The URL can be used to link to this page

2001 02 13 PCI Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California February 13, 2001 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2001-012 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-004 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on January 23, 2001. B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA :1 ,..... 0 01 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054 Applicant........... Nextel Communications Location............ 77-856 Avenida Montezuma Frances Hack Community Park Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval to install a wireless communication antenna with Monopalm prototype design Tree and related equipment for cellular telephone service in a 200 square foot one story building Action ............... Continue to B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-409 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2000-055 Applicant........... Sprint PCS Wireless Location............ 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, behind the La Quinta Hotel Administration Offices. Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and approval to install a 65-foot high wireless antenna with Monopalm prototype design and related roof and ground mounted equipment for cellular telephone service. Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 Applicant........... Ashbrook Communities Location............ Northeast corner of Black Diamond and Avenue 58 in Tract 29147-2 in PGA West Request ............. Review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential units with two facades each. Action ............... Resolution 2001- D. Item ................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-006 Applicant........... Desert Sage ll, LLC Location............ 78-085 Avenida La Fonda Request ............. Review of exterior remodeling plans of existing restaurant and landscaping plans for a new parking lot. Action ............... Resolution 2001- E. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 Applicant........... Madison Development LLC Location............ Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1 Request ............. Review of development plans for two retail buildings. Action ............... Resolution 2001 002 PC/AGENDA VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of February 6, 2001. X. ADJOURNMENT 003 PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 23, 2001 EST —All 4owe] us] a-9lad 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, and Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of January 9, 2001. Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 6, Item #25, be corrected to read "...sign clutter and have an auto orientation."; Page 8, Item #5 be corrected to read, "....they were asked what the difference was,..... These homes are almost identical and not consistent with the intent of the Master Design Guidelines. "In his opinion, there is not nearly enough variation in the designs. Page 9, Item #7 be corrected to read, "Commissioner Kirk stated he understands the cost involved, but the City was concerned about exactly what he was suggesting to do; ..." There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Butler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved with Commissioner Abels abstaining. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01 .wpd 1 a,� . 110't Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued Municipal Code Amendment 2000-066 - Title 8. Building and Construction; a request of the City for an amendment to Chapter 8.13, Water Efficient Landscaping, throughout the City. 1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Staff requested this item to be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 13, 2001, to allow additional time to prepare the report. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to continue this item to March 13, 2001. Unanimously approved. B. Environmental Assessment 2000-402 General Plan Amendment 2000- 071 Zone Change 2000-069 Amend the Villaae Design Guideline Boundary, and Village Use Permit 2000-004 , a request of Chapman Golf Development, LLC and the City for: 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) an Amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Village Commercial and from Medium Density Residential and Cove Residential to Village Commercial; 3) an Amendment to the Village Design Guideline boundaries; and 4) development plans for a 16,222 square foot restaurant located at the northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive and the west side of Eisenhower Drive between Calle Tampico to Avenida Montezuma. 1 . Commissioner Kirk excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. 2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked if this was the same project that was before them at the prior hearing. Staff responded that it was. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the hearing to Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-Ol.wpd 2,•, 005 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-002, rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-087 and recommending certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-402. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-003, rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-088 and recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 2000-071, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-004 rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-089 and recommending approval of Zone Change 2000-069, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-005 rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-090 and recommending approval of the Amendment to the Village Design Guideline Boundary, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-006 rescinding Planning Commission Resolution 2000-091 and recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2000-004, as recommended. 1.- 006 G:\WPD0CS\PC1-23-01.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Kirk rejoined the Commission. C. Site Development Permit 99-649; a request of Country Club of the Desert for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a clubhouse, main entry guard house, and golf course maintenance facility within Country Club of the Desert located on the north side of Avenue 54 between Jefferson Street and Monroe Street. 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted that the Fire Marshal conditions were just received and were to be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler noted that Condition #3 should be changed to require approval from Coachella Valley Unified School District. 3. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the Architecture and Landscaping Committee's recommendation regarding the architectural recommendation for additional detail on the maintenance building. Staff stated the applicant was required to provide an enhanced decorative cornice around the entire building. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to clarify the need for the Sheriff's conditions as they are difficult to implement. Staff stated they could be deleted. 5. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Anton Marinkovich, representing the applicant, gave a presentation of their request. 6. The Commission asked the architect to explain the design of the maintenance building and guardhouse, which he did. 7. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 0-- - 0 0 7 G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01 .wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 8. Commissioner Kirk stated it was a good design but asked that there be more architectural detail on the north and east elevations of the maintenance building. 9. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with the need for additional architectural design on these elevations as they faced Avenue 52 and Madison Street. 10. Chairman Robbins stated he agreed with the request to have the added architectural detail and suggested arcades or wall mass variations on the maintenance building. 1 1 . There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-007 approving Site Development Permit 99-649, as amended: a. Condition #3: Replace DSUSD with CVUSD. b. Conditions #45-48: Deleted C. Add Conditions from Fire Department d. Modify Condition #40: Prior to preparation of final working drawings for the maintenance building, an enhanced cornice treatment shall be provided around the top of the maintenance building with additional architectural articulation (i.e., popouts, etc.), provided on the north and west sides of the building to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. D. Environmental Assessment 2000-406, Specific Plan 2000-050, Village Use Permit 2000-005, and Tentative Parcel Map 29909; a request of Santa Rosa Plaza, LLC. for, 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, 2) review of design guidelines and development standards for a 15.25 acre commercial center; 3) development plans for a six story 145 room hotel; and 4) creation of 11 lots ranging in size from .4 to 6.2 acres to be located north of Calle Tampico between Desert Club Drive and Avenida Bermudas. 1. Commissioner Butler excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dias. G:AWPDOCSVPC1-23-01.wpd 5 $,1,_ 110J Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 2. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio and Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated the staff report referenced a traffic study which was not received. Was there anything significant contained in that report they should know about as completed. 4. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated it was made a part of the environmental review process that is attached to the staff report. There was nothing notable to comment on that was not summarized in the environmental review. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Dan Brown, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the project. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Ms. Lucia Moran, P. O. Box 1305, La Quinta, stated she was the listing agent on the land, and as a former Planning Commissioner she often had to wrestle with the needs of many versus the wants of the few. As the Commission is aware the City is in need of revenue to afford the beautiful landscape medians and setback, the parks, the Senior Center, the Parks and Recreation program, etc. and to address the public safety concerns of its citizens. This hotel with its Transient Occupancy Tax will bring the needed revenue to continue and enhance these programs. The land use and specific plan illustrates the thought that went into this project. With the casitas along the north side of the property, it brings the hotel building further south away from the six homes that would be affected at Duna La Quinta. She hopes the Commission will take into consideration the economic interests of the City when reviewing this project as proposed. 7. Ms, Arlene Turi, 48-800 Avenue Fernando, stated she is a resident of La Quinta and also owns a lot facing this proposed project. Her concern is regarding La Quinta setting a precedent to allow high rise buildings. This is going to block the view of all the residents in the adjoining neighborhoods. The overall plan of La Quinta and what we want the Village to be should be considered. She has always considered the Village to resemble El Paseo in Palm Desert G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-23-01 .wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 with flowing courtyards; a leisure place and not a metropolis. This project needs to be addressed in the overall picture of what the City wants to achieve. Whether we want high rise buildings that give a cosmopolitan atmosphere or whether we want a Village with gardens and what we seem to be doing with the landscaping. 8. Ms. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated that while she generally accepts the concept of the hotel, she must agree that 78 feet for a six story hotel is much too high for the Cove area and Village. She is not sure how high the recommended height of 55 feet is, but the guideline being used for a two story building has set a precedent for this area and to go beyond that is unnecessary. In addition the building pad is elevated which will also increase the building height. She does not agree with the Specific Plan where it indicates that a dramatic presence is needed for this project. In her opinion, the mountains are the City's dramatic presence and the rest of the area should stay quaint looking and low to the ground. The architecture as proposed does not appear to be compatible with the general feeling of the Village concept. Therefore, she would ask the Commission to limit the height of the hotel building. 