide the City with the time needed to study and designate an appropriate area within the City for light industrial zoning. I_iG 017 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING MO MSSION April 12, 1983 ® Page Three. Existing Uses and Canpliance with the Proposed Ordinance (Cont'd) (At this time, a probably area is north of Highway 111 adjacent to the Whitewater River, between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road.) Findings 1. The proposed ordinance amendment will provide for the publics' health, safety and general welfare. 2. The ordinance will protect the residential character and enhance residents' enjovment of the City's neighborhoods. 3. The amendment will provide for the more equitable and effective enforcement of the regulations governing hone occupations. Rendation Based upon the above findings, staff recce mlends that the Planning Commission reco miend to the City Council approval and adoption of the proposed ordinance amendment to Section 21.36 of the bLmicipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". ID SLB:dmv O 018 EXHIBIT "A" ® SEi_'PION 21.36 HOME OCCUPATIONS. Home occupations are those uses which are customarily conducted in a residence, provided that such uses are clearly incidental and secondary to the principle use of a dwelling as a residence and that the use does not change the character of the dwelling or adversely affect the other dwellings or environment in the vicinity. Hare occupations may be engaged in provided that it is conducted in compliance with the criteria set forth in Section 21.36(a), that a permit has been obtained and remains in effect in accordance with Section 21.36(b), and that a business license as required by Chapter of the Nnuiicipal Code has been obtained. a. Criteria and Conditions 1. No one other than the resident of the dwelling shall be emoloyed on the premises in the conduct of the home occupation. 2. The home occupation shall be conducted entirely within the enclosed area of the main building and shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the total area of the structure. 3. A home occupation shall not be conducted within an accessory structure. There may be storage of equipment or supplies in an accessory structure. Garage space may be used for the conduct of a home occupation only when it does not interfere with the use of such space for the off-street parking of vehicles required by Section 18.12 of this ordinance. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage or display of equipment, machinery, supplies, materials or merchandise. 5. There shall be no sales activity, either wholesale or retail, except mail order sales, nor shall there be the maintenance of an office open to the general public. 6. `mere shall be no more than a one-day's supply of hazardous materials stored on the premises at any given time (i.e., pool chlorine, paint thinner, etc.). 7. There shall be no dispatching of persons or equipment to or from the subject property, including the use of commercial vehicles which operate to and from the premises. 8. No vehicles or trailers except those normally incidental to residential use shall be stored or parked on the site. 9. 'There shall be no use of any mechanical equipment, appliance or motor outside of the enclosed building or which generates noise detectable from outside the building in which it is located. 10. There shall be no signs or other devices identifying or advertising the home occupation. 11. In no way shall the appearance of the building or lot be so altered, or the horTe occupation be so conducted, that the lot or building may be reasonably recognized as sen is=g a nonresidential use (either by color, materials, construct, 1iy-ht rg, soands, vibrations, etc.) C EXHIBIT "A" (Continued) Page Two. 12. No hone occupation shall create a nuisance by reason of noise, odor, dust, vibration, fumes, smoke, electrical interference, traffic or other causes. 13. The use shall meet special conditions established by the Canmunity Development Director and made of record in the home occupation permit, as may be deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this section. b. Procedure 1. Applications. An application for maintaining a hone occupation shall be filed with the Planning Department on forms provided by the department. Anyone desiring to make a formal application for a home occupation shall include the following information: (a) The location and address of the proposed occupation: (b) The nature of the hacie occupation; and (c) Any additional information requested by the Director of Community Development. 2. Filing Fees. When the application for a here occupation is filed, a uniform fee of Thirty-five and No/100ths ($35.00) Dollars shall be paid to the City for the purpose of defraying the costs incidental to the proceedings. 3. Review and Investigations: Decisions. The Carmauiity Development Director shall review the application, shall consult with those departments of the City which might have interest in, or juris- diction over, sane phase of the proposed occupation, shall make any necessary investigation, and shall grant or deny a certifi- cate therefore provided the conditions and criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section are met. The permit, if granted, shall specifically identify the occupant as permittee and describe the nature of the home occupation thereby allowed. Home occupation permits shall not be transferrable by the designated permittee to any other person. 4. Decisions Final. The decision of the Director shall be final and shall became effective ten (10) days after the date of the decision, unless an appeal is filed with the Commission. 5, Appeals. Any person or body, public or private, may appeal the decision of the Director to the Commission. Such appeals shall be filed with the Planning Department within ten (10) days after the date of the decision of the Director. Upon the request of such an appeal, the Director shall place the matter for consideration on the agenda of the first regular meeting of the Commission following ten (10) days' written notice to the appellant and/or the applicant. 6. The decision of the Commission on an appeal shall be final and not subject to further appeal to the City Council. 