9. Mr. Fred Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, stated he is delighted that a major development would come to the center of our City and hopefully vitalize it again. It is the type of project that may bring those results. However, he is utterly and totally uncompromisingly opposed to having the first high rise building in our City in this end of the Coachella Valley. We have pride in our community because of the ambiance that has been developed. Since he was first mayor of the City we have tried to maintain that ambiance and approved and disapproved projects based on that ambiance. In the 1 980's Landmark wanted to construct a hotel at PGA West and it was negotiated away. Approving this high rise will set a precedent and others will follow. There is an arrogance of the applicants' as they know what we want and they are giving no regard to the community. If the building blocks some people's views, it is their problem, not the developers. It is not only the view, but the presence of this giant building. It will totally change what our community is about. The residents do not want high rise buildings in our community. He would ask that the Commission approve the project with no more than three stories in height. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01.wpd 7 � � 010 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 10. Mr. Louis Compagna, P. 0. Box 1286, La Quinta, stated he owns a commercial piece of property across the street from this proposed project and he has no problem with a six story building and if it were negotiable to four stories, that would be fine also. As an owner across the street he supports the project. 1 1 . Mr. Doug Yavanian 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, stated his comment is based on Commissioner Kirk's comment on water flow and drainage. As the Commission is aware, KSL Development has been having discussions with staff regarding how to resolve a water drainage issue at their Hole #3 on their Dunes Golf Course. They receive a lot of excess ponding at this location and it is not meant to be a lake, but they are receiving a lot of collection from the south and north and while the Commission is discussing water flow, they need to take into consideration the impact this project could have on this location in regard to water flow. 12. Mr. Marshall Harris, 53-995 Avenida Cortez, stated he came to this Valley from a different area and has seen how the Valley has developed and commends the City on its management of that growth. He supports this proposal and hopes that the citizens could look at this hotel as it will appear instead of who's view it will block. This project will add a lot to the aesthetics of the area as compared to what is in this area presently. It will not only bring revenue to the City but stimulate other business to come here. 13. Mr. Robert Cunnard, 48-825 Avenida Enselmo, stated he has been in business in La Quinta for 20 years and owns the property just adjacent to this site. The area behind his property has been a haven for people who live in cardboard boxes and have caused untold trouble. This project will be good for this community and will help to clean up this area. He supports all six stories. 14. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 15. Commissioner Kirk stated it appears that everyone present likes the essence of the project and he agrees that it is an excellent use consistent with what the City wants to do in the Village area and would probably be an anchor and magnet for additional development to come to this area. Most of the concern will probably center around the height of the building. He was not as concerned about the height, even though he is sensitive to the issue and believes as Mr. Wolff stated that this community does (� 1 ,V G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01 .wpd 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 have a special character in part because of the height restrictions that has been maintained over the years. His initial concern was the entire design and as the architect described the site as a campus, that was the first thing that triggered his memory of office developments that are being built around the world and that is the orientation to the campus idea. While the name suggests something from the university setting with a pedestrian feel, what it has come to mean is the orientation around the automobile. As you look at the project, the building is surrounded by parking lots and landscaping, but it is orientated around the vehicles. There is more parking provided than required by City ordinances. Related concerns are how the applicant was able to change City code around. As the Commission and staff are aware, this project would not be allowed under the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. A zoning variance would normally not even be considered. He then asked the height limit was for this area. Staff stated 35 feet. Commissioner Kirk stated that in order to do this, they have developed and submitted an application for a specific plan approval. This allows them to change standards and regulations and employ design guidelines as they want them to be. If we are going to employ the specific plan, we ought to do so in the spirit in which it was crafted by State law and that is to engage other property owners. We have a neighboring property owner at this meeting that applauds this application and he would rather have seen his property and the other two adjoining properties brought into this plan. While these property owners have no plans for their property at this time, in another 10, 20, or 30 years when the market changes, those three properties are still going to be outside of this specific plan and those properties should be integrated into this plan. He does not believe anything could be done at this stage, but encourage staff that when an applicant first suggests using a specific plan tool that staff look at the entire area around the project and see if they can be integrated together. He is not in favor of the campus feel, but rather the Village design with zero lot lines, pedestrian emphasis, and de-emphasizing the automobile. The height is something of an issue, but he is not pleased with staff's recommendation either. He would suggest lowering the height 15-20 feet and creating a more massive lower structure sitting in the middle of a parking lot. He does support the hotel use, but is not pleased with the way it is designed in the context of what they are trying to achieve in the Village. 16. Commissioner Abels stated he concurs with most of the comments made by Commissioner Kirk. He has lived in this community for 33 years and is pleased to see this project. We. �•� 012 G:\WPD0CS\PC1-23-01.wod - 9 wnmomlNm�1�11111�1 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 talk how we want to improve the Village and nothing has ever taken place. Now, we have an opportunity. As to the six stories, he does not believe it will detract at all. Once the landscaping has matured you will not even remember what it looked like before. He supports the project as proposed. 17. Commissioner Tyler stated he has mixed emotions. It is an interesting project that could do a lot to infuse a breath of life into "the ailing commercial environment in the Village". Most are familiar with the elusive vision for the Village and it has been so elusive for the past 25-30 years that nothing has happened to turn it into a reality because no one can figure out what the vision really is and most probably never envisioned a hotel of this size. He likes the atrium concept as it will be a haven from the summer heat. However, as stated by Commissioner Kirk the project was reviewed with the Village Design Guidelines in mind and yet the developer came back with a design that is twice the allowable height which is an affront to the citizens of La Quinta. The public hearing just prior to this one proposes a tower with a maximum height of 74 feet and the rationale used by the City Council to approve this was that this clubhouse will be a centerpiece for a master developed community that is located in the flat portion of the City and not blocking any views of the mountains. Getting rid of storm water retention is a problem for both projects and this may be contributing to an already existing problem. He appreciates the comments given by the public. He is supportive of the project in all regards except the height. 18. Chairman Robbins stated that in regard to the storm drainage and nuisance water, staff has stated the soils are very tight at this location that nothing will percolate which causes a problem. He understands Mr. Yavanian's problem concerning the nuisance water. The drawings for this project appear to be very lush and yet the conditions do not contain any water efficiency language of the City's Ordinance and to him this is an important point. A condition should be added to address this concern. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated it is a mitigation measure. Chairman Robbins stated it is not contained in the conditions. Staff stated it is contained in the Environmental Assessment as well as a condition in the Specific Plan that states mitigation measures are incorporated as part of the Conditions of Approval. G:\WPDOCS\PC 1 -23-01. wpd 10 A., 013 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 19. Commissioner Kirk stated the Specific Plan does indicate under landscape guidelines, low water using plant material including native palms need to be used throughout the project. This sounds good, but for those who know plants, the native palms are not low water use plants. 20. Chairman Robbins stated this project needs to reflect that this is the desert and not the tropics. Generally, he is in favor of the project, but from a height standpoint this is a crossroad for the Village. A project like this is needed for the Village to move forward and prosper. He concurs with Commissioner Tyler that when the Village was envisioned no one thought of a six story hotel. The Village height limit is 35 feet. This is more than twice the height limit that was envisioned. Approving this project as it is today will change the direction of the Village. We need to realize that if we approve a six story building, it will change the vision of the Village and we need to be sure that that vision of the Village is what they want. This will set a precedent. If we do not want the high rise, then we need to take that into consideration and say no to this project. 21. Commissioner Abels stated he did not agree that every project after this would have to be approved for six stories. They can control the height of other projects. This will be an asset to the City and is needed to jump start the Village. 22. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-008 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-406, as recommended. 23. Chairman Robbins asked if this recommendation was for the 55 foot height. Commissioner Abels stated his motion was for the height at the applicant's request. Commissioner Tyler withdrew his second. Commissioner Kirk seconded the motion. 24. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was another way of mitigating the aesthetic issues. When there are height impacts, it is not just the height that is a concern, it is the height and mass. What this project has isn't a single tower that is six stories high, the entire structure is six stories high and this is much more of a significant G\WPDOCSVPC1-23-01.wpd Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 impact than having one building element, as in the case of the prior public hearing. To mitigate the aesthetic impact one consideration could be the atrium portion of the building could remain high and not have guest rooms around it. This may not be cost effective to the builder, but he would consider this. 25. Commissioner Abels withdrew his motion and suggested discussion with the applicant. Commissioner Kirk withdrew his second. 26. Chairman Robbins stated he did not see how this could make any difference. Walking out of your room and looking over the balcony down at the atrium creates the ambiance. To take that away does nothing for the developer. 27. Mr. Dan Brown, managing member for Santa Rosa Plaza, stated this has been a long road to get to this point. They have redesigned five or six times and kept in mind what they thought was necessary to make a hotel successful. One of hardest sells was to sell Hilton Hotels that the Village at La Quinta was ready for a project like this. He was questioned why he wanted to build at this location and he had to defend his decision to build at this location. They did take into consideration all the Zoning regulations for the Village, but knew there had to be a presence. This hotel had to have a high presence for it to be noticed. It had to be special which would complement what as going on in the Village. They have to be successful in the long term because the Village is successful, but they also have to make a statement that they are 100% first class. That is their main concern in requesting the six stores. They also have to get financing and in order to get that it has to be something different and special. The architecture of most hotels is a box, unlike the exterior of this proposal which contains both Mission and Mediterranean to complement the area. 28. Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Brown to comment regarding having only part of the building reaching the desired height. Mr, Brown stated not the way this building is configured. The building only goes to 69 feet and the tower takes it to 78 feet. The plan was to break up the height and not create a box. It is a $20 million project that they have to make sure it works. They need to make a presence for the hotel so people will come. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01.wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 29. Commissioner Tyler noted that the economics of a project were not a concern of the Commission. They were to see that it meets the land use designation, the General Plan and Zoning criteria. The City Council are to consider the other factors. 30. Chairman Robbins stated he has no problem with the aesthetics of the project. As a Planning Commissioner he is to uphold the City's ordinances. As this area has a 35 foot height limit and to allow 78 feet is a large stretch. 31. It was moved by Commissioner Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-008 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-406, as proposed by the applicant. The motion died for lack of a second. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-008 recommending Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2000-406, as recommended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. None. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-009 recommending approval of Specific Plan 2000-050, as amended and recommended by staff: e. Condition #6: Unrestricted access both to and from Desert Club Drive at the southerly location shown on the approved Specific Plan only. The northerly access shall be gated to restrict access for emergency purposes only. f. Condition #19: Delivery trucks, vehicles, and trash trucks shall access the site from Calle Tampico and or Avenida Bermudas. g. Condition #20: Add the three parcels at the northwest corner of Avenida Bermudas and Calle Tampico. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01 .wpd 13 .ni�m.m011lAmmlmm Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-010 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map 29909, as amended and recommended: a. Condition #6: Unrestricted access both to and from Desert Club Drive at the southerly location shown on the approved Specific Plan only. The northerly access shall be gated to restrict access for emergency purposes only. b. Condition #49(A)(c): Remove the reference to Condition 8.A.3 above. C. Condition #58.C. That the northerly access shall be gated to restrict access for emergency purposes only. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. 35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-011 recommending approval of Village Use Permit 2000-005, as recommended. a. Condition #69.A: Change the recess windows from 12 inches to eight inches. b. Condition #69.C: Delete. C. Condition #56.C: Unrestricted access both to and from Desert Club Drive at the southerly location shown on the approved Specific Plan only. The northerly access shall be gated to restrict access for emergency purposes only. d. Condition #71 : Delivery trucks, vehicles, and trash trucks shall access the site from Calle Tampico and or Avenida Bermudas. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Butler. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Sign Application 2001-528; a request of Riofine Neon for Jiffy Lube for reiew of two internally illuminated individually mounted channel letter signs on the west side of Adams Street immediately north of the La Quinta Care Wash, within the Highway 1 1 1 La Quinta Shopping Center. a.0 01? G:\WPDOCS\PC 1-23-01 .wpd 14 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 1. Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff if the temporary board sign had been approved. Staff indicated it will be removed as it is a condition of approval. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were two different configurations of the sign. Staff stated they were proposing two signs; one on the south and one on the north elevation and went on to describe the two signs. Staff noted that they were recommending that the lettering be removed on the on the logo on the south elevation. On the north elevation, staff is recommending the sign be reduced to fit the fascia. The sign program for the Center is that each sign be individual letters. Chairman Robbins asked if any part of the sign was corporate signage. Staff stated that was a question for the applicant. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the applicant can consent to whatever they desire, notwithstanding what the case or Federal law may dictate. Chairman Robbins reiterated that he can agree, but the City cannot force it on them. 4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Rio Score, representing Riofine Neon, explained the sign proposal and stated the design was their corporate logo. He went on to note the error in the sign length. The fascia on the north side that contains the sign is 42 inches so the sign would not hang off. 5. Chairman Robbins asked staff to clarify their concerns regarding this sign. Staff stated that as long as the letters were 24 inches, then they would be centered on the facia area. Mr. Score noted the existing letters are 29 inches tall. Staff stated it was unknown as to how the existing sign was installed at 29 inches. Staff was requiring the signs to conform to the existing sign program which only allows 24 inches in height. Mr. Score stated they preferred the straight across look. Chairman Robbins stated the letters would have to be smaller. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would agree to the smaller arrow without the letters. Mr. Score stated that would G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01.wpd 15 Avg. 018 Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2001 defeat the logo. The sign would also be out of proportion in regard to the letters and the arrow. 7. Commissioner Tyler asked why it was necessary to say "Jiffy Lube" twice in the same sign. Mr. Score stated it is more of a sight issue. 8. Following discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2001-003, approving Sign Application 2001-528, as amended: a. Condition #1: "...Sign letter height shall be reduced to 24 inches with the exception of the letter 'J'. The 'J' shall not exceed 27 inches in height." b. Condition #2: Change "may" to "shall". C. Condition #4: Replace with "The south elevation sign shall not exceed 50 square feet." Unanimously approved. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of January 16, 2001. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 13, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. on January 23, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC1-23-01.wpd 16 ' , 013 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054 APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (MS. BARBARA SAITO) PROPERTY OWNER: COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT LOCATION: 77-865 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, FRANCES HACK COMMUNITY PARK REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2001- 410); AND 2) INSTALLATION OF A 70-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNA CAMOUFLAGED AS A PALM TREE AND RELATED GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT FOR CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) ZONING DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC) SRPC NextelCont - 46gt - Page I �,J 021) BACKGROUND.: Letter of Continuance Staff received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to March 13, 2001, thereby allowing additional design alternatives to be considered. A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment 1). RE -COMMENDATION: Approve a public hearing continuance for Environmental Assessment 2001-410 and Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 to March 13, 2001. Attachments: 1. Continuance Letter from the Applicant Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager A:\SRPC nextelCont.wpd D.j, ()21 ATTACHMENTS . . �:, Ln�,, Z:33MI, I __.[ Iv11 ]vc, . . Nextel communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA U602 (714i 368-3500 Fax:(714) 368.3501 N EL Attachment 1 February 7, 2001 Greg Trousdell City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: CIP 2001-054, EA 2001-410 Site 6720 Dear Greg: Nextel Communications requests a continuance from February 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to the March 13, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. This will allow time for Nextel to review design alternatives suggested by staff. Please feel free to call me at (714) 620-4504 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ICATIONS it 023 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-055 APPLICANT: SPRINT PCS WIRELESS PROPERTY OWNER: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED LOCATION: 49-499 EISENHOWER DRIVE, WITHIN THE LA QUINTA HOTEL AND RESORT REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) INSTALLATION OF A 65-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS ANTENNA CAMOUFLAGED AS A PALM TREE (MONOPALM PROTOTYPE DESIGN) AND RELATED ROOF AND GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT FOR CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE: DAVID LEONARD ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUTES. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) SrPCSprintHotelCUP55- 46gt, Page 1 ZONING DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL PER SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E (AMENDMENT #4) The project site is located within the existing La Quinta Hotel complex. Presently, the hotel has over 600 rooms/casitas, conference salons, restaurants, and other speciality commercial/office businesses spread over 66 acres (Attachment 1). The buildings adjacent to the antenna were constructed in the last 15 years. Existing palm trees on the property are 30-50 feet tall, yet limited vertical vegetation is adjacent to the monopalm site due to existing hardscape improvements. Project -Request The applicant is requesting to install a 65' high digital cellular telephone antenna on the west side of an existing Administrative Offices for the La Quinta Hotel and east of the existing private service corridor and parking area for the hotel (Attachments 2 and 3). The monopole antenna is designed to replicate a palm tree (monopalm prototype design), thus the support pole will be covered in brown fiberglass bark. Three mast arms for the six antennas are placed within flexible green resin palm fronds to disguise the antennas. The monopalm will be about 31 feet above the adjacent two story buildings. Sprint will be leasing the antenna site space from the property owner and installing the related equipment cabinets for the antenna on the roof of the 35-foot high Salon de Fiesta building behind a mansard roof. An elevated platform of 325 square feet is planned to support the various metal equipment cabinets. This support structure is located approximately 14 feet away from the roof's parapet which measures seven feet high. Roof access is achieved by an existing enclosed stairwell to the west of the new monopalm. Electricity for the cellular equipment and antenna will be delivered by a transformer and backup generator in an enclosed utility building across the driveway from the monopole site. Public -Notice; The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 23, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance. A letter of opposition is attached (Attachment 4). Public Agency_Reviev; The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies, and any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. SrPCSprintHote1CUP55- 46gt, Page 2 a.., 025 STATEMENT OF MANDATORY_ FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055, as required by Section 9.210.020(F) and 9.170.060 of the Zoning Ordinance, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-409, prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-055, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1 . Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Elevations 4. Letter of Opposition from Mr. Steve Davis 5. Large Exhibits - Planning Commission only Submitted by: OAA �( �+ Christine di lorio Planning Manager AAS R PCSpri ntHote1055.wpd 1)2's PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-055 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-409 APPLICANT: SPRINT PCS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 13th day of February, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-409 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055, generally located within the La Quinta Hotel, more particularly described as follows: APN 658-180-029 & 658-190-011 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-409) and has determined that although the proposed Conditional Use Permit could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2001-409. 2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. G:\WPDOCS\PCRes. Sprint- EAO1-409.wpd D,J(. 02 f Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-409 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001- 409 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2001-409 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PCRes. Sprint- EA01 -409.wpd D .j; N3 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-409 3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-409 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 13th day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PCRes.Sprint-EA01-409.wpd 'J.J i 11 29 Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-055 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: 49-499 Eisenhower Dr., within the La Quinta Hotel. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Sprint PCS Wireless c/o David Leonard Associates 1223 University Ave., Suite 240 Riverside, CA 92507 6. General Plan Designation: Tourist Commercial 7. Zoning: Tourist Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Conditional Use Permit to, allow the construction of a 65 foot high "monopalm" antenna adjacent to La Quinta Hotel Administrative offices. The antenna will be camouflaged by artificial palm fronds, and will integrated into the project's existing landscaping scheme. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. The proposed site will be entirely surrounded by La Quinta Hotel facilities. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) G:\WPD0CS\EACklsT-Sprint.WPD 'J. (/�f'1) Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IMI I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I- I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nokinQ further is requjr4 U / /a Co/D / SArl JTI AJ C- W / 1.-oz o Da� F,f,f, U Li4 �LJ iN/ij Printed Name For G:\WPDOCS\EACklst-Sprint.WPD �•J� �.1Ji Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, 'Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. g) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance G:\WPDOCS\EACkJst-Sprint.WPD Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) 02 X VA M R X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Application materials) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X (Application materials) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Application materials, General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.) r, G1 X 0 PA X X X X X VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iv) Landslides? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.) e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) V11. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) X X X X X M G1 X X X X X X ��JJ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan FIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) 0 Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede of redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- 5) 0 X 102 94 X KI X X X X M GI X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: XI. XII. XII1. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general planconoise ise ord Materials) or applicable standards of other agencies. (Application) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Application Materials) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Application Materials) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-14) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) a X X 0 X X X M X X X X Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?(Application materials) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Application Materials) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Application Materials) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application Materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) X X X M 0 0 14 X X X X X X P/ d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. V3 X X X X X PA Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-409 VI. a) ii) The proposed project is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The area is subject to significant groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. The City, in order to mitigate such impacts, has implemented the standards of the Uniform Building Code, which requires added structural support within earthquake zones. The proposed project will be required to conform to those standards. This mitigation measure will reduce the potential for impacts from seismic groundshaking to a less than significant level. VIII. g) The proposed project is being developed entirely within the existing La Quinta Hotel. The area is, however, in a zone which is prone to flooding, and is designated as an A flood zone. As a developed property, the hotel has implemented flood control measures to ensure that flooding on the site is controlled. The proposed project will be required by the City Engineer to conform to on -site drainage designs, and as such will not impact flooding hazards on the site. The impacts to structures is expected to be less than significant. G:\WPDOCS\EA-Adden-Sprint.WPD PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 65- FOOT HIGH WIRELESS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MONOPOLE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT CABINET CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-055 APPLICANT: SPRINT PCS WIRELESS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 131" day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, at the request of Sprint PCS Wireless, to consider a 65-foot high wireless radio communications monopalm antenna and related equipment at the La Quinta Hotel (The La Quinta Resort and Club) within the Tourist Commercial Zoning District, located at 49-499 Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: APN: 658-190-011, PORTION WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Conditional Use Permit: 1 . The design and improvements of the proposed monopalm are consistent with La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1.4.10 that requires utilities and communication facilities to blend in with the desert environment and surrounding improvements. Existing palm trees accentuate the hotel site and the monopalm prototype serves to blend in with this area of the hotel by using artificial palm fronds and textured support structure. 2. The proposed monopalm, antennas, and equipment are consistent with current standards of the Zoning Code (Section 9.170.010, Commercial Communications Towers) and Specific Plan 121-E in that potential adverse visual effects have been mitigated by design of the structure and adjacent two story structures. 3. The design of the monopalm, antennas, and equipment areas is not likely to cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and the City's Building & Safety Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant concerns identified. 4. The design of the monopalm, antennas, and equipment is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidable injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact did not identify any significant impacts for this issue. The site is surrounded by commercial hotel service facilities. ResoCUP55Sprint-46'�•J1 �5t2 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditional Use Permit 01-055 Sprint PCS Wireless February 13, 2001 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of EA 2001-409 certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this case pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and 3. That it does hereby approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13`h day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE BOBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\ResoCUP55 SprintHotel.wpd ".J 043 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-055 SPRINT PCS WIRELESS FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CONDITIONS —OF APPROVAL The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies, or departments: • Community Development Department • Imperial Irrigation District The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 2001-055, unless amended by the following conditions. 4. This approval of Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means beginning of substantial construction toward installation of antennas and equipment cabinets as allowed by this approval. 5. Upon approval by the Planning Commission, a memorandum noting that the City Conditions of Approval for this application exist and are available for review at City Hall shall be recorded against the property with Riverside County. CONDCUP55SPRINT-CT/46 Page I of 2 A.j: () t FEES—ANDJ2EMSITS 6. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks, permits, and inspections. 7. Within three days after Planning Commission approval, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check payable to the County of Riverside for $78.00 for recording of EA 2001-409. MISCELLANEOUS 8. The metal cabinets shall be painted in color to match the mansard roof tile. CONDCUP55SPRINT-cTi46 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS LAND. USE PLAN OPEN SPACE Attachment 1 �) - �:OPEN SPACE I k�•�� 'I (SENSITIVE RESOURCE AREA) OPEN SPACE II ter!. 111 I �l ci \C l�.� ` � i� (PASSIVE AND ACTIVE RECREATION AREA / GOLF & FACILITIES) WATERCOURSE/FLOOD CONTROL RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ME IUM DENSITY 4 x 1$ 0 1 COMMERCIAL 1J-*�--o •� I� sae TOURISTCOMNIERC1AL r� Tall two ' ..::»;� ARri4 OF PROPOSED RISOR-I• 4 I.; FACILITY \ RI S1DIin'I'I:U, PMENT InNI l;xlsrmc IIOTEI, uNrrs DO TO BE REMOVED 51 m 1v,-c r1_QUINTA RF� ACCESS NODE 3 Tl IVCNIIAI r, \ \ I' 1 ; SIGNALIZED ACC LSS NODE RESO I )V17 O SI4' OU'. � C pecific Plan V, La Quinta Resort 49-999 L'iscn iowcr Drivc, La Quinta, CA. PREPARED FOR: KSL Land Corporation M 56-140 PGA HIld.. la Qui"M Culililf i- Exhibit 7 _. ... 2.9 11 s Attachment 2 Attachment 4 Steve Davis 77500 Avenida Fernando La Quinta, CA 92253 February 7, 2001 To: La Quinta Planning Commission and Staff RE: Proposed Cell Tower Project Proposed Public Meeting date Feb. 13,2001 Sirs, FEB - 7 2001I�_!.' 1„ Y OF LAUUINT:1 I hereby request that the noticed meeting on February 13, 2001 for the Cell Tower be postponed and rescheduled for a later date. As stated below the City of La Quinta, KSL or Sprint did not notify us of this meeting nor of the proposed project. I would further request that the meeting be postponed for several months in order to enable me to hire competent attorneys and architects to contest the proposed project. Attached please find copies of communications from ESA and MF&A. The simple import of both communications was that I would be notified once a final plan was determined. Additionally I made it very clear to Mr. Christopher Mundhenk of ESA that I would oppose any proposed project, which was visible from any part of my property or that posed even the remotest threat to my family from radiation. I have heard nothing since June 15, 2000 from anyone respecting the tower project. My position on any and all radiation issues was made very clear to Mr. Soo of DSL Corporation and Ms. April Shoot (?) of KSL Human Resources. Since the Resort and I share over 500 feet of common border I can't imagine why I am not being notified about matters in which I clearly have and interest. I found out about the proposed project from our neighbors the Pugets. I believe they oppose the proposal as well. Finally could I please be given a copy of the Environmental Impact Report for this project? If one has not been performed, I believe it should be. Sincerely Steve Davis 051 PH #C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 APPLICANT: ASHBROOK COMMUNITIES PROPERTY OWNER: CRV GOLF WEST, LLP LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF BLACK DIAMOND AND AVENUE 58 IN TRACT 29147-2 IN PGA WEST REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THREE NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH TWO FACADES EACH ARCHITECT: DANIELIAN ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: DAVID NEAULT ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR @ 4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PER SPECIFIC PLANS 83- 002 AND 90-017 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 IS WITHIN PGA WEST SPECIFIC PLANS 83-002 AND 90-017. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBERS 83062922 AND 90020727) WERE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1984 FOR SP 83-002 AND 1991 FOR SP 90-017. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO SR PC SDP2001-687-46 .. OS2 INFORMATION PROVIDED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE OPEN SPACE; EXISTING GOLF COURSE AND RIELLY HOMES DEVELOPMENT SOUTH: ACROSS AVENUE 58, WITHIN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND VACANT EAST: IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT CORPORATE FACILITIES WEST: SPECIFIC PLAN RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE OPEN SPACE; VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND UNDER CONSTRUCTION SUMMIT HOUSES, AND EXISTING PGA WEST GOLF COURSE BACKGROUND: The property is located in PGA West adjacent to the Weiskopf Golf Course on the north side of Avenue 58, east of Black Diamond. The applicant's prototype units are proposed to be located on private streets within the boundaries of Specific Plans 83- 002 and 90-017. The approved Specific Plans provide Community Design Guidelines for the residential units proposed in PGA West, a master planned golfing community extending over 1,900 acres. In 1999, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 29147 allowing the subdivision of 172.8 acres into 152 single family lots under Resolution 99-158. Tract 29147-2 was recorded in December 1999 establishing 92 single family lots in the southeast part of PGA West (Attachment 1). Project Request Three prototype house plans are proposed on Tract 29147-2 ranging in size from 2,245 square feet to 2,801 square feet. The plans are one story, not exceeding 19' high, with each plan having two different facades. Exterior building materials consist of plaster walls and roofs topped with S-shaped concrete roof tile. Twelve color schemes have been provided in shades of light red and brown with other accenting color variations. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting. Plan 2 has a prominent tower element for the houses entrance that is 13' in diameter. Hip roofs, in varied heights, are the dominant facade treatment (i.e., 5:1 2 and 4:12 roof pitches). Decorative cornice stucco eaves in conjunction with 2" by 10" headers over Plans 2 and 3 garage door openings. Front windows are inset into each facade, and garages have metal, roll -up garage doors without lites. Wood shutters are used on two of the Desert Villa facades for variety. A•J �' 053 SR PC SDP2001-687-46 Plan types are as follows: Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Sq. Footage 2,245 2,215 2,801 Casitas 256 400 Bedrooms 2 and 3 2 and 3 3 Garage 2.5 2.5 2.5 Parking Front and Side Front Loaded Front Loaded Spaces Loaded A front yard landscaping plan has been submitted for the model homes sales area on Mountain View. Landscaping consists of a minimum of two street trees (24" box and larger) per lot accented by sod, a variety of one and five gallon shrubs, and annual color. Tree species for the project are consistent with the plant palette for PGA West, including California Pepper, Jacaranda, Bottle tree, Citrus, etc. Palm trees will be used to accentuate private courtyard areas. Public_Notce: This SDP application was advertised in the Desert S-un newspaper on February 3, 2001, and mailed to all affected property owners as required by Section 9.60.3OO(F) of the Zoning Ordinance. No written comments have been received. Arch itecture_and_Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC)-Action On February 7, 2001, the ALRC considered this request. By Minute Motion 2001- 009, the ALRC determined that minor architectural changes were required to be compatible with the existing Tract houses, subject to recommended conditions which have been incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval. A draft copy of the Minutes from the meeting is attached (Attachment 2)• STATEMENT_4EMANDAZQBY_ FINDINGS: As required by Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is required to review and comment on the findings with regard to architectural design and landscaping: 1 . A two-story house shall not be constructed adjacent to or abutting a lot line of an existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision unless proof can be provided showing that a two-story unit was proposed for the lot by the prior builder. Response.. Since no two story houses are proposed, this is not an issue for this development. SR PC SDP2001-687-46 $. ) ; 1) 5 i 2. If lot fencing has been provided in the subdivision, the new developer shall provide the same or better type of fencing for the new dwellings, as determined by the Planning Commission, including any perimeter subdivision fencing. Response: PGA West houses have 5' to 6' high privacy walls around their residences constructed of masonry block clad in stucco. Side yard pedestrian access gates are constructed using tubular metal and painted to match the house. Condition 36 requires the developer to provide privacy walls compatible with existing houses ensuring architectural compatible. 3. Proposed single-family dwellings shall be compatible to existing dwellings in the project or to dwellings which are approved for construction as shown on the plans and materials board, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission, with respect to architectural materials, colors, roof lines, lot area, and building mass. Response: The applicant's prototype house plans range in size from 2,245 square feet to 2,801 square feet on existing lots averaging 9,500 square feet. Architectural variety is achieved through window sizes and shapes, changes in roof designs, and other distinct but unifying features. To ensure architectural consistency with other existing houses regarding facade treatments, the ALRC recommends that a gable roof facade element be added to Plans 2 and 3 (Condition 3C). Based on the recommended conditions, the development of the new prototype units in this partially developed subdivision will include similar architectural improvements and building massing ensuring harmonious development in PGA West. 4. At least one specimen tree (minimum 24" box) shall be provided in the front yard and street side yard with a total number of trees on each lot to be the same as that provided for on the original units. Response: The plans provide conceptual design and planting information for the front yards. The applicant's plant pallette includes those plants used in the City and in PGA West. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to complement single family buildings and complement surrounding houses. Condition 2 requires specimen trees to be planted with the development of the new houses to give a mature appearance when the house is sold. A lush landscape design is required, unless a desertscape plan is proposed and allowed by City staff. 5. The single-family dwelling units proposed within a partially developed subdivision shall not deviate by more than 10 percent from the square footage of the original units by the original developer which have either been approved or constructed. Response: Existing PGA West houses range in size from 1,290 square feet to over 4,800 square feet; therefore, the developer's request to have houses that SR PC SDP2001-687-46 are 2,245 square feet to 2,801 square feet is within the approved range of sizes. 6. Residential units with identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. Response: The prototype houses provide contrasting elevations that complement an expansion of the PGA West development on the east side of Madison Street which include houses being built by Rielly Homes under Site Development Permit 98-634. 7. Each house shall offer a minimum of two different front elevations pursuant to Section 9.60.330 (Residential Tract Development Review) of the Zoning Code. Response: The architectural styles, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements of the units are attractive and compatible with surrounding units in PGA West in that architectural variety is achieved. Facade plant-ons average between 12 inches to 20 inches, providing defining architectural character to the streetscape theme. Decorative lighting features and ornamental pedestrian gates create variation among each plan type. As note in Findings #3, Condition 3C insures the design will be adequately varied. 8. Parking standards comply with City's design standards for single family residential units. Response: Under Chapter 9.150 (Parking) of the Zoning Code, three garage parking spaces are required when a house has four or more bedrooms. Each house plan offers a three car garage in compliance with this requirement. RECOMP ENDATION— Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ approving Site Development Permit 2001-689, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1 . Site Location 2. Draft ALRC Minutes of 2-7-01 3. Architectural Exhibits - Commission Members 4. Concept Landscape Plan - Commission Members Submitted by /te!Planner I, Associ Christine di lorio, Plar�ning Manager SR PC SDP2001-687-46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, PROVIDING COMPATIBILITY APPROVAL OF THREE PROTOTYPE UNITS IN PGA WEST CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 APPLICANT: ASHBROOK COMMUNITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 131h day of February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Ashbrook Communities to approve architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential plans to be constructed on private streets located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Black Diamond in Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 (PGA West); and WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 7th day of February, 2001, hold a public meeting to consider the request of Ashbrook Communities to approve architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residential plans to be constructed on private streets located at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Black Diamond in Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 (PGA West), more particularly described as: Lots 1-92 of Tract 29147-2 WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2001-689 is within PGA West Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017. Environmental Impact Reports (State Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922 and 90020727) were certified by the City Council in 1984 for SP 83-002 and 1991 for SP 90-017. No changed circumstances or conditions and no information provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed units are of a compatible architectural design, colors, and materials to the existing units in PGA West. The units utilize similar architectural features such as concrete S-tile roofs, exterior plaster, arches, popout stucco surrounds, inset windows, decorative eaves and lighting. The proposed conditions require revisions to Plans 2 and 3 regarding roof design to provide adequate variation to the facades. A:\ResoPC Ashbrook.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-689 Ashbrook Communities February 13, 2001 2. The proposed landscaping plans will provide a minimum of one 24" box size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least one additional tree and other shrubs and groundcover. Corner lots require a minimum of five trees with one tree a 24" box specimen. 3. No two story residences are proposed, nor are there any existing in the tract. 4. Masonry walls are proposed between units and will be compatible with existing walls in PGA West. 5. The size range of the existing residences is 1,290 to over 4,800 square feet. The proposed units vary from 2,245 square feet to 2,801 square feet with 2.5 car garages. This request is in compliance with compatibility review and parking Code requirements. 6. The final plot plan will ensure compliance with the requirement that identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from one another. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-689 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 13`h day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: a„j: (153 A:\ResoPC Ashbrook.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-689 Ashbrook Communities February 13, 2001 STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\ResoPC Ashbrook.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 ASHBROOK COMMUNITIES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 GENERAL 1 . Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel at its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit for units authorized by this approval in compliance with Chapter S.13 (Water Efficient Landscaping) of the Municipal Code. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal to the final plans to the Community Development Department in compliance with SP 83-002 and 90-017. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for any of the units authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department, including the following: A. Front yard landscaping shall consist of a minimum turf, two trees, ten 5- gallon shrubs, and groundcover. A minimum of one tree per interior lot shall be 24" box in size having a 1.5 inch caliper measured three feet up from grade level after planting. Corner lots require two specimen trees and three 15-gallon trees (i.e., 0.75 inch caliper or larger). Lodge poles (2" diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters and be approved by the PGA Homeowners Association. B. Stucco privacy walls shall be constructed for each house. Cond SDP 689Ashbrook-26; Page 1 - gt '-;, 06() PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-689 ASHBROOK COMMUNITIES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 C. The Desert Villa facade for Plans 2B and 36 shall be revised to include gable roof elements, subject to final design approval by the Community Development Director. Plan 2 requires two gable roof elements and Plan 3 requires one gable roof element over the golf cart garage. 4. A Minor Use Permit application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval to establish a temporary model home sales complex and guest parking lot (e.g., 10 spaces) in the project, pursuant to Section 9.60,250 and Chapter 9.150 of the Zoning Code. 5. Mailboxes shall be provided within the project in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Postal Service. 6. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Tract 29147 and Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017. 7. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall not be installed within five feet of the side property line. 061 Cond SDP 689Ashbrook-26; Page 2 - gt ATTACHMENTS 062 Attachment 1 .RA 5 5 Zzo a 1 db as M 9 1 'AD. 2J K fj 64 0 4 49. x 23 CtN �7 0. 29 T 6 3 11 KUL! Shi nne cock Hills 43 20 9 i22 If 24 Valli Gate 61 6 40 27 Aid? 48 a 2 , 9 49 n 'Jr51 .3 31 32 9 52 VO 3 27 LOT 0 96 21.06 /0el O LOT 0 57 > I/V 4 A 60 6D I I , 4 tf-�- 14" 38 0 Lo,z —Pin. Valley KLLM 5 Chanticleer 9, Avenue 58 Jk� 55 - 063 ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 D. Village Use Permit 2001-006; a request of Desert Sage IL,_LLGfor review of exterior remodelin r)lan restaurant and landscaping plans f6fr a new parking lot. 1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the informati n contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in e Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Steve Fortun, partner in the restaurant, gy4e a presentation of the project. 3. Staff asked the applicant to explain the ignage. Mr. Fortn stated it would be on the front of the awnin9l,and possibly on the sides. There are no street lights currently, a d they would like to use soft lighting on the front of the building/ Staff informed everyone that they are required to meet par ki lot lighting standards per the Zoning Code. 4. Committee Member Bobbi stated that the perimeter trees will cover almost 50% of the arking and with the extra two trees it may meet the require ent. Staff stated that what they are showing appears to b acceptable. 5. Mr. Fortun asked iYthere were any lighting specifications for the parking lot. Staf stated the requirements. 6. There being n further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee, embers Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-008, recommending approval of the landscaping and building elevatio for Village Use Permit 2001-006, as recommended with the fol for changes. 6 Condition #1.b.: Specify the roof treatment for the air conditioning cooler shall be a parapet roof. Condition #2.B.: Remove the word "three". Unanimously approved. E. Site Development Permit 2001-689 a request of Ashbrook Communities for review of architectural and landscaping plans for three new prototype residences each with two facades at the northeast corner of Black Diamond and Avenue 58 in PGA West. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in,the Community Development Department. 6l 7-01.wod 6 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 2. Mr. Joe Digrado, architect for the project, gave a presentation on the project. They were asking to keep the hip roofs for Plans 2 and 3 so as to maintain a lower profile of the house. As the buildings are fairly wide, with two houses together it is too massive. They are trying to achieve a lower profile. They do have 12 color schemes and the street scene will be different. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the plant palette is fine in most aspects, but some of the plants proposed will not last here in the desert. The soils are too high in alkaline and he went on to list the plants that should be replaced. In regard to the trap fence, will there be any community pools? Staff stated no. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that any metal that will come in contact with the soils, will deteriorate. In regard to the hip roof, the roof lines do look similar and there needs to be some diversity. Staff suggested adding gable roofs to give the diversity. Mr. Digrado stated there are popouts on the rear that could be changed. Staff stated the concern was with the front elevations. Mr. Digrado stated they could address this issue on one of the smaller units. 4. Committee Member Bobbitt asked who would be responsible for the landscaping. Mr, Tom Evans, project manager for Ashbrook Communities, stated: they would be maintained by the HOA. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern about the use of the Cats Claw vine in regard to the HOA maintenance and recommended it be replaced. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-009 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 001-689 as modified: a. Condition #2: Plan 2 B facade shall include a gable roof. Plan 3.B. shall have over the garage storage area. Site D.evelooment Permit 2001-691 • a request—Q -McDec prises for review of architectural and landscaping plans for e I of the La Quinta Professional Plaza at the southeast co of Washington Street and 47`h Avenue. 1. Associate Plan allace Nesbit, presented the information containe the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the G:\ W PDOCS\ALRC2-7-01.wpd 7 PH #D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-006 APPLICANT: DESERT SAGE II, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE (MICHAEL ALLEN) REQUEST: REVIEW OF EXTERIOR REMODELING PLANS OF EXISTING RESTAURANT AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR NEW PARKING LOT LOCATION: 78-085 AVENIDA LA FONDA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301, CLASS 1 AND SECTION 15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AS AMENDED (RESOLUTION 83-63). SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ENTIRELY BY LAND THAT IS ZONED VC (VILLAGE COMMERCIAL) AND DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL LAND USES. THERE IS SOME VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH OF THE PROJECT SITE. BACKGROUND: The property is located on the south side of Avenida La Fonda, 100 feet west of Desert Club Drive in the Village area (Attachment 1). A two story building exists on the property and until recently was operated as Robi's Restaurant. The restaurant is on five 25 foot wide lots and the project site includes the 25 foot wide lot to the east and five vacant 25 foot wide lots to the west. C P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc rpt.wpd (' 6 PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is presently remodeling the interior and proposes to make changes to the facade and west elevation and add roof and ground mounted equipment near the rear of the two story structure. Additionally, the front circular driveways will be widened slightly, with a new valet parking lot added on the five lots to the west. The lot shows 26 car spaces and two oversize spaces for vehicles such as limousines. The lot will connect to the new circular driveway and have access to the alley at the rear of the property. Presently, except for several parking spaces adjacent to the alley at the rear, there is no on -site parking available. The front of the restaurant will receive true divided metal or composite multi -pane windows to replace the existing windows and a new arched doorway. The windows will have dark colored individual weather -resistant awnings over them and be trimmed with wood as presently exists. A porte cochere matching the awning with a sign on the front and possibly sides will be provided at the entry and extend over the circular driveway. A short stucco wall with cap will attach to the ends of the porte cochere supports near the street. The Avenida La Fonda improvement plans being implemented by the City provide a sidewalk beyond the proposed improvements. On the west elevation of the building a ground floor door and exterior metal stairway from the second story will be provided to comply with building codes. The red tile mansard roof will be retained with the stucco repainted a slightly darker creme color with the wood trim matching the stucco. At the rear of the building adjacent to the trash enclosure, a single story stuccoed addition of approximately 8.5 feet deep by 18 feet wide will be provided for a new walk-in cooler. An existing overhead door will be removed and replaced with a man door east of this cooler On the roof near the rear of the building, a new exhaust hood will be installed and extend above the parapet wall. The preliminary landscaping plan proposes continuous planters around the entire parking lot except for driveway areas. The perimeter trees (24" box size) include various types of Acacias, with Mexican Fan Palms (8'-16') and Acacias adjacent to the west side of the building. The palm trees are placed to screen the new exterior stairway. Italian Cypress (24" box size) are planted as a screen at the east and west ends of the new circular driveway to hide the adjacent bar and the new parking lot, respectively. This will complement the existing cypress to the east of the building. Landscape and parking lot lighting will be provided, but details were not available at the writing of this report. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 2, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc rpt.wpd PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW: All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) ACTION: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of February 7, 2001, and found it acceptable with an additional condition that the new cooler area have a parapet roof and deletion of the specific number of new trees required in the parking lot. The ALRC adopted Minute Motion 2001-008, recommending approval of this request, subject to the amended conditions (Attachment 2). FINDINGS: The Findings required in Section 9.65.040 (Village Use Permit Review Process) of the Zoning Ordinance can be made as noted in the attached Resolution with the following exceptions: 1. The project will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare provided the lots are merged as recommended in Condition #32 and a parking lot lighting plan per City requirements is approved and installed as recommended in Condition #33. 2. The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements, are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Guidelines with the exception of the screening for the exhaust hood. Staff recommends Condition #34 requiring screening of the hood that is architecturally compatible to the building. 3. The site design of the project including entries, circulation, screening, is compatible with the surrounding area, provided a vehicle drive aisle connection is provided between the two north -south drive aisles as recommended in Condition #35. 4. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence, and be compatible with surrounding development and P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc rpt.wpd 0 6 n the concepts of the Village at La Quinta Guidelines in that the plans provide an attractive appearance surrounding the existing building and new parking lot. To comply with the tree shading requirements of the Zoning Code Section 9.1 50.080M6, additional trees are recommended in Condition #36 between the double row of parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001 approving Village Use Permit 2001-006, subject to the conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Minutes of the ALRC meeting of February 7, 2001 3. Plan exhibits (11" x 14") Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: "Pk�� P, Christine di lorio, Pla ning Manager P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc rpt.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING EXTERIOR REMODELING PLANS AND A NEW VALET PARKING LOT FOR A RESTAURANT CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-006 DESERT SAGE II, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 131h day of, February, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Sage ll, LLC, for approval of a Village Use Permit to allow exterior remodeling and construction of a valet parking lot for a restaurant, located at 78-085 Avenida La Fonda, more particularly described as: APN's 770-122-002 through -008 WHEREAS, said Village Use Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development Department has determined this Village Use Permit request is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15311, Class 11 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended (Resolution 83-63), and; WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings justify approval of said Village Use Permit: A. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code in that the use is permitted in the VC District and has been designed to comply with the applicable VC District development standards, guidelines, and provisions. B. This project has been determined to be categorically exempted from California Environmental Quality Act requirements under Section 15301, Class 1 and Section 15311, Class 11 of the Guidelines for Implementation. C. The project will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the use is contained in. an existing structure and parking lot that complies with applicable requirements provided the lots are merged, and the use will operate in conformance with all applicable requirements. 0 71) p:\stan\vup 2001--006.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Village Use Permit 2001-006 February 13, 2001 D. The architectural design of the building with the remodeling, is compatible with the surrounding uses and quality of design illustrated in the Village at La Quinta Design Guidelines, provided the recommended exhaust hood screen is provided to the building as recommended. E. The site design of the project including entries, circulation, screening, is compatible with the surrounding project, provided the recommended drive aisle is provided as recommended. F. The landscaping plans provide an attractive appearance surrounding the existing building and new parking lot provided additional trees are installed between the double row of parking to comply with the tree shading requirements of the Zoning Code as recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve Village Use Permit 2001-006 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 13`" day of February, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\vup 2001-006 pc res.