7. At such time as a home occupation certificate has been granted, the Director shall notify the License Departmrent of such fact, 020 stating in such notification the effective date of the certificate. F.h13IBIT "A" (Continued) Page Three. c. Annual Reviews 1. All hone occupation certificates granted pursuant to this section shall be reviewed annually by the Director in order to ascertain whether or not all the conditions and criteria set forth in subsection (a) of this section are being met and complied with at all times. If, at the time of such annual review or at any other time, it is found that any of such conditions and criteria are not being met and complied with, the permit may be revoked by the Director after the vermittee has been given five (5) days' written notice of the City's intention to do so. The Co iunity Develolxe-nt Director shall notify the Commission and the License Department of any such revocation. Any such revocation is subject to appeal as provided in b.5. and b.6. above. :ij ii Q q m RE: ITEM NO. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 0 36- MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP LIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION• / ROLL CALL VOTE: CON24ISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS — IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ — REILLY =� — THORNBURGH �L — UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO '_.J d 022 F MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMEIZI,= ADDING SECTION 18.41, TITLED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, TEMPORARY USE", TO THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE ORDINANCE NO. 348 TO PERMIT THE USE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES FOR TEMPORARY HABITATION ON RESIDENTIAL LOTS. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval and adoption of the amendment adding Section 18.41, "Recreational Vehicle, Temporary Use", to the Municipal Lard Use Ordinance No. 348, in accordance with Exhibit "A" and the findings. Background and Analysis This proposed ordinance is in response to the concerns of Staff and City residents over the increasing use of recreational vehicles as permanent dwellings and long-term vacation units while parked on residential property within the City. For the purpose of this ordinance, a recreational vehicle is defined as a vehicle designed and used for temporary habitation, including motor coaches, travel trailers and camper shells. The proposed amendment prohibits the use of recreational vehicles as accessory dwellings to existing residences and as primary dwellings on vacant lots; however, the ordinance makes provi- sions for the parking and teniporary habitation of recreation vehicles by people visiting residents in the City. The storage of recreational vehicles is not addressed. The general intent of this ordinance is to provide for the publics' health, safety and general welfare. Description of Proposed Amendment The amendment is divided into two subsections, with the first stating the general requirements and the second subsection establishing permit and enforcement procedures. (See attached Exhibit "A"). Under the first subsection, the first two requirements prohibit the use of a recreational vehicle as a primary or accessory dwelling. Requirement No. 3 prohibits the sleeping in vehicles on public streets, in accordance with Section 11.04.030 of the Municipal Code. Requirement No. 4, prohibiting water, sewer and electric connections to the vehicle, is in accordance with the Uniform Housing and Electric Codes. Although it is commonplace for people visiting homes to connect garden hoses and extension cords to their units, the City's adopted Housing Code does not allow us to condone it. The restriction on the running of electric generators is intended to preserve the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhoods. Condition No. 5 limits the amount of time a recreational vehicle may remain at a residence to two, top -week periods or portions thereof within any twelve-month period. This condition is intended to prevent the long-term parking and habitat of recreational vehicles in residential areas. ".u0i Q�J .� STAFF REPORT - PIANNING COMISSION April 12, 1983 Page Two. Description of Proposed Amendment (Cont'd) The second subsection establishes the permit and enforcement provisions. Two items are of special interest here. First, the amendment provides for the revocation of permits where the use is not in canpliance or creates a nuisance. Second, where violations exist, a citation will be issued by the City for every day that the violation continues to exist. Since this ordinance is intended to permit the resident of a dwelling to have a temporary accessory use on his property, the resident authorizing the parking of the vehicle is responsible for the ca pliance with the regulations and is, therefore, subject to any citations or fines. This provision recognizes the fact that it is the resident's responsibility that he does not infringe or impose on the neighbor's rights to use and enjoy their hanes. It also avoids the enforcement problems encountered when citations are issued to the visitors owning the vehicles who then leave the area or state without paying the fines. Findings 1. The proposed amendment will provide for the public's health, safety and general welfare. 2. The ordinance will provide standards for the temporary use of recreational vehicles within the City. 3. The ordinance will provide effective and equitable means to enforce the ordinance. RecarQrendation to Based upon the above findings, Staff recanmends that the Planning Comnission recommend approval and adoption of the anendment adding Section 18.41, "Recreational Vehicle, Temporary Use", to the Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348, in accordance with the attached Exhibit "A". SLB:dmv :.1 o G'Y SECTION 18.41 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, TEMPORARY USE. Recreational vehicles may be used for temporary habitation on residentially zoned property in accordance with the following sections. A recreational vehicle is defined as any vehicle designed and used for temporary habitation, including motor coaches, travel trailers and camper shells. a. Requirements 1. This temporary accessory use is permitted only on a residentially zoned lot with an existinAg occupied 2. The recreational vehicle shall not be used as eXer a primary or accessory dwelling by the resident or owner of the lot on which it is parked. 3. The vehicle shall be parked out of the public right of way on the driveway or in the sideyard of the dwelling. 