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 GENERAL 1. Upon conditional approval by the Planning Commission of this development application, the City Clerk shall prepare and record, with the Riverside County Recorder, a memorandum noting that conditions of approval for development of the property exist and are available for review at City Hall. 2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. A-; 072 P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 1 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved plans. 5. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 6. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 7. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 073 P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 2 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 8. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 9. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 10. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 11. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. , % O 74 P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 3 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 12. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 13. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 14. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 15. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. DRAINAGE 16. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in an approved manner. UTILITIES 17. The applicant shall coordinate with IID for the removal or relocation of the power pole and guy wire conflicting with the westernmost entrance to the valet parking facility from the alley. 18. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. () % J P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 19. Improvements shall include removal of two approaches from Ave. La Fonda and construction of two new approaches from Ave. La Fonda. Improvements to agree and match with planned improvements as part of the Improvement District plans for Ave. La Fonda. 20. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 21. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 22. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. 23. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 24. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 5 of 076 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage II, LLC February 13, 2001 25. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Westernmost Access off Ave. La Fonda - Right in, right out. B. Easternmost Access off Ave. La Fonda - Right in. Applicant's engineer to review the turning radius requirements for this access in conjunction with the plans for the Ave. La Fonda improvements, and make adjustments if appropriate, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 26. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 27. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 28. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. 29. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 30. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Village Use Permit 2001-006 Desert Sage Il, LLC February 13, 2001 FEES AND DEPOSITS 31. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 32. Prior to final inspection by the Building and Safety Department and Community Development Department of the construction authorized by this approval, the lots used for the driveways and parking lot shall be merged (approved by the City and recorded by the Riverside County Recorder) with the restaurant site. 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the new parking lot, a parking lot lighting plan, with a photometrics study, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. The plan shall utilize downshining fixtures with standards (poles) only high enough to meet footcandle requirements. 34. Prior to beginning of work authorized by this approval, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department and include the following revision: A. A screen shall be provided around the new exhaust hood on the roof near the rear of the building, and shall use stucco sides to match the building. B. The plans shall indicate a parapet around the new walk-in cooler at the rear of the building. 35. The parking lot shall be revised to provide a 20 foot wide drive aisle between the two north -south rows of parking at the south end of the parking lot. 36. The final landscaping and irrigation plans have shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the parking lot improvement plans being approved by the Public Works Department and include the following revision: A. Provide minimum 24" box size trees (1.5-2.5" caliper) in parking lot tree wells between double row of parking. 073 P:\STAN\vup 2001-006 pc coa.wpd Printed February 7, 2001 Page 7 of 7 ATT/kCHMENT #1 �7----1----—r----i—-—-r — — —— -—--1 f---- —-.-.—----�--- I aft a y_-- - r 1 9 s e 1 n _ 7 S1 ♦9 T a 0 • nu neo-a� u. T,T — T — T•— T — 7 �/— T — T — Tr; _ 1e w �e I' ' 1w I 1' I' W O n5 - C t AID' I 351 tt I n ID 1 ?9 I >o' 3x 1 33' 33 131' u I n m I m I b O• se �l 119 I l3 SEE A�3Y5{lA I I 1 I I I I I I u LI I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 .I rt N � I I I I I Rr 3 1 I I I I I rxl AVENDA LA _ _ _ _ _ L W 4 16 I IS H I3 17 11 10 B 7 B 5 e ",- O xr 1 mI a' r m s n n e E 1t I n ¢ n n a e i 1 e 1 s e 3 1 m 1' ' re ASSESSOR'S KW BK. 770 PC. 17 Rimsiee Cooly. Calif. giih` I I }} I � I I I S 3 s S v7: CASE MAP CASE No. VUP 2001-006 DESERT SAGE II, LLC NORTH SCALE: NT8 07;? ATTACHMENT #2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 D. Village Use Permit 2001-006; a request of Desert Sage II, LLC for review of exterior remodeling plans of an existing restaurant and landscaping plans for a new parking lot. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. Steve Fortun, partner in the restaurant, gave a presentation of the project. 3. Staff asked the applicant to explain the signage. Mr. Fortn stated it would be on the front of the awning and possibly on the sides. There are no street lights currently, and they would like to use soft lighting on the front of the building. Staff informed everyone that they are required to meet parking lot lighting standards per the Zoning Code. 4. Committee Member Bobbin stated that the perimeter trees will cover almost 50% of the parking and with the extra two trees it may meet the requirement. Staff stated that what they are showing appears to be acceptable. 5. Mr. Fortun asked if there were any lighting specifications for the parking lot. Staff stated the requirements. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-008, recommending approval of the landscaping and building elevations for Village Use Permit 2001-006, as recommended with the following changes. b. Condition #1.b.: Specify the roof treatment for the air conditioning cooler shall be a parapet roof. C. Condition #2.B.: Remove the word "three". Unanimously approved. E. _ Site Development Permit 2001-689 a request of Ashbrook Communities for review of arcfiit2'ctarat arrd Fart�ssapiag pla a rteGv prototype residences each with two facades a e northeast corner of Black Diamond and Avenue 58 in PCaAest. 1. Associat anner Greg Trousdell presented the information con�ed in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. In _ ; . A b () 6:\wPDocS\ALRC2-7-01.wod 6 PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO RETAIL BUILDINGS LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: MADISON DEVELOPMENT L.L.C. REPRESENTATIVE: JOHN VUKSIC, ARCHITECT ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS (CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: Property Description The currently vacant project site, located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street, consists of 1.37. The project site is within Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000, which establishes guideline�lsp a A:\draft PCstaff rpt SDP2000-688.2retail bldgs.wpd 138 ,; 1 and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The Design Guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria which includes Architectural Guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and Landscape Guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which is consistent the Highway Design Guidelines. Application Under Consideration The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct two retail buildings on 1.37 (Attachment 1) acres within the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan 2000-043. The project consists of a two commercial buildings of 6,400 and 7,220 square feet. Site Plan The site has frontage of on Highway 111 taking access at on Highway 111 and; the driveway will be located in the middle of the future Point Happy commercial center. Parking will be provided by Madison Development as they will be constructing on -site improvements for the entire commercial center (parking, parking lot lighting, parking lot planter landscaping) as the first phase of improvements. Landscape Plan The Landscaping Plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters; and along Highway 111 ( as required by Specific Plan approval). All sidewalks are proposed to be simulated stone. The north entry planter areas are proposed to have 24" box India Hawthorn trees; plant material includes Bougainvillea, Day Lily, Lantana, Dwarf Tobria, and Ruella. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping. Architectural Desian Building No. 4 The structure is basically rectangular in shape and uses a variety of roof types and heights ranging from 17 to 22 foot with clay tile gable roof tower. A tower element will be highlighted with a stone tile veneer at the base. The proposed south elevation is provided with recessed windows and architectural pop outs with concrete and stone veneer. Wall material consists of exterior cement plaster with a light sand finish in a four shades of brown with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation; the south elevation will have three recessed decorative light fixtures. Proposed windows will be sectional pane glass with anodized frames. The proposed north elevation provides three entry double doors each entry features columns with a plaster finish and wood beam arcades and narrow trellis that softens the long wall surface. A:\draft PCstaff rpt SDP2000-688.2retail bldgs.wpd ' 082 Building No. 5 The structure is basically rectangular in shape and uses a variety of roof types and heights ranging from 17 to 22 foot with clay tile gable roof tower and an entry rotunda with three sets of double doors at the east elevation. The tower will be highlighted with a concrete wainscot; and three clerestory windows providing natural light above each set of doors in the rotunda portal. The east elevation is accented with a wood beam arcade and trellis on columns with a plaster finish that provides shade and a visual connection to the Building No. 4. The west elevation proposes eight foot screen walls with stone veneer for three service doors. The north elevation adds a screen wall of fifteen foot sloping to the ten foot with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around the corner of the building; the south elevation adds a 6 foot privacy wall with a stone veneer which connects to a screen wall land planter) of fifteen foot sloping to the ten foot with a decorative cornice trim wraps to attach to building No. 4. Wall material consists of exterior cement plaster with a light sand finish in a four shades of brown with a decorative cornice trim that wraps around each elevation. Proposed windows will be sectional pane glass with anodized frames. Li htin Site lighting consists of nine 18-foot high steel square post with a round 2' concrete footing, located generally on the perimeter of the interior pavement, with box luminaries directed downward. All poles have one 400 watt metal halide lamps. Sign Plan Sign Plans for the each user will be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission at the appropriate time. ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE IALRQ) REVIEW: The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of February 6, 2001 (Attachment 3). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001-007, recommending approval. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public agencies on January 5, 2001, requesting comments to be returned by January 19, 2001. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. ,_ ; 083 A:\draft PCstaff rpt SDP2000-688.2retail bldgs.wpd PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on January 27, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. ANALYSIS AND ISSUES: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit can be made per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached resolution. There are no issues. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Site Development Permit 2000-688 to allow development plans for two retail buildings, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Draft Minutes of the ARLC meeting of February 7, 2001 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AI Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio Planning Manager AAdraft PCstaff rpt SDP2000-688.2retail bldgs.