4. The vehicle must be self-contained; no water, sewer or electrical connections are permitted. The operation of electric generators is not permitted. S. A recreational vehicle may remain on a property a maximum period of fourteen (14) consecutive days, with the total time any recreational vehicle may remain at a residence not to exceed two (2), two -week periods, or portions thereof, within any twelve-month period. 6. only one (1) recreational vehicle used for temporary habita- tion is permitted at any one time. 7. The use shall comply with all additional conditions required by the City to protect the public's health, safety and general welfare. 8. The residents of the dwelling located on the parcel where the recreational vehicle is parked shall be responsible for ensuring compliance of the vehicle with the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) and shall be subject to any and all citations and fines issued by the City for violations of ramicipal ordinances and codes. b. Permit Procedure 1. Application. Prior to moving the vehicle onto the site, the owner of the property or the vehicle shall obtain a "temporary use license" from the City Department of CorruTunity Develounent. The application shall include the following information. (a) Address of dwelling where vehicle will park. (b) Name and address of vehicle owner/user. (c) Number of persons habitating vehicle. (d) Authorization of resident and/or property owner permitting the temporary use. '_Ji 02 EXHIBIT "A" Page Two. Permit Procedure (Ccnt'd) (e) Description (make, model, year and color) and license number of vehicle. (f) Location on the lot where vehicle will park. 2. Permit. After review of the application by the appropriate City Staff, a permit may be granted for a period not to exceed fourteen (14) consecutive days. False, fraudulent or misleading information on the application is grounds for denial. The permit shall be displayed in open view on the vehicle. 3. Fees. A nonrefundable fee of ten dollars ($10.00) is required at the time of application. 4. Revocation of Permit. A permit can be revoked if it is determined by the City that the use as conducted is creating a nuisance or in violation of the Municipal codes. The vehicle shall be removed from the premises within twenty-four (24) hours of issuance of the notice of revocation. 5. Enforcement. The vehicle shall cease being used for temporary habitation and be removed from the property upon expiration or revocation of the permit, otherwise it shall be in violation of this ordinance. For every day that a violation continues ® to exist, a citation will be issued by the City to the resident of the property with the amount of the fine per citation to be in accordance with the adopted Municipal Code. r - 0 ITEM NO. /`✓ DATE 7 g PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CON24ISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN GOETCHEUS — IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ — REILLY — THORNBURGH -. - O UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO_ ABSENT THORNBURGH THORNBURGH PRESENT -3 te" i .Ju OL! RE: ITEM NO. DATE 8 "3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .3A?, -,A3 1� . - MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP SECOND GOETCHEUS IMKAMP DISCUSSION: - ROLL CALL VOTE: CO=SSIONERS: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT YES NO �-. 6 Q F3 E 11 E PLANNING COOMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California March 22, 1983 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. A. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She then called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to lead the flag salute. 2. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp requested the roll call. The Secretary called the roll: Present: Commissioners Reilly, Klimki.ewicz and Chairman Pro Tem ImkaiTp Absent: Coundssioner Goetcheus and Chairman Thornburgh Moved by Commissioner Reilly, seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz to excuse Commissioner Goetcheus and Chairman Thornburgh. Unanimously adopted. Also present were City Manager Frank Usher, Associate Planner Sandra Bonner and Secretary Donna Velotta. 3. HEARINGS A. The first item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding environmental impact, a request for a 61-unit statutory condominium project on a 15.8 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Avenida Bermudas and Avenue 52, The Desert Club of La Quinta, Applicant. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp informed all those present that the Applicant had requested a continuance of this hearing to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 1983. She then requested staff to give their report on this matter. 1. City Manager Frank Usher stated staff had no further report to make regarding this agenda item and requested that the Planning Commission move to continue Tentative Tract Map No. 19203 and the related negative declaration regarding environmental impact to the next regular meeting on April 12, 1983. 2. Chairman Pro Ten Imkamp then called for the motion to continue this request. Commissioner Reilly moved that the hearing be continued to Tuesday, April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m., a regular meeting of the Planning Ccnmussion. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kl.imkiewicz. Unanimously adopted. B. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit Case No. 83-002, a request for an off -site sign advertising a subdivision, to be located 500 feet north of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Washington Street, Anden Corporation, Applicant. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp informed all those present that the Applicant had requested a continuance of this hearing. She then requested a report from staff. E C L11 MINUTES - PLANNING CaMISSION March 22, 1983 Page Two. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner stated that the request for continuance on this agenda item to the next regular meeting in April is due to the fact that staff is looking at the possibility of a joint sign being used by a number of subdivisions. She stated that she is in the process of investigating how the City of Rancho Mirage's joint sign system works and will have a more detailed report by the April meeting. She further informed the Commission that the Anden Corporation is in favor of this type of sign and will withdraw further requests for advertising signs if the Comnission does, in fact, rule in favor of a joint sign advertising system. There being no further comments, Chairman Pro Ten Imkamp called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Klimkiewicz moved that the public hearing regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 83-002 be continued to the next regular planning Commission meeting on April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. C. Third item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Municipal Land Use ordinance No. 348 regarding height and setback requirements for walls and fences. Chairman Pro Ten lmkamp called upon Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, to present staff's report on this item. 1. Associate Planner Sandra Bonner explained that right now Municipal Land Use Ordinance No. 348 does not specifically denote setbacks for walls for resides purposes. She stated that enforcement of the present ordinance is based on interpretation rather than anything specific. The county allowed six - including property lines on commercial foot fences along all property lines, lots, which has resulted in problems of visibility at intersections, residents pulling out of driveways unable to see traffic and/or pedestrians, etc. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Cannission adopt this proposed amendment to the ordinance which specifically discusses residential fences. The main point of the amendment is that fences within the front 20 foot setback of residential houses be 3, feet in height, that there be corner cutbacks of 20 feet and fences, walls and hedges located in that cutback area be limited to 2? feet in height. Ms. Bonner also suggested to the Planning commission that they may want to add a section to the amendment prohibiting barbed wire from being placed on top of fences. After some discussion regarding the lot sizes in the cove area with regard to fence heights, visibility problems, road widths, curbs and gutters, parking along roadways, etc., Chairman Pro Tem Inkamp opened the hearing for public comment. Audrey Ostrowski, 77-400 Calle Sinaloa, La Quinta, CA. requested staff to define what they meant by "wall". Associate Planner Bonner replied that the ordinance covers walls, fences and landscaping which includes solid walls, wooden fences, hedges, etc. MINUTES - PLANNING 0a',1iISSICN March 22, 1983 Page Three. ® Michael Head, 53-800 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, CA. questioned whether a chainlink fence is legal to use in regard to the question of visibility and safety. Paul Morway, 77-395 Calle Durango, La Quinta, CA. stated he felt a chain - link fence gave visibility to whatever may be in your backyard (swimming pool, etc.) and a chainlink fence being climbable would not keep children or whenever from getting inside. He went on to explain his situation with regard to a block wall he is building around his home and the height restrictions being imposed by ordinance. He felt that he should not have to go through the steps of requesting a variance at this time due to the fact that we had no specific requirements in our ordinance regarding set- backs and height restrictions at the time he began his construction. Frank Usher, City Manager, stated we should be sensitive to the problems people have on their lots given the orientation of their house. He noted that there are other areas which we moist also be sensitive to which are public safety and use of the streets. As there were no further public contents, Chairman Pro Tom Imkamp closed the public hearing. At this point, the Planning Ca,unission decided not to rule on this agenda item at this hearing as they did not agree with the proposed amen�nt as ® written. So that they may study this matter further, the Commission agreed to continue this request to the next regular meeting on April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. Members of the Commission also agreed to meet on April 11, 1983 at 3:30 p.m. so they could take a tour of the cove area to visually see the many existing problems in regard to fence heights and setbacks. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called for a motion to this effect. Moved by Commissioner Reilly, seconded by Commissioner Klimkiewicz to continue the public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the Municipal Land Use ordinance No. 348 with reference to height and setback requirements for walls and fences to the April 12, 1983 meeting at 7:00 p.m. Unanimously adopted. D. The next item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding a proposed amendment to Section 21.36 of the Municipal Land Use ordinance No. 348 regarding hone occupations. Chairman Pro Ten Imkamp informed all those present that staff had requested a continuance for this agenda item to the April 12, 1983 meeting in order to prepare a more thorough report. There being no further discussion, she called for a motion. Commissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to continue the public hearing with reference to Nnunicipal Land Use ordinance No. 348, Section 21.36, regarding ® home occupations to the meeting of April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. cccrassioner Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. I_).' 031 MINUTES - PLANNING OCIMISSION March 22, 1983 ® Page Four. 4. CCNSENP CALENDAR Moved by Conmissioner Klimkiewicz, seconded by Commissioner Reilly to adopt the consent calendar, approving the minutes of March 8, 1983 as submitted. A. The minutes of the regular meeting of March 8, 1983 were approved as submitted. Unanimously adopted. 5. BUSINESS A. Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp explained the agenda item under new business was a review of Plot Plan No. 83-009, a request to construct a single-family house on a lot located on the west side of Avenida Madero, SO feet south of Calle Ensenada, Mike Head, Applicant. She then called upon staff to present their report. 1. Sandra Bonner, Associate Planner, stated that this is a single-family house which conwlies with all requirements of our ordinance in regard to square footage, clear dimensions of the bedrooms and the two -car garage. She camited that this is a pueblo style home and although the houses immediately next to it have peaked roofs, there are other homes in the area similar to this one. Ms. Bonner therefore requested that the Planning Omission approve Plot Plan No. 83-009 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to conditions listed in the staff report. ChainTan Pro Tem Imkamp invited conments from the Applicant. Michael Head, 53-800 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, spokesman for Affordable Hones, requested information regarding the construction of the hare. Staff advised him to contact the Building Department for advise in this direction. Chairman Pro Tem IrTRamp then opened the hearing for public comment. There being none, she requested the matter be closed. After a short discussion regarding roof drainage, the question of ownership was raised. The application shows that Michael Head is owner/builder, but on the design maps the name of a Dr. Harmon appears. Therefore, the Conrrission questioned the Applicant as to who was to live in the house or was it being built for resale. Mr. Head answered the Commission by stating he would be living in the home. Co*missioner Reilly brought out the fact that on one page of the Plot Plan it stated, "Hone for Dr. Harmon and on another page the statement "Proposed New Home for Dr. Har7con" was noted. Dr. Harmon then stated, "The man who drew up the plans put those statements on the plot plans gratuitously and did not charge me extra for it." Dr. Harmon then asked if there was a restriction as to how many hares could be build for speculation purposes. Associate Planner Bonner advised him that only five homes could be built at any one time for speculation purposes. '_0li 032 rffNVI'ES - PLANNING CC M'iISSION March 22, 1983 Page Four. Commissioner Reilly asked the Associate Planner to explain the point in staff report regarding the Applicant having to obtain an encroachment permit from the Ccnm mity Development Department before the issuance of a building pernnit. Associate Planner Bonner explained that the street right of way belongs to the City and if the builder needs to work in the right of way, before he can do so he must get an encroachment permit from the City to assure that any work he does in our right of way is up to our standards and to also let us know what work is going on in the City right of ways. City Manager Usher went on to explain that there are two utilities that residents need to be connected to that have lines in the public right of ways and some places in the cove area only one utility. These are water and gas. The encroachment permit is required to 'cut the street' on the City right of way to connect these services to the residence. There being no further comments, Chairman Pro Tom Imkamw called for a motion. 2. Commissioner Klimkiewicz made a motion to approve Plot Plan 83-009 in accordance with Exhibits A, B and C and subject to conditions as noted in the staff report. Commissioner Reilly seconded the motion. Unanimously adopted. MV B. At this point, City Manager Frank Usher passed among the Commissioners a list of goals and objectives that the City Council has adopted, which cover a broad area of responsibilities that the City has. He pointed out a specific area on this list regarding the goals of the City Council in regards to the General Plan and the time frame attached to these goals. Commissioner Reilly stated that previously the Planning Commission had requested that a letter or memo be given to the City Council urging then to proceed as rapidly as possible with regard to the General Plan. She stated that this list was certainly acceptable to see that so much thought had been put into a plan of action. However, she felt that Chairman Thornburgh still felt, and she concurred with him, that a letter from the Planning Commission supporting this plan of action would be appropriate and that followup be made. City Manager Usher stated that this would be done. 6. ADJOURm'�MFNT There being no further items of agenda to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Pro Tem Imkamp called for a motion of adjournment. Connissioner Klimkiewicz mroved and Commissioner Reilly seconded the motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on April 12, 1983 at 7:00 p.m. at La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. The regular meeting of the Planning Commmission of the City of La Quinta, CA. was adjourned at 8:40 p.m., March 22, 1983, at La Quinta Citv Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA. im, 032 ITEM NO. `d O DATE z 0 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY SECOND BY: GOETC�IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: CO'•!MI S S IONERS : GOETCH----- EUS IM[CAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: AYE NO ABSTAIN YES NO HORNBURG THORNBURGH ABSENT PRESENT 11 MEMORANDUM 6`-I CITY OF LA QUINTA s cF'yoF �pw To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 83-010, A Request by Nick Slowik of Silkwood Homes to Construct a Single -Family House on Avenida Morales South of Calle Sinoloa '• • i is ��� That the Planning Comnission approve Plot Plan No. 83-010 as shown on the Exhibits, in accordance with the findings and subject to the attached conditions. Background and Analysis The Applicant, Nick Slowik of Silkwood Homes, has requested approval to construct a single-family house on a 6400 square foot lot located approximately 200 feet south of Avenida Sinaloa with frontage along both Avenida Montezuma on the west and is Avenida Morales on the east. The Applicant has also applied for approval of a house of the same design on Avenida Obregon. Siting The siting of the house is consistent with the existing houses in the area. The home will face Avenida Morales and will be set back fron the road right of vray 30 feet. Desicxn of Structure The house is consistent with the City's adopted standards for single-family houses. The home has 1331 square feet of living space, three bedrooms having a minimum 10-foot clear dimension, two full bathrooms, an attached two -car garage, and eaves 18 to 24 inches wide. The overall height of the building is slightly less than 15 feet, which is consistent with the zoning. The exterior of the house is compatible with the surrounding houses of which the -majority are stucco with peaked roofs covered with gravel. The proposed house will have a stucco exterior and a peaked roof with a pitch of 3 to 1 covered with asphalt composite shingles. The house's height of 15 feet and width of 40 feet give it the same appearance of bulk as the surrounding homes. Additional Notes No landscaping plan for the front yard has been submitted; a plan will be required as a condition of approval. ;Ii.: 0317; STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION April 12, 1983 Page TAo. Additional Notes (Cont'd) Plot Plan No. 83-010 was determined to be exempt frem the requirements of CEQA. A Notice of Exemption has been canpleted by the staff and sent to the County Clerk. Findings 1. The proposed house is consistent with the City's adopted standards and the zoning requirements. 2. The house is ccrrpatible with the surrounding development. 3. The project will not adversely affect the environment. Recommendation Based upon the findings, staff reccumiends that the Planning Commission approve Plot Plan No. 83-010 as shown on the Exhibits and in accordance with the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 83-010, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 40 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall became null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 9. 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 Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall suisnit and have approved a detailed landscape plan for the front yard showing the species, size, location and spacing of all planting materials, including a miniim4n of two 15-gallon street trees. The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The Applicant will be required to post a cash bond, performance bond or other financial arrangement acceptable to the Citv Attorney and City Engineer with the City Comrlunity Development Department for the installation of the required street improvements along Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Morales, including curb, autter and connecting pavement. The amount of this bond shall be $2,000, which shall be submitted to and accepted by the City of La Quinta Community Developn nt Director and City Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mo,-mted. 0 3 6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING MVISSION April 12, 1983 Page Three. 0 8. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. 9. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit fren the Cc mnuiity Develognent Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits free the following agencies: * City Engineer/Public Works * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshall * Cemnuiity Development Department SLB : ctnv U ;_u,; 037 ITEM NO. DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY HORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ EILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: AYE NO YES V ABSTAIN NO ABSENT PRESENT 0 38 Gi 0 E MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA x5 8. To: The Honorable Chairman and Menbers of the Planning Can -mission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: PLOT PLAN NO. 83-011, A Request by Nick Slowik of Silkwood Hares to Construct a Single -Family House on Avenida Obregon south of Avenida Montezuma RECOPMENDATION That the Planning Commission approve Plot Plan No. 83-011 as shown on the Exhibits, in accordance with the findings and subject to the attached conditions. Background and Anaylsis The Applicant, Nick Slowik of Silkwood Homes, has requested approval to construct a single-family house on a lot located on the east side of Avenida Obregon south of Avenida Montezuma. The Applicant has also applied for approval of a house on Avenida Morales. Siting The siting of the house is consistent with the existing hares in the area. The lot is 70 foot by 100 foot, with the house's front set back from the road right of way 26 feet and the sideyard setbacks 11 and 19 feet. Desicrn of the Structure The house is consistent with the City's adopted standards for single-family houses. The house has 1331 square feet of living space, three bedrooms having a minimum 10-foot clear dimension, two full bathrooms, an attached two -car garage and eaves 18 to 24 inches wide. The overall height of the structure is slightly less than 15 feet, which is consistent with the zoning. The exterior of the house is compatible with the surrounding houses, which are stucco with peaked roofs covered with gravel or tile. The proposed house will have a stucco exterior and a peaked roof with a pitch of 3 to 1, covered with asphalt composite shingles. The house's height of approximately 15 feet and its width of 40 feet give it the same appearance of bulk as the surrounding homes. 19 Additional Items No landscaping plan for the front yard has been submitted; a plan will be required as a condition of approval. Plot Plan No. 83-011 was determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA and staff has filed a Notice of Exemption with the Riverside County Clerk. ,il g o;J Ll J STAFF REPORT - April 12, 1983 Page Two. Findings PLANNING COMIISSION 1. The proposed house is consistent with the City's adopted standards and the zoning requirements. 2. The house is compatible with the surrounding development. 3. Approval of the project will not adversely affect the environment. Recommendation Based upon the above findings, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Plot Plan No. 83-011 as shown on the Exhibits and in accordance with the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall be in conformance with the Exhibits A, B and C contained in the file for Plot Plan No. 83-011, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within two years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall becone null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By "use" is meant the beginning of substantial construction, not including grading, contemplated by this approval which is begun with the two-year period and is thereafter diligently pursued to completion. 3. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Health Department. 4. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City of La Quinta. 5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant 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 15-gallon street trees. The plan shall indicate the irrigation system and the location of the required three (3) outdoor water spigots. All trees and plants shall be maintained in viable condition for the life of the approved use. 6. The Applicant will be required to post a cash bond, performance bond or other financial arrangement acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Engineer with the City Community Development Department for the installation of the required street improvements along Avenida Obregon including curb, gutter and connecting pavement. The amount of this bond shall be $1,400, which shall be sulxmitted to and accepted by the City of La Quinta Community Development Director and City Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. The heating and cooling mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted. 8. Refuse containers and bottled gas containers shall be concealed by fencing or landscaping. +_Ui 6,f) E L'J STAFF REPORT - April 12, 1983 Page Three. PLANNING CU24ISSICN 9. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit fran the Ccmmuiity Develola ent Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. The Applicant shall obtain clearances and/or permits frcan the following agencies: * City Engineer/Public Works * Riverside County Health Department * City Fire Marshall * Cmuunity Development Department ,_,,, 041 RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: GOETCHEUS ----- IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: ITEM NO. DATE 2- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ AYE NO ABSTAIN YES NO REILLY THORNBURGH REILLY THORNBURGH ABSENT PRESENT 0 `$ MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA CF�10F TVi��� To: The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 12, 1983 Subject: BACKGROU14D REPORT ON THE AVENUE 52 SPECIFIC PLAN What is a "Highway Specific Plan"? This is a plan adopted by the City establishing specifically planned future right of way lines for a highway or street. The plan may also indicate a change from the standard street improvement or profile plan (e.g., the elimination of the center median or the addition of a bicycle lane) or the imoosition of additional requirements for developments fronting along the street (e.g., increased building setbacks). A specific plan can be proposed by either the City or by a private party, as was the case with Landmark Land Company requesting a change in the design of Avenue 50 west of Washington Street. After the highway specific plan is approved and adopted by the City, it is included on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. All future developments and improvements along the street must be consistent with the requirements of the adopted Specific Plan. Description of the Avenue 52 Specific Plan The specific plan shows both the realignment of Avenue 52 between Washington Street and Avenida Bermudas and the extension of the street westward to Eisenhower Drive. Avenue 52 currently follows a course whereby it turns due south approximately 95 feet west of Washington Street, continues southerly for 200 feet and then makes a second right angle turn returning to a westerly direction. Avenue 52 presently ends at Avenida Bermudas; notorists wishing to continue travelling westwardly drive on Calle Durango, which intersects with Avenida Bermudas 30 feet to the south of Avenue 52. The Avenue 52 Specific Plan, as adopted by Riverside County on August 31, 1970, shows the road following a relatively straight alignment from Washington Street to Avenida Bermudas, then angling to the woutnwest to intersect with Calle Sinaloa. That portion of the existing Avenue 52 with the two right-angle areas would be bypassed, but would remain as a 60-foot-wide local street. The planned width of Avenue 52 between Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive is 100 feet. Until such time that the street is widened to four lanes, the additional right of wav can be used for landscaping. Imwlementation of the Specific Plan would require the City to obtain the land within the right of way. Since the plan's adoption in 1970, Riverside County Road Department has purchased 14 of the 15 lots west of Avenida Bermudas which are wholly or partly within the planned right of way. a�mership of this land within the right of way will be transferred from the County to the City when we implement the plan. East of Avenida Bermudas, the right of way extends through six lots. The City can obtain the right of way by requiring it as a condition of approval for new develo rent. 043 SPAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION April 12, 1983 Page Two. Purpose of the Specific Plan According to discussions between the City Staff and Staff at Riverside County Road Department, the Specific Plan was developed as a part of the overall circulation plan for La Quinta. The Circulation Element of the General Plan designates a backbone of major streets which are intended to carry the bulk of the vehicles entering and leaving the City. Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive are the major north -south corridors, and Avenue 50, Calle Tan-pico and Avenue 52 are the major east -West traffic corridors. The reasons for developing this type of circulation system include the following: as the vacant land within the City develops, a system of wider roadways is needed to carry the increased traffic; the interconnected grid of the major streets provides for a more even distribution and more effective management of the traffic, thereby m nimizing congestion and reducing travel time for motorists; the system directs motorists through the City on these major streets and thus minimizes the number of autcmobiles travelling through neighborhoods on the narrower local streets. Avenue 52 is intended as the major east -west traffic corridor leading into the upper or southern cove area. one major function of it will be to divert northbound traffic off of Eisenhower Drive, which will becane increasingly congested as development occurs, and direct it to Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Secondly, the plan provides for the extension of the 100-foot-wide right of way between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Bermudas, allowing the widening of the roadway as the traffic load increases. Currently, the westbound traffic from Avenue 52 travels on Calle Durango, a 60-foot- wide local street. Since eight (8) houses are already built along this street, it is unlikely that this street could be widened to acconnndate the anticipated future increase in traffic. In addition to accomplishing the above purposes, the realignment of Avenue 52 also eliminates the two right-angle turns which are traffic safety hazards. The likelihood of an automobile accident occurring at a sharp turn is greater than if the road were straight. And as the adjoining property is developed and the amount of cross -traffic increases, the chance of an accident occurring when a motorist travelling westward from Washington Street enters the blind turn increases. one argument for retaining the two sharp turns is that it slows down traffic entering the cove. It would be more effective and present less liability to the City if we depended upon conventional traffic control devices, such as a stop