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA GRANTING APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO RETAIL BUILDINGS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 APPLICANT: MADISON DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 13`h day of February, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for two commercial buildings, 6,400 and 7,220 square feet, on 1.37 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 7`h day of February, 2001 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for two commercial buildings, 6,400 and 7,220 square feet, on 1.37 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO.S 4 & 5 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043, Point Happy Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify approval of said Site Development Permit 2000-688. 1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Point Happy Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. A:\PC R ESO. SDP2000-688.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 FEBRUARY 13, 2001 3. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and development in the area in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area; the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2000-688 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 1 V day of February , 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A:\PCRESO.SDP2000-688.wpd J. 086 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 FEBRUARY 13 . 2001 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PCRESO.SDP2000-688.wpd O p ' 117 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2000-688 FEBRUARY 6, 2001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Caltrans • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 3. This development shall be subject to the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of permit approval. A:\COA SDP2000-688.wpd PROPERTY RIGHTS 4. The applicant may be required by Caltrans to furnish additional Highway 111 right of way to accommodate the proposed bus turnout and dedicated right -turn -in lane. If so, the right of way shall be deeded to the City in fee simple. 5. If the applicant cannot obtain permission from CVWD for location of the bikepath (required below) within the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall grant an easement across the north end of this property for that purpose. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or deed cross -access easements to all private lots or parcels existing or created on this property. The easements shall cover all parking and circulation areas and routes within the development. 7. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows: A. Highway 111 - 50 feet. B. Washington Street - 20 feet. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 8. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 9. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage except access points described herein. 10. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 1 1 . Prior to placement of any privately -owned buildings or other costly structures in the City's drainage easement along Washington Street, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for that purpose. The permit will require that in the event the City finds it necessary to construct, reconstruct or maintain facilities therein, the applicant shall indemnify the City from expenses exceeding those which would have been incurred with hardscape or landscaping. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. A:\COA SDP2000-688.wpd 1 / 8 Q 12. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 13. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 14. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for any public street improvements on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 15. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 16. If improvements are phased, off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., access drives, traffic signal improvements & perimeter landscaping) shall be A:\COA SDP2000-688.wpd 0911 constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 17. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 18. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 19. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 20. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 22. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. 09? AACOA SDP2000-688.wpd 23. If the applicant does not discharge stormwater to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, stormwater shall be retained on -site and disposed of in facilities approved by the Clty Engineer. 24. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in facilities approved by the City Engineer. 25. If development is phased, applicant shall submit a phasing plan to show how stormwater attributable to the phased development will be handled. 26. If required by the applicant's NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be kept on file at the job -site at all times. UTILITIES 27. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 28. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 29. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 30. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS AND BIKEPATH 1) Highway 1 1 1 - Complete construction of north side of the street. Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bikepath. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the west access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. 2) Washington Street (Major Arterial) - Construct eight -foot sidewalk/bike path. Modify traffic signal, median, traffic signs, and traffic markings at the north access drive to accommodate a fourth leg on the intersection. A:\COA SDP2000-688.wpd 0,92 3) Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel - Construct eight -foot bikepath along the top bank of the channel from Washington Street to the west end of this development. If the applicant is unable to obtain permission from CVWD for placement of this improvement, the bikepath shall be constructed on the applicant's property and the applicant shall grant an appropriate easement to the City. 31. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). 32. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. :33. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 34. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 35. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Highway 111 11 Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the southwest corner of this property. 2) Right-in/Right-out drive centered approximately 435 feet east of the centerline of the westerly drive. AACOA SDP2000-688.wpd B. Washington Street 11 Full -access drive at existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of this property. 35. If development is phased, applicant shall submit a phasing plan to address the parking and circulation requirements of the phased approach. LANDSCAPING 36. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in landscape setbacks and in on - site areas as designated in the landscape plan for this Specific Plan. 37. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 38. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 39. The applicant shall provide an improved bus turnout and shelter on Hwy. 111 as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 40. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 41. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 42. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications and applicable regulations. AACOA SDP2000-688.wpd 43. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvements constructed within City or Caltrans' right of way. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 44. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEES AND DEPOSITS 45. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHALL 47. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. ns^ A:\COA SDP2000-688.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 133HIS NOIJNIHSvm O LU 04 t C / 9 �9` ATTACHMENT #3 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes February 7, 2001 They are becoming an_aLsset4a-minimizing the a impacts. Mr---Di---Benedetto went on to explain the tate building requirements they have to meet. 1 1 . There being no further discussion, it s moved and seconded by Committee Member Bo>bbItt/Re,,,,v,olds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-006 recommendiroal of Village Use Permit 2000- 007, as recommended. a. Prior to issdiance of a building permit, the office building elevatipns shall include the depth of the window insets and design treatment as well as the texture of the wall to be similar to the residential component. nanimously approved. C. Site Development Permit 2000-688; a request of John Vuksic, s Architectural Project Manager, for building elevations and landscaping plans for two retail buildings located at the northwest corner of Highway 11 and Washington Street within the Point Happy Commercial center. 1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Mr. John Vuksic, architect for the project, made a presentation of the project. 3. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the uses would be. Mr. Viksic gave the uses. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the widows and surrounds on the windows would be as proposed as he likes the shutters. He was concerned however, about whether or not there was any other treatment that could be applied to them to have them hold up in this weather to not let them dry up and crack. Mr. Vuksic stated they could be made out of metal which would not have the same look. Discussion followed. 4. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had no comment. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-007 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2000-688, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC2-7-0Lwpd 5 i fl 9 1, 02-08-2001 13:18 From- T-403 P.001/002 F-037 NA7illiam & Leslie Puget P.O. Box 975 La Quinta, California 92253-0975 February 8, 2001 Community Development Department Facsimile: (760)777-1233 La Quinta Civic Center 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 RE: Environmental Assessment 2007409 and Conditional Use Permit 200I-055 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: For fifteen years my husband and I have owned our homt; at 77-600 Avenida Fernando across the street from the La Quinta Hotel conference center and parking lot. During this time we have cooperated with our hotel neighbor to accommodate its various phases of expansion and have been affected by all of such projects daring this time period. We have gone to considerable cost to try to insulate our home from the impacts of the hotel's growth, trying to maintain the tranquil environment, which brought us to La Quinta in the first place. The current proposal to install a 65-foot high wireless antenna for cellular telephone service causes us concern. There is a reason why all other utilities have been installed below grade; because they would otherwise be a visual blight on the area. Why should the proposed cell site be treated any differently? Just because there is a demand for a product, doesn't automatically mean that it fits with good land-aprinciples. sse planning Even antennas disguised as palm trees are not the solution, any tore than Aslromrf as for landscaped medians. our own cell phones work from our home, which incidemally, is closer to the mountains, so aside from a modest amount of monthly revenue, why is this side needed. We are also concerned of any health impacts that this installation may have on residents in the area. As you probably are aware hospitals do not permit the use of cellular phones, because the health impacts are unknown! While the applicant for this conditional use permit is Sprint PCS Wireless, we have assumed that its service is intended for the benefit of the La Quinta Hotel and its guests. If this is the case we believe that a more appropriate location within the hotel grounds could be found so that the antenna is not visible from any of the surrounding residential - areas. If however,, this-anlenna is not -primarily -for guests of the hotel, we would suggest that Sprint PCS Wireless find an alternative site from which to provide its service. TO '- 09 t" RECEIVED FROM:9 1 0 2- 0 8- 01 1 4: 0 7 �e�mnnnn�mnmi 1 02-08-2001 13:18 From- T-403 P.002/002 F-037 our lmowledge Sprint PCS Wireless does not own property in the area, so naturally it does not have the same vested interest in maintaining the environment. It is our understanding that the proposed antenna will be exposed to the home of our neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Davis, who reside at 77-500 Avenida Fernando. As you might expect, anything that has an adverse impact on their property, and their attitude toward its future, will affect us as well. Therefore, we would request that an alternative site be found that does not have any visual impact on residential areas. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions. 46LU-) Sin.lerrelly, V Leslie Puget Cc: Mr. & Mrs. Steve Davis 1199 02-0B-01 14.0B RECEIVED FROM:9 P•02