sign, rather than rely on the assumption that all motorists will recognize the dangerous road and therefore slow down. Additional Ca[¢nents Richard McCoy, the City Engineer, has both reviewed the overall Specific Plan and inspected the roadway and adjacent area addressed in the plan. He has recommended that the City implement the plan as proposed with only minor changes to the location of the roadway within the right of way. The change would be in the vicinity of Washington Street where a row of eucalyptus trees are within the right of way 26 feet fran the center line. The roadway would be shifted to the north within the right of way in order to preserve these trees. This change would be incorporate into the final engineering plans for the street as approved by the City prior construction. STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CC11M1ISSION April 12, 1983 Page Three. Additional Camients (Cont'd) As stated above, the City Engineer does not recommend either the retention of the modification of the existing alignment for Avenue 52. This is based on the findings that when cappared with the Specific Plan, the alternatives provide less traffic safety, a lower level of service with respect to the flow of traffic and would not effectively serve its major purpose of relieving traffic on Eisenhower Drive. An additional concern of staff is that if Avenue 52 retains its present general alignment, as the cove area develops, the: amount of traffic on Calle Durango will continue to increase. Because it is not feasible to widen this street from two to four lanes due to the eight existing homes adjacent to the roadway, there is no means to accommodate the increase in traffic and prevent congestion. The increase in raffic wouldbe who detriment to the people currently living or owning property g go have bought land or built homes on the assumption that the street would have the same normal level of traffic as the other 60-foot-wide neighborhood streets in the area. During a meeting concerning a proposed project which would be affected by the Specific Plan, the City Engineer stated a "rule of thumb" the City should follow regarding any changes in approved or existing road plans: when changes are proposed to provide for the general public's health, safety or welfare, and where the primary benefit is gained by the public and the benefits gained by individuals is incidental or secondary, the proposed change can and should be made. An example of this is the shifting of the Avenue 52 roadway near Washington Street in order to preserve the existing row of trees. However, when the benefits gained by an individual are either disproportionate to the benefits gained by the general public or the adjacent property owners, or to the detriment of the general public and other property owners, the proposed change is not warranted. RE: MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COP24ISSIONERS: GOETCH------ EUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: ITEM N0. � DATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ AYE NO ABSTAIN YES NO REILLY THORNBURGH REILLY THORNBURGH ABSENT PRESENT El C r1 U MEMORANDUM CITY OF LA QUINTA To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the La Quinta Planning Commission From: Sandra L. Bonner, Associate Planner Date: April 8, 1983 Subject: Background Report on Joint Advertising Signs for Subdivisions Following the Planning Commission's initial favorable response to the installation of joint signs advertising the new subdivisions in La Quinta, staff has studied the matter and has developed three possible alternatives for implementing this program. The specific size and design of the sign will be approved by the Commission at the time that the necessary conditional use permit is reviewed. However, the Commission may wish to consider the design at this time in order to provide general guidelines. Attached is a copy of the design developed by Lanclmark Land Cozy. Staff supports this proposed design and suggests that the overall dimensions be 10 feet high and 8 feet wide. Staff also suggests that the sign be constructed of sandblasted wood with raised and painted letters. The following are several of the possible alternatives for implementing the installation of joint signs: U73Y��:�t�Pi�l The City purchase and install the sign. Individual advertisers would be charged a monthly fee to cover the cost of the construction and maintenance of the sign. Any additional irony collected in excess of these costs would be deposited in the general fund. Initial cost to the City would be $1,500 to $2,000. OPTION TVU The City follow the same procedure as Rancho Mirage, whereby a sign company is given an exclusive contract to construct, maintain and manage the signs. The private company would obtain the necessary conditional use permits and construct and install the sign at its expense. Developers of subdivisions would then deal directly with the sign company (rather than the City) , and would be required to pay the company monthly rents. There is no cost to the City. OPTION THREE The developer or group of developers would submit the application and constn,ct 6 NelTo to Planning Con -Miss April 8, 1983 Re: Joint Advertising Signs Page Two. the sign at their cost. Prior to the addition of a new name on the sign, the applicant would be required to obtain a permit fran the City. The sign would remain the property of the developers. The City may wish to include a reim- bursement clause whereby ocrrpanies advertising on an existing sign pay their share or proportion of the original sign cost, which would be distributed to those parties who paid for the initial construction and installation of the sign. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Staff recawends a program whereby the developers pay the cost of the construction and installation of the sign, yet the City maintain control over any addition or modification to the sign face. This can be accoiTulished under the current provisions of the sign ordinance. The location of these signs will be determined on a case -by -case basis. i Ank ITEM NO. ' DATE / Z PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1;17F MOTION BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH SECOND BY: GOETCHEUS IMKAMP KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH DISCUSSION: ROLL CALL VOTE: COMMISSIONERS: AYE NO ABSTAIN ABSENT PRESENT GOETCHEUS IMKAMP — KLIMKIEWICZ REILLY THORNBURGH UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: